Evaluating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Sustainability of International Trade in Agricultural Products in the Context of Crisis Management: An Assessment of the Agricultural Product Exporting Sectors in Antalya, Türkiye

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sustainability of international trade in agricultural products through semi-structured, in-depth interviews, focusing on businesses engaged in agricultural product exports in Antalya within the context of crisis management. While Türkiye ranks tenth in the world and first in Europe in terms of agricultural output, Antalya, one of Türkiye’s most economically significant cities, is among the top contributors to Türkiye’s economy in terms of foreign exchange earnings from agricultural product exports. According to the findings of the study, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the importance placed on the sustainability of agricultural product export activities. Türkiye’s prioritization of agricultural production and export has allowed the agricultural sector to positively differentiate itself from other sectors during the COVID-19 pandemic, turning the crisis into an opportunity. On the other hand, disruptions in global supply chains and increases in logistics and transportation costs due to the pandemic have led to various challenges to the sustainability of sector activities. Moreover, the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as increases in global and national inflation rates and particularly rising fuel and product prices, have resulted in sustainability problems in the agricultural product export sector’s activities today. To ensure the sustainability of activities in the post-pandemic period, effective crisis management strategies and planning are needed. However, according to the study’s results, the issue of crisis management in the agricultural product export sector has not received sufficient attention. To raise awareness about crisis management and ensure productivity, competitive advantage, and sustainability, increasing government support, establishing sectoral cooperation for joint action, and fostering collaboration between the private sector, public sector, and universities could be beneficial.

1. Introduction

According to the International Trade Administration [1], “Türkiye’s agricultural economy is among the top ten in the world, with half of the country consisting of agricultural land and nearly a quarter of the population employed in agriculture”. In terms of agricultural output, Türkiye ranks tenth in the world and first in Europe [2]. Türkiye accounts for 2.5% of the world’s fresh fruit and vegetable production, ranking third globally [3]. Antalya, in particular, holds the top position in Türkiye in terms of agricultural production value [4]. According to the data from the Antalya Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry [5], Antalya is first in Türkiye in terms of plant production value (vegetable production, fruit production, field crop production, and ornamental plant production). Antalya’s exports are predominantly composed of agricultural products. According to the Antalya Commodity Exchange 2020 Economic Report [6] (p. 49), “Antalya’s foreign trade structurally differs from Türkiye’s foreign trade. While Türkiye’s foreign trade has a net deficit, Antalya’s foreign trade has a net surplus”. One of the main reasons for this is Antalya’s significant share in Türkiye’s fruit and vegetable production. Antalya’s greenhouse production capacity accounts for approximately 40% of Türkiye’s total, and its production capacity accounts for 49%, placing it at the forefront of meeting domestic demand and export capacity [6]. Therefore, crises that impact the agricultural sector in Antalya have the potential to create negative effects on Türkiye’s economy and the sustainability of international agricultural trade activities. Consequently, examining the effects of the globally disruptive 2019 COVID-19 crisis on Antalya’s agricultural product export sector in the context of crisis management is important for assessing the sustainability of agricultural trade activities.

“The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a human social and economic crisis that has attacked the core of human existence”. [7] (p. 253). According to Tourish [8] (p. 261), “The coronavirus crisis is unprecedented. It is the first pandemic to strike with such virulence in modern times, when the world is more interconnected than any other time in history”. Due to the devastating effects of the outbreak, on 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization classified the COVID-19 pandemic as a global pandemic. As a result, many countries imposed restrictions on economic activities, transportation, travel, and daily mobility to prevent the spread of the virus [9,10]. The large-scale health crisis caused by COVID-19 has had negative impacts on the global economy and the sustainability of international trade activities. On the other hand, the destructive effects of the COVID-19 crisis on international commercial activities have been less severe in the agricultural production and export sector. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the extraordinary increase in the importance given to food led to a prioritization of the international trade of agricultural products. According to Engemann and Jafari [11] (p. 1), the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on global agri-food trade were limited to short-term disruptions, and “the trade of staples was most resilient, while that of other agri-food products declined considerably”. The fact that agricultural product exports by product group experienced fewer losses or even increased during the COVID-19 period compared to other commercial activities has led countries and businesses engaged in agriculture-based trade to positively differentiate themselves from others during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Leybert et al. [12], the agricultural sector stands out as a unique sector when compared to others because it did not suffer any negative effects from the COVID-19 pandemic; moreover, it grew during the pandemic period. A review of the literature reveals that academic studies on COVID-19 and agriculture have attracted considerable attention. Studies focusing on COVID-19 and agriculture predominantly address the logistics and supply chains of food products [13,14,15] and food security [16,17,18] across different country groups and using various methods. In addition, the crisis management skills of agricultural product exporters during the COVID-19 pandemic are crucial for turning the crisis into an opportunity and ensuring the sustainability of international agricultural product export activities.

A review of the literature reveals that the number of studies evaluating the COVID-19 pandemic in conjunction with crisis management and agriculture is quite limited [12,19,20]. According to Leybert et al. [12], “it is particularly important to study the successful experience of agricultural companies in the sphere of managing the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic and crisis”. Similarly, according to Jankelova and Misun [19], studies on the crisis competencies of agricultural managers during the COVID-19 pandemic are mostly presented in the form of popular literature or newspaper articles, leading to a lack of relevant scientific studies and findings that could later influence managers’ crisis management practices. This further highlights the need for research on the managerial competencies required during crises, particularly in the context of agricultural managers’ crisis management skills during the COVID-19 crisis. Therefore, this study aims to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sustainability of international trade in agricultural products in the context of crisis management through semi-structured, in-depth interviews with managers operating in the agricultural export sectors in Antalya. The literature review indicates that there are no existing studies addressing the issue of agricultural product exports during the COVID-19 period from a crisis management perspective using the semi-structured in-depth interview technique. Thus, the findings of this study are expected to contribute to filling the relevant gap in the literature regarding sustainability and crisis management in the agricultural sector’s commercial activities.

2. Literature Review

According to Rehber and Grega [21] (p. 464), the agricultural sector is extremely important as it provides essential food needs and serves as a significant source of international trade and national income, especially in most developing countries, and “Agriculture is one of the main sectors which many believe should be sustainable, that is, ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible”. The COVID-19 pandemic has created vulnerabilities in existing agricultural food production and distribution systems, significantly affecting agricultural production and, consequently, food security, thereby posing a major threat to the sustainability of agricultural activities [22]. Similarly, studies addressing the impacts of COVID-19 on the agricultural sector have predominantly focused on the logistics and supply chains of food products and food security.

Shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, “The heads of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a joint statement on 31 March calling on governments to minimize the impact of COVID-19-related border restrictions on trade in food”. [23]. According to Alsuwailem et al. [14], the COVID-19 pandemic directly affected food supply chains and agriculture from both the supply and demand sides. Moreover, the disruption of food supply and demand balances and the fragility of food supply chains and transportation activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted food security as a critical issue during this period [18].

In the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019 [24], ending hunger, ensuring food security, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture are among the primary goals. Therefore, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about poverty alleviation and sustainable agriculture by jeopardizing food security. According to Wincewicz-Bosy et al. [16], “food security has become one of the key challenges for the functioning of food supply chains in the era of the pandemic”. Since food supply chains connect producers and consumers worldwide primarily through just-in-time delivery, food security, logistics of food products, and supply chains have become some of the foremost issues during the COVID-19 period [13,14,15,16,17]. On the other hand, due to the strategic importance of food products, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sustainability of logistics and supply chain activities in the context of agricultural product exports differed from other transportation and supply chain activities. For example, during the first year of the pandemic, while the logistics and road freight transport sectors faced problems with quarantine measures, obtaining visas, employing drivers, and finding their substitutes, the logistics and transportation sector was among the least affected sectors due to the increased demand for food compared to other sectors [15].

The literature review reveals that studies addressing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of agriculture, crises, and crisis management are quite limited. For example, in their study titled “Risk Mitigation in Agriculture in Support of COVID-19 Crisis Management,” Leybert et al. [12] examined the experiences of Russian agricultural companies in changing their production and financial risks during the COVID-19 crisis using structural equation modeling (SEM) to enhance their resilience to economic crises. According to the study results, agricultural companies equipped with technological innovations are more successful in risk management. Jankelova and Misun [19] evaluated “Key Competencies of Agricultural Managers in the Acute Stage of the COVID-19 Crisis” via statistical mediation. The study’s results confirmed statistically that the impact of crisis management competencies on the performance of agricultural employees is mediated by information sharing and teamwork. Lioutas and Charatsari [20] reviewed the capacity of agriculture to cope with major crises and disasters through the COVID-19 experience. They evaluated three potential mechanisms that could mitigate the impacts of major crises or disasters in agriculture: resilience-promoting policies, community marketing schemes, and smart farming technology. According to the study results, “these three mechanisms can be combined to increase the capacity of agriculture to deal with crises or disasters”. On the other hand, there is no study found that examines the agricultural trade activities of Türkiye, which ranks tenth in the world and first in Europe in terms of agricultural output, and Antalya, which ranks first in Türkiye in terms of plant production value, within the context of crisis management. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sustainability of international trade in agricultural products within the framework of crisis management through semi-structured, in-depth interviews with managers of agricultural product exporting firms in Antalya.

3. Theoretical Framework

Since their existence, humans have faced a variety of problems that can be considered crises of different magnitudes and various types. The drive to protect oneself and minimize harm in order to emerge from any adversity is a process synonymous with the struggle for survival. The same applies to organizations established by humans. Organizations have been dealing with crises since the first tribes faced drought, the death of their leaders, or enemy attacks [25]. Some of these crises can be resolved immediately, while others must be resolved over a certain period, often requiring certain compromises. The worst-case scenario is when crises remain unresolved or unresolvable, causing irreversible damage to individuals and institutions. Particularly in today’s global context, economic, political, and social instabilities, the risk of depletion of natural resources, and rapid changes and transformations in technological developments make potential adversities increasingly unpredictable in every aspect of life. Therefore, understanding and interpreting the phenomenon of crises and crisis management, which is also a part of our daily lives, is of great importance for both individuals and organizations.

A crisis is generally defined as a result arising when existing problem-solving tactics fail to address issues caused by internal and external problems in people’s lives and organizations [26,27]. Crises, typically triggered by human-induced and/or natural causes, are unpredictable events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, that all societies inevitably face [9]. According to Coombs [28], crises present interrelated threats concerning public safety, reputational loss, and financial loss. Boin et al. [29] argue that crises threaten the integrity of systems and have the potential to endanger societies. These threats can originate from humans, economic changes, organizational structures, and technological developments, and they have the capacity to cause significant harm to human life, as well as natural and organizational environments. Additionally, financial losses and reputational damage are potential consequences of crises. Some crises may even escalate beyond these impacts, resulting in the loss of life. Small incidents that initially seem insignificant can combine to create crises with devastating global effects. This generates societal fear and compels authorities to act urgently within an uncertain context. On the other hand, Gilpin and Murphy [25] highlight the paradox that crises simultaneously create potential for both destruction and opportunity.

“Major internal functions of a company such as finance, production, procurement, operations, marketing and human resources are sensitive to the socioeconomic, political legal, competitive, technological, demographic, global and ethical factors of the external environment” [30] (p. 182). Moreover, in today’s world, crises occurring anywhere, whether natural or human-induced, rapidly spread to national and international systems. The rapid expansion of crises’ impact areas causes the economic and social devastations they create to evolve into more complex and inextricable dimensions. The increasingly destructive nature of crises, affecting more actors, leads to crisis management becoming an increasingly important topic.

Crisis management is the process of taking and implementing necessary measures to help organizations navigate crises they are facing or may face in the future with minimal damage and optimal outcomes, and even turning crises into opportunities when possible [31]. Loosemore [32] notes that in our increasingly complex and uncertain world, managers, though less frequently than daily minor issues, face at least one crisis in their careers. According to Mitroff et al. [33] (p. 291), “For those who work in the field of crisis management it is no longer a question of whether a major disaster will strike any organization, but only a matter of when, how, what form will it take, and who and how many will be affected?” Similarly, Haşit [34] (p. 29) emphasizes the increasing importance of crisis management for managers with the words:

“Today, managers must focus on crisis management efforts to mitigate the impacts of crises, considering not whether crises will affect the business, but where, when, how, and in what way a crisis might occur, and who and how many people will be harmed by these crises”.

Therefore, the ways in which managers approach crises and crisis management are crucial for the sustainability of organizations, ensuring they maintain their current positions or even emerge stronger from crises. The crisis management process is divided into three fundamental periods: pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis. The three fundamental periods of the crisis management process and main phases of these periods are clearly demonstrated in Figure 1.

3.1. Pre-Crisis Period

Crises that cause disruptions in the operational activities of institutions and organizations, undermining their sustainability and competitive strength, require urgent solutions due to their uncertainty. If no preparation is made beforehand, any crisis can create challenging problems that are hard to resolve. Crises that emerge suddenly pose significant risks to the high-priority goals of businesses, leading to disruptions in operational activities and, worse, endangering their very existence. These crises, which threaten the business, can put managers under time pressure to find extraordinary solutions quickly. Furthermore, factors such as psychological constraints, high stress levels, political pressure, and public or media pressure can complicate the managers’ tasks. According to İpçioğlu [35], it is crucial for businesses not merely to endure a crisis when it occurs, seek solutions, or avoid it, but to protect themselves from crises, prevent them, and be prepared before they arise.

The pre-crisis period encompasses preventive measures and preparations made before crises occur. During this period, developing conceptual and theoretical knowledge about crises is essential for increasing awareness, foreseeing threats and risks to the organization, preventing crises, mitigating damage when they occur, or turning crises into new opportunities [32,33,34,35,36]. However, since crises have the potential to create ambiguous and conflicting signals in their very early stages, managers’ efforts to detect and control crises early on are limited due to the uncertainty of crisis and the constantly changing conditions [25]. At this stage, it is crucial for managers to interpret and understand crises, make inferences, and establish crisis management strategies on a rational basis.

Managers must be prepared to effectively handle crises. “Preparation is essential in dealing effectively with a crisis, and the best-prepared organizations are those that have taken time to understand the different types of crises they may face”. [32] (p. 15). Additionally, as crises become increasingly complex and intricate, managers need to broaden their perspectives and be prepared for the risk of simultaneous crises, developing strategies and crisis management plans accordingly [33]. In the pre-crisis period, it is crucial to identify early warning signals of potential crises within the framework of the organization’s characteristics. Informing employees and establishing crisis management units to create crisis management strategies and plans are essential for ensuring effective crisis management. These plans should be regularly reviewed, tested under dynamic information conditions, and supported by crisis drills to optimize the outcomes of crisis management [37,38,39].

3.2. Crisis Period

Crisis periods create situations that threaten the normal operational and financial flows and sustainability of organizations, making it impossible for them to successfully navigate a crisis by merely maintaining their daily routines [35]. A crisis period begins with the organization’s realization that they are in a crisis. If the organization and, in particular, its managers ignore the reality of the crisis, it can hinder their ability to make quick and rational decisions, risking the escalation of the crisis. Therefore, during crises, managers’ approaches to the crisis play a fundamental role. In crisis management, managers’ function involves making rational decisions based on a combination of information and experience [36]. If a manager is aware of the crisis and has prepared for it, crisis periods can be navigated more smoothly. Conversely, if managers refuse to acknowledge the existing crisis, the crisis can become increasingly unmanageable, leading to high costs and a loss of prestige for the organization. Worse still, the delay in acknowledging the crisis extends the intervention phase, and if intervention is delayed too long, organizations may encounter sustainability issues.

The crisis period consists of diagnosing the crisis, making critical decisions, and implementing those decisions. Crises can be diagnosed if there are indicators of the crisis and if the factors leading to the crisis can be identified. “The diagnostic process is essentially one of data collection, and any problems encountered in the monitoring phase also affect the diagnosis process” [32] (p. 32). Therefore, managers must determine which parameters the crisis threatens and what steps need to be taken in response. Continuously monitoring the internal and external environment during this period is important to detect crisis warnings early. After diagnosing the crises, the next phase involves making and implementing critical decisions. The decision-making process forces managers to make critical decisions quickly. In the crisis period, after diagnosing the crises, it is crucial to make and implement rational and systematic critical decisions as soon as possible, considering the organization’s existing resource capacity, to optimally navigate the crisis [25]. During a crisis period, managers may adopt short-term traditional solutions such as downsizing, closing certain departments, cutting salaries, restricting services, halting additional expenditures, minimizing expenses, and even layoffs to respond quickly and effectively to the crises and minimize the additional costs caused by the crisis. Furthermore, during a crisis period, managers’ abilities in persuasion, communication, coordination, and collaboration, along with the trust placed in them, are crucial for the optimal implementation of decisions and obtaining optimal outcomes from the crisis management process [40].

3.3. Post-Crisis Period

The post-crisis period, although the least emphasized phase of crisis management, provides significant benefits by compiling the organization’s crisis-related knowledge and defining outcomes for potential future crises, thereby enhancing competitive advantage [41]. Crises, besides posing threats, also bring new opportunities. According to Tüz [42], crises are a disorder, and in every disorder, some will lose while others will win. After a crisis occurs, organizations have a rational desire to resume normal operations and continue business as usual as quickly as possible [43]. However, the post-crisis period generally receives the least attention in crisis management [41,44]. Yet, crises provide important learning outcomes for preparing for potential future crises, allowing businesses to be equipped with knowledge that can offer a competitive advantage in future crises.

The post-crisis period consists of recovery, normalization, and learning phases. The recovery and normalization process involves the strategic activities that organizations implement to quickly return to their pre-crisis state, maintain sustainability, avoid losing competitive advantage, and minimize market, customer, or prestige loss [45,46]. The final stage of the post-crisis period, learning, is a dynamic process that includes developing plans and strategies to prevent future crises, minimize potential damage from crises, update crisis plans based on lessons learned, and enhance competitive advantages and efficiency [43,46,47].

While creating complex and uncertain risks to be handled urgently by the executives, crises give the staff and administrators of the organizations the opportunity to improve themselves [48]. Since organizations are learning systems, executives should not perceive getting through as the end of the crisis management process. The capacity for learning ability in crisis management gives decision-makers the talent, flexibility, and confidence to handle unexpected incidences [49]. Due to its nature, the extent of the learning process is wider, and this process provides the most major aspects of conclusions and solutions to be understood in a newer dimension [47]. Learning the correct lessons stemming from crises plays a principal role in dealing with subsequent crises. The learning process, a part of crisis management, is important in terms of increasing productivity by improving organizational learning and developing organizational activities [43]. This is the reason why it is necessary to take into consideration whatever happened to an organization during the crisis process, however it reacted to the crisis and its level of success and failure, especially after the end of the crisis process. Moreover, the crisis management plans of organizations should be revised and updated [50] Accordingly, it is important to collect plannings under implementation and their operational performance data while making plans for future crises.

4. Materials and Methods

This study aims to examine the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on the sustainability of international product trade activities by referring to the experiences of managers in the agricultural product export sector in Antalya within the framework of crisis management. Due to the limited knowledge on the evaluation of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on sectors engaged in international agricultural product exports from a crisis management perspective, the semi-structured in-depth interview method, which is one of the qualitative research types, has been determined to be the most suitable method for this study. The semi-structured, in-depth interview method, which is one of the qualitative research methods, allows individuals to express themselves about the subject through predefined open-ended questions and unplanned open-ended follow-up questions asked during the course of the conversation, unlike closed-ended responses in quantitative studies and especially in survey studies [51,52,53]. The aim of semi-structured, in-depth interviews is to ensure a deep understanding of the subject under investigation and to reveal the views and experiences of the individuals interviewed about the subject [54,55]. Therefore, the semi-structured, in-depth interview method is a highly suitable method for understanding and evaluating the decisions made by managers regarding crisis management in order to ensure the sustainability of activities during the COVID-19 period.

Data Collection and Processing

In this study, semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with business owners or senior managers working in 22 firms operating in the field of agricultural product exports in Antalya. Participant selection for the interviews was based on snowball sampling, relying on the interviewees’ acquaintances in the same position and working as managers in agricultural product exporting sectors [56]. The interviews were semi-structured, open-ended, and individual, conducted face-to-face and over the phone. The participants were coded as A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,…, A22, and their opinions on the subject were presented under these codes in the results and discussions section.

Within the framework of the study, participants were first asked questions about personal information such as age, education level, professional experience, and positions held. After inquiring about their personal information, participants were asked about the areas of activity of their firms, the duration of their activities, the number of employees, and the countries they primarily exported to. Subsequently, participants were asked to specify the effects of the crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic on the sustainability of agricultural product export activities and the crisis management policies they followed during this period to ensure sustainability in their activities. Later, participants were asked about their preparations for future crises and their comments and suggestions regarding crisis management. In addition to these, during the interviews, various follow-up questions were asked of the participants to examine specific information in more depth, depending on the course of the conversation and the participants’ experiences and knowledge. Age range of participants is demonstrated in Figure 2.

According to Figure 2, among the participants in the interviews, 12 of them (55%) are in the age range of 51–60, 6 of them (27%) are in the age range of 41–50, 3 of them (14%) are in the age range of 31–40, and 1 is (4%) in the age range of 20–30.

In terms of educational level, the interviewed individuals predominantly consist of university graduates. According to Figure 3, of the participants, 13 have a bachelor’s degree (59%), 2 have a master’s degree (9%), making a total of 15 university graduates, while 7 have completed secondary education (high school, 32%).

According to Figure 4, in terms of professional experience, 5 of the participants have experience ranging from 31 to 40 years (23%), 10 have experience ranging from 21 to 30 years (45%), 6 have experience ranging from 11 to 20 years (27%), and 1 has experience ranging from 1 to 10 years (5%). In terms of titles, 12 of the interviewed individuals are company owners, while 10 are senior managers.

The companies where the participants work operate in various fields, including cut flower production and export, fresh fruit and vegetable production and export, fertilizer import and export, seedling production import and export, and seed import and export sectors. The operating years of the companies are shown in Figure 5.

According to Figure 5, in terms of the duration of activities, 5 companies (23%) have been operating in the sector for 0–10 years, 5 for 11–20 years (23%), 8 (36%) for 21–30 years, and 4 for 31–40 years (18%). Moreover, the number of employees of the companies is presented in Figure 6.

According to Figure 6, in terms of the number of employees, 7 companies employ 0–50 people (32%), 6 employ 51–100 people (27%), and 9 employ 100 or more people (41%).

Additionally, the countries to which the sector exports, as indicated by the interviewed individuals, are diverse. The countries predominantly exported to by the interviewed individuals include European Union countries (Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Greece, Hungary), Far Eastern countries (China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong), Southeast Asian countries (Malaysia, Singapore), Eastern European countries (Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina), North African countries (Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria), Middle Eastern countries (Israel, Iraq, United Arab Emirates), Canada, Norway, Azerbaijan, India, USA, and UK.

Semi-structured in-depth interviews lasted approximately 40–60 min each. In the subsequent process, prior permission was obtained from the individuals interviewed to decipher the data. After obtaining permission from the participants, each session with the participants was recorded using a recording device. During the conversations, significant information was provided by the participants, and specific topics were noted. After the interviews were completed, each recording was meticulously listened to, and the semi-structured, in-depth interviews were transcribed into text. Following the transcription of the interview recordings, the data obtained from the semi-structured in-depth interviews were compiled in the context of the discussed topic and evaluated in light of the information gathered from the literature.

5. Results

5.1. COVID-19 Crisis and Trade in Agricultural Products: Opportunities and Crisis Management

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the critical importance of the agricultural sector worldwide in ensuring the continuity of human life [57]. In late March 2020, the heads of FAO, WHO, and WTO issued joint statements urging governments to minimize restrictions on the trade of food products due to the COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure the safe and sustainable trade of food products [24]. According to Kuleh et al. [58] (p. 94), “The agricultural sector will be surely crushed if there is no acute attention from the government in an agrarian country”. In the COVID-19 process, “The agriculture sector faced limited restrictions due to the approval of government for agriculture sector as essential and exemption from any travel movement” [59] (p. 204).

In the context of crisis management, the participants noted that the COVID-19 pandemic, being a crisis never before experienced, caught them unprepared without any prior preparations or preventive measures for a pandemic situation with such a short spread time, directly impacting the sustainability of economic and social activities worldwide. Due to the sudden outbreak and unpredictable effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, managers emphasized the lack of comprehensive management strategies in the pre-crisis period to prevent the effects of the crisis and prepare for it. Furthermore, as the crisis was externally driven and managed with measures within the scope of decision-makers at the global level, managers also indicated that their ability to manage the crisis was limited during the crisis period. On the other hand, steps taken at the global and national levels to sustain agricultural food trade mitigated the crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic in the agricultural sector compared to other sectors, and in some cases, the crisis turned into an opportunity for the agricultural sector [60,61]. In the COVID-19 process, “with various restrictions and increasing health concerns, demand for organic and local food significantly increased” [59] (p. 208).

In Türkiye, during the COVID-19 pandemic period, agricultural production and the continuity of food supply chains emerged as priority issues, and various steps were taken to ensure the sustainability of agricultural activities, with crisis management being directly carried out by the government. Along with the pandemic, all elements in agricultural production and the food chain were identified as critical sectors, enabling them to continue their activities uninterrupted. Farmers and livestock breeders were allowed to continue their work without interruption, and necessary measures were taken to ensure the uninterrupted delivery of food [62]. In other words, special measures implemented for the agricultural sector during the COVID-19 pandemic in Türkiye aimed to ensure the sustainability of agricultural activities, positively affecting the sustainability of companies engaged in agricultural product exports in Antalya. For example, Participant A20 stated that the COVID-19 period went unexpectedly well for their activities, mentioning that during that period, due to the government’s support, businesses operating in the agricultural sector were allowed to work, enabling them to continue their activities without any disruption. Participant A20 expressed the impact of COVID-19:

“For our sector, the pandemic was initially a crisis, but then there was a rapid intervention to this crisis. This crisis also reminded everyone in Türkiye and the world how important our sector is and the importance of sustainable food. We worked almost the entire week and tried to meet orders. Therefore, in the early stages of the pandemic, when people bought everything excessively fearing shortages, we started to have difficulty fulfilling orders. Moreover, the emergence of the importance of food and agriculture was even more gratifying for us”.

Participant A11 expressed that apart from the first 15 days of the COVID-19 period, it turned into an opportunity for the agricultural sector: “The first 15 days of the COVID process were filled with uncertainties. There was chaos everywhere in the world. But if we exclude those first 15 days, the agricultural sector has positively differentiated from that process. Because, as you know, food is a basic necessity”. Participant A18, on the other hand, stated that due to the quarantine measures implemented because of COVID, since the agricultural sectors were exempted, they worked comfortably, expressing that COVID-19 positively affected their activities:

“During COVID, the demand for fresh flowers increased even more. Since everyone was at home, when people went shopping for a certain period, they wanted to have fresh flowers in their living room or guest room. So, we didn’t experience any difficulties in sales. For example, our flower sales decrease during the holidays of Europeans, but during the pandemic, holidays were canceled, everyone was at home. Since people were not on vacation, but at home, there was no decrease in consumption, even during the holiday period”.

The importance given to agricultural production and trade during the COVID-19 process has also enabled relatively stable progress in Türkiye’s agricultural export figures during this period. While Türkiye’s agricultural export rates experienced a decline in April and May 2020 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in agricultural product exports in the following months [63]. Similarly, the participants in the interviews generally stated that the privileges provided by the government to the agricultural sector during the COVID-19 crisis had a positive effect on agricultural product export activities. Similarly, Participant A12 stated that due to the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was only a shock effect in agricultural product export activities in the first three months, but later they experienced a demand surge for ornamental plants:

“The first three months of COVID were very bad, we experienced a shock in the first three months. During the first three months, no one in the world knew what was going on. However, after overcoming those three months of shock, there was a serious inclination of people towards ornamental plants. There was a very serious demand for ornamental plants to relieve the stress of people confined at home and to relax psychologically”.

Participant A1 stated that due to permission granted to the agricultural sector during this period, the sustainability of agricultural product export activities was not greatly affected by the crisis: “We were not greatly affected by COVID-19 because agriculture was allowed. Yes, life stopped, but trade continued”. Participant A9 mentioned that special permits were issued to companies and employees operating in the agricultural sector during the lockdown period, allowing them to continue production and exports: “During the lockdown period, special permits were issued to us to continue production, to maintain operations, and to continue export procedures. So, we continued to work, produce, sell domestically, and export. Our imports also continued at the same time”. Participant A19 expressed that the agricultural sector was not greatly affected by the crisis caused by COVID-19:

“The agricultural sector was not greatly affected by COVID because people did not compromise much on their food. Those supply chains definitely reached their destinations. The system changed. Until you go to the market, many supplier companies sort of brought the product to you. Therefore, there was no problem in delivering basic food items to consumers through the supply chain”.

Participant A17 stated that, as a sector, they were not affected by COVID-19: “For example, in COVID, we in the agricultural sector made very good money. If we don’t say this, it would be a lie”. Participant A12 mentioned that they benefited from being close to the European market: “We achieved our highest export figures in history because the products we sell come to Europe from overseas countries by air transportation. Since the cost of air transportation has increased significantly, we benefited from shipping to those regions by truck”. Participant A6 stated that production and exports never stopped during the COVID-19 period, and therefore, they experienced the most productive period in 2020–2021 in terms of their own activities:

“During that period, as a company, we continued to work, continued production. We had orders to fulfill. Agricultural activities continued, so production did not stop at all during that period. Those needs were already there, we met them and sent them. 2020–2021, even 2021, was a very good year for us”.

The closure and stay-at-home measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the closure of cafes and restaurants and a decrease in demand for food consumed in these establishments. According to Brooks et al. [64] (p. 300), “The pandemic created a decrease in demand for restaurant food consumption but an increase in demand at grocery stores”. Furthermore, panic buying during the pandemic resulted in an unprecedented surge in demand for essential food items [22]. According to Śmiglak-Krajewska and Wojciechowska-Solis [65], the global health crisis significantly impacted all aspects of people’s daily lives, especially their eating habits. As evidenced by the interviews, participants stated that sales to cafes and restaurants were almost nonexistent during the COVID-19 period due to closures. On the other hand, quarantine measures led people to spend more time at home, resulting in a much higher surge in demand than expected. For example, A5, who works as a manager in the fresh fruit and vegetable sector, expressed the positive impact of COVID-19 on the sustainability of their commercial activities:

“COVID-19 increased our workload because people stayed at home. More products are used when people are at home, most of these products are fresh fruits and vegetables. As a result, we experienced a significant increase in sales both in the domestic and international markets. Our tonnages at that time were the highest in the last 10 years”.

A16 emphasized that the importance of agricultural activities increased during COVID-19: “COVID-19 increased the attractiveness of agriculture. Since everyone was at home, they emphasized eating, eating carefully and qualitatively. Since people did not move, the food sector became incredibly active. The food sector became incredibly trendy”. Similarly, A2 stated that COVID-19 led to an increase in their activities, turning the crisis into an advantage in terms of sales:

“Think about it, you always go to a cafe. When you go to a cafe, you order a salad. They put two tomatoes for decoration in the salad. If you make that salad at home or your mother prepares it, at least 4–5 tomatoes go into that salad. Therefore, during the COVID-19 period, especially due to pandemic measures such as curfews, there was excess consumption. Fresh fruits and vegetables were consumed a lot. Demand increased significantly”.

A10, the COVID-19 crisis had a positive impact on their activities, highlighting the favorable implications of the pandemic on their operations:

“The COVID-19 crisis had a positive impact on us. Especially with production coming to a halt in Europe, and due to the exceptional situation in agriculture in Türkiye, we did very well during the COVID period. Perhaps Türkiye sold products it had never seen before at numbers it had never seen in its agricultural history. No one can speak negatively about that period”.

5.2. COVID-19 Crisis and Trade in Agricultural Products: Challenges and Crisis Management

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to various challenges in addition to the opportunities it has created in the Antalya agricultural product export sector. The negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sustainability of agricultural product trade generally occurred due to disruptions in supply chains and increases in logistic costs. Measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in disruptions in transportation activities, leading to increased logistic costs and delays in export activities. According to Kim et al. [66], disruptions in transportation activities due to measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic have increased logistic costs and caused delays in export activities. Similarly, the individuals interviewed also emphasized the increased importance of logistic and transportation activities in ensuring the sustainability of agricultural product export sector activities [15]. For instance, A4 highlighted the increased significance of logistics in the agricultural sector during the crisis, stating: “When we talk about a crisis in the agricultural sector, a few incidents come to the forefront. One of them is logistics. We saw how important logistics is during the pandemic with the container crisis, and we still see the effects of that crisis”. He expressed his experiences during the pandemic:

“The agricultural sector was slightly less affected by COVID-19 compared to other sectors. Especially Türkiye acted faster here. It realized the importance of food. Therefore, more importance was given to continuing activities; at least there was no curfew, and support was provided for production. In that sense, agriculture did not face much trouble initially. So, the pandemic did not cause much trouble for agriculture. Regarding exports, there were only logistic problems”.

A3 pointed out that logistics costs had different effects on activities depending on the type of product and explained their experiences in terms of transportation during the COVID-19 period with the following words:

“In terms of transportation, there are some cheap products among our products with low transportation value, low cost, meaning that the position ratio in the total product price is low. These had an incredibly negative impact on transportation. Logistics affected the sustainability and availability of cheap goods very badly, but on the other hand, people entered a consumption frenzy”.

Especially the unforeseen emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide has become a major threat to the resilience of the supply chain, leading to disruptions in global supply chain network connections [67]. With the pandemic process, container and global supply chain crises occurred in the logistics sector, leading to exorbitant cost increases in the logistics sector [68]. For example, during the pandemic process, the freight rate, which was $12–13 thousand in June for China’s main ports and Türkiye imports, rose to $16 thousand in July, and there was an increase in Brent oil prices [69]. Similarly, a large majority of the individuals interviewed generally stated that COVID-19 had positive effects on the sustainability of agricultural activities, and furthermore, they stated that the crisis turned into an opportunity for the agricultural sector, while emphasizing that the problems they experienced during this period were due to the increase in logistics costs. For example, A16 exemplified the exorbitant increases in transportation costs by stating that “Containers going to America did not come back, whereas we used to be able to get a container for $500–700 before the pandemic, during the pandemic, we paid $16–18 thousand for one container”. A7 expressed the problems they experienced due to the increase in logistics costs and the inability to find containers:

“Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, transportation costs increased. There was a container problem. For example, the containers were all in China and did not come. Even when loading the existing container, let’s say the cost of a container coming from France to here was $5 thousand, it cost me $7–8 thousand. So, it affected our costs in this sense”.

A13 expressed the container crisis and the problems arising from exorbitant pricing in freight rates:

“For example, container prices, which were 2–3 thousand dollars, rose to 25 thousand dollars. Containers couldn’t even be found. Trucks, on the other hand, were the same. There were certain problems at the gates, but thankfully the world was cautious about food products, so it didn’t slow down. The container crisis is gradually being overcome. On the other hand, there is not much we can do. When people’s purchasing power decreased in other countries, demand decreased. As demand decreased, the container crisis started to balance out”.

Similarly to A7 and A13, A9 also highlighted the increase in freight rates and the container crisis, stating: “Freight rates had a very negative impact, and not being able to find containers had a very negative impact. We couldn’t find the containers to ship the goods; they didn’t send them to us. We had to pay three times the price we gave at that time”. He detailed the adversities he faced with logistics costs during this period:

“Due to the increase in freight rates, our unit prices increased. There is a price called CIF, which includes freight; we are still affected by it because freight rates never returned to their old levels. If, for example, we were giving x units for a CIF, then we had to pay 3× at that time. We couldn’t find containers; it was the worst part because there were no containers, meaning they wouldn’t leave us any containers. The goods had to wait here for a long time, for example. If a customer was going to order 3 containers from us, they only placed an order for one container due to the freight rate”.

A9 mentioned that they couldn’t utilize their capacity to full scale due to the freight rates and the inability to find containers during this period: “The flow continued, yes, but of course, if those conditions weren’t there, you would have sold 20 times instead of 10 times”. He also pointed out that their profit margins couldn’t reach the desired levels during this period: “Our profit margin didn’t increase. Because if you say low, for example, if you were selling at a 10 profit, you would have sold at a 5 profit, but we continued to sell at 10 and couldn’t increase to 20”.

Some of the participants expressed that they tried to minimize the adversities arising from the COVID-19 crisis and manage the crisis by reducing the tonnage of some product items they imported due to transportation costs. For example, A4 mentioned that they brought 500 tons of products instead of 2000 tons during this period due to the exorbitant price increases. They stated that, as a result of passing the price increase on to the buyer, the producer also narrowed down their production. A3 stated that they tried to manage the crisis by reducing order quantities, expressing their crisis management policies during that period:

“What did we do? If we were going to bring 100 kg, we brought 30 kg. We restricted purchases. The way to reduce losses is to maintain sustainability without disappearing from the market. You won’t trade where you don’t make a profit. We changed our sustainability strategy in terms of market and service provision”.

A3, expressing that they tried to continue their activities by following a downsizing strategy during the COVID period, stated the economic and operational situations they experienced as follows:

“During COVID, agriculture was a priority sector, and we had permission to work, so we continued to work. As the agriculture sector and food consumption, COVID had a positive effect. However, there were products that were not affected by the costs according to the product range, and there were also products that reduced their sales to one-third. After COVID, when logistics costs increased, we reduced the order rates of those products and tried to stay strong in the market by increasing the order quantities of other products, to be honest”.

A6 stated that they imported their raw materials from the Far East in containers as needed, but when container prices increased incredibly, they changed their plans and preferred to make bulk purchases and extend the process by bringing them by ship:

“Our purchased raw materials are not very high-value, so freight rates affect the prices significantly. After a while, we couldn’t bring the raw materials because sometimes the freight was more expensive than the goods inside it. The only solution we could find was to bring them by ship in a more bulk way instead of containers. But when sending, we were still sending by container, truck, or ship. All of them increased”.

A1 also mentioned that the COVID-19 pandemic caused increases in freight rates, and attempts were made to compensate for the increase in freight rates through price increases in product prices. A1 stated that they could not make a profit during the COVID-19 period, and furthermore, companies that were predominantly engaged in imports lost customers. A18 stated that due to the increased air transportation costs during the pandemic, they lost some customers who traded through air transportation.

On the other hand, despite the opinions that COVID-19 created problems in terms of transportation and logistics costs in the sustainability of agricultural product export activities, some of the participants expressed that COVID-19 did not create problems in terms of transportation and logistics costs in the sustainability of agricultural product export activities. A10 emphasized that the crisis that emerged during COVID-19 turned into an opportunity, especially in the fruit and vegetable sector, stating that the increase in logistic costs did not have a negative impact on their companies: “Product costs showed a significant increase because there were many gaps in sales”. A10 stated that they did not have a problem finding vehicles to transport their products during COVID-19, while A22 emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic created an advantage for them in terms of export activities, highlighting the opportunities created by the crisis in the sustainability of economic activities:

“COVID-19 was an advantage for us in terms of export. We do not engage in container trading. Our transportations are made with refrigerated trucks. Therefore, we made extra trades in the agriculture sector not because of the increase in freight rates and container costs but because of people’s needs”.

A12, stating that they transport goods by trucks, expressed that the cost of trucks was significantly lower compared to container transportation costs during that period:

“We have truck shipments. During that period, there was a cost that remained very, very low compared to the increases in containers. This was already reflected in the prices. As I said, containers went from $2000–2500 to around $18,000. While we were transporting goods by trucks for around $3500, there was a cost of around 4000 Euros during that period”.

In addition to the increases in logistics and transportation costs, measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant reduction in production capacities and dramatic increases in raw material prices [70]. Countries exporting during COVID-19 faced difficulties such as decreased production and supply chain disruptions [68]. “In particular, known as the factory of the world, China has encountered a serious epidemic and has continued to shut down production activities, leading to the interruption of flow from raw materials to finished products all over the world” [71].

The crisis in raw material availability during the COVID-19 period also negatively affected the sustainability of businesses engaged in production and export relying on imports in the agricultural sector. For example, A8, a manager in a company engaged in fertilizer import and export, stated that despite the economic positive effects of the crisis on their activities due to their continued work with special permits in the field of agriculture, COVID-19 measures, exorbitant increases in freight rates, and difficulties in finding containers led to an increase in raw material prices. A8 explained the effects of COVID-19 on their economic sustainability due to pandemic measures, freight rate increases, increases in raw material prices, and difficulties in finding containers:

“In countries producing raw materials, insufficient production was carried out due to the working conditions regulated within the scope of pandemic measures. If the factory’s capacity was 100 tons per day, only 20 tons of goods were produced. Freight rates increased from $1500–$2000 to $11,000–$12,000. These naturally led to an increase in the cost of the raw materials we purchased. All of these factors triggered inflation as a whole”.

Similar to A8, A9, who works as a manager in a company that imports and exports fertilizers, stated that they could not supply their raw materials due to the energy crisis and container crisis that occurred at that time: “There was a crisis at that time as COVID-19 increased its sphere of influence. China closed its doors and stopped sending containers. That’s when we couldn’t supply our own raw materials, in other words, we couldn’t import them”. In order to manage the crisis, they made production by changing raw materials: “For example, there is a product produced with raw material A, we made production by replacing it with raw material B and we wanted to send products with raw material B”. He stated that they accepted this situation in order to meet the needs of their customers:

“We could not send products made with some raw materials. We wanted to send alternative products instead. Prices increased dramatically. We could not prevent it, for example, we wanted to send different products instead. And the customer accepted this because they were experiencing the same thing, because there was a problem worldwide. That’s why, to be honest, we didn’t experience any disruption in exports, but I think this is completely sector-based because agriculture doesn’t stop. I mean, farmers need that product, but yes, there were times when we could not supply very serious raw materials. For example, we could not bring them because they were not available”.

5.3. Trade in Agricultural Products after the COVID-19 Crisis: Preparations for Future Crises and Comments and Suggestions for Crisis Management

The COVID-19 crisis has led to a global economic downturn, resulting in persistent increases in global inflation and product prices. “In July 2022, global inflation reached its highest level since the mid-1990s. It then began to subside but it remains significantly above the pre-pandemic average”. [72]. Just like on a global scale, inflation rates in Türkiye also began to skyrocket after the COVID-19 pandemic [73]. Similarly, some of the participants have stated that the price increases that began during the pandemic continue to affect their operational activities and costs today. For example, A11 explained the ongoing devastation caused by COVID-19 on the global economy and its effects:

“The most important factor triggering inflation worldwide is the COVID era. The current crisis should be read from the COVID era onwards. During COVID, there were serious disruptions in global supply chains. Subsequently, problems arose due to the contraction of production and logistics activities, especially in production and logistics. Due to COVID, a serious inflation process has emerged in the world that continues to this day”.

In parallel with the significant increases in inflation rates globally and nationally, there have also been substantial increases in fuel prices after the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in Antalya, the price of 1 L of fuel was 7.37 Turkish liras on 1 January 2021, which increased to 22.46 TL on 30 July 2022, and further to 45.21 TL on 27 April 2024 [74]. The dramatic increase in fuel prices has led to a significant increase in transportation costs in agricultural product export activities. For instance, A21 illustrated the impact of the increasing fuel costs, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent rise, on their operations: “With the increase in fuel prices a year ago, while we used to transport goods from Antalya to Istanbul for 4000 liras three years ago, now the cost of a truck has become 24,000 liras. Therefore, the increase in transportation costs, causing an increase in total costs, raises product prices between producers and consumers”. Furthermore, the increase in fuel prices, and consequently, product prices, has negatively impacted the competitive advantage of the agricultural product export sector. Stating that freight prices did not have an impact on their activities during the COVID period, A10 said, “Freight prices and the container crisis did not cause problems for us during COVID-19, but today we see its effects. We can’t compete with most countries”., and he evaluated the reflections of the effects of prices and costs, which increased even more with the developments after COVID-19, to the present day. Moreover, A21 emphasized that COVID-19 led to exorbitant increases in freight rates and, consequently, logistics costs, stating: “Maritime shipping increased by 40%, freight rates increased, there are analyses, the prices of products increased when bringing them here. In essence, while we used to work with a 50% profit margin, now it’s difficult to reach even 20%. Our profit margin has decreased significantly”. When asked about the policies they implemented to address the crisis created by the increased costs due to rising raw material and fuel prices, the participants emphasized that there is no permanent solution to this issue at the operational level. They mentioned that, in managing this crisis, they had to compromise on profit margins to stay in the market.

In addition to discussing the cost-incurring effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the agricultural product export sector and crisis management measures to ensure sustainability in activities, the participants were also asked about their opinions and suggestions regarding crisis management and preparations for future crises in the agricultural product export sector. The post-crisis period of crisis management encompasses not only the development of emergency plans for crises but also the enhancement of organizational learning and managerial capabilities [45]. In other words, the post-crisis period generally focuses on organizations continuously examining and questioning significant outcomes learned from their own experiences or those of others regarding crises [75].

As a result of the interviews, it was concluded that crisis management was not given special importance in the agricultural sector in the post-COVID-19 pandemic period. The participants emphasized that since the level of education in the agricultural sector is low, activities are mostly carried out within the framework of the activities of small and medium-sized family businesses, and crises are perceived as events caused by external factors, it is not realistic for businesses in the sector to have comprehensive planning and crisis management strategies for crisis management. On the other hand, some of the participants stated that they made future plans for crises in order to ensure sustainability in their activities in general, although they were not specific to the post-COVID-19 period. For example, A17 stated that they diversified their products and portfolios in order to be sustainable in their activities and that they made cost calculations against future crises. A18 stated that against future crises: “diversification, production in different locations, different partnerships, changing the way of presentation”. A5 stated that they constantly monitor the market and make plans accordingly against future crises. On the other hand, A9 stated that they are not limited to national crises in exports and that they make programs for the future since they are constantly operating in a dynamic process, but they think that the effects of their programs will be limited since the dynamics are constantly changing. Similarly, A8 emphasized that agricultural businesses are carried out through small-scale firms, and in general, no SMEs have an action plan for the future, and SMEs usually experience crises and manage the crisis according to the current situation. A6 also stated that they can overcome smaller-scale crisis fluctuations by following the market from the front, but they cannot take measures for large-scale and sudden crises:

“In economic and financial situations, we already follow the market in advance and take our measures accordingly, but for larger crises, we cannot take measures in advance. Let me say for our sector, as the crises approach, when you realize the crisis a little bit in advance, you can handle the situation because we have periodic periods. When you can take your precautions in those periods, you already save the business”.

A22 stated that they could not make a full-fledged preparation for future crises and that they stopped investing because they did not have evolvable investments and were only trying to protect what was available. In addition, A22 stated that they have future plans in the context of the products they export and stated these plans:

“I export fruits and vegetables. When I sell the products on a daily basis, if the buyer has plenty of goods, he wants to speculate and buy cheaper. Therefore, I may have to sell the products below my cost. Then I need to transform this trade into a durable product that I can sell in 3 months and 6 months without switching to a new product by changing its physical condition. Such as freezing, drying, boiling, cooking, cooling. Now we are dealing with the infrastructure for this”.

A15 stated that in order to cope with future crises, they try to continue their business with their equity capital as much as possible, try to stay in a foreign currency position as much as possible, and try to produce long-term solutions rather than short-term solutions. A15 also stated that they avoid debt and invest in globally valuable products. Similar to A15, A14 stated that in the future, those who do business with their own equity capital will survive in the agricultural sector instead of those who do business with loans, and emphasized the increasing importance of equity capital in the sustainability of firms by saying, “We are heading towards a period when those who do business with loans will not have a chance to survive”.

Finally, when the participants were asked for their comments and suggestions on crisis management in the context of the sector in which they operate, different responses were obtained. For example, A18 underlined the need for certification-based production and trade in an integrated manner with the market in order to maintain competitive advantage and gain competitive advantage, and stated that in addition to certification, data flow is also important for the sustainability of their activities by contributing to predictive planning. A11 stated that all sectors should have an acute project team within themselves, that companies should conduct a SWOT of themselves and the country in 6-month periods within the scope of their fields of activity and act accordingly, and that it is important to enter into more conscious and controlled investment projects, especially in times of crisis. A17 stated that the increase in the number of companies in the sector in which he operates creates a problem in terms of their competitiveness and suggested the following solution:

“My suggestion is this: companies need to cluster together. Whether it’s good or bad, because while there are 5 buyers and 10 of us, now we have become 50 while the number of buyers remains the same. Everyone is making offers to those buyers, and the solution is clustering together. Strength comes from unity. Therefore, companies need to come together with other compatible firms to form a collective so that we can approach as a single voice. We should not sell this product below its value”.

Additionally, findings from the discussions emphasize the importance of government planning and economic support in the agricultural sector. According to Barbosa [76] (p. 1), “In the agriculture sector, government support involves providing early-warning information from meteorological monitoring, policies to encourage companies and citizens to engage in sustainable behavior, and the organization of disaster relief activities”. Those interviewed indicated that the agricultural potential of the province should be realized much higher than its current use, suggesting that state support and changes in agricultural policies are needed to achieve higher efficiency rates and effective crisis management.

The participants emphasized the need to review agricultural policies, monitor input items, calculate base prices at an optimal level, increase state support for agriculture, and regulate the number of intermediaries. For example, A4 highlighted the necessity of data-driven agricultural production to increase efficiency with the statement: “We do not know how much product we produce, we do not know what is produced where, and we do not know what is done in which region”. Similarly, A10 pointed out that the pricing structure of products is highly problematic, stating that market conditions and statistical data related to agricultural activities need to be reviewed. A2 suggested that, given the highly competitive nature of the sector, government-imposed rules are necessary to ensure fairness in competition. A2 also emphasized that production planning should be done in a more informed and systematic manner, expressing these views as follows:

“To keep prices stable and ensure the quality of products, production planning must be done correctly because our farmers do not fully know what will grow well on their land. Perhaps if they grow tomatoes this year and eggplants next year, they will produce and yield very high-quality crops both times. They can’t get quality products because they think, ‘I made a lot of money from tomatoes last year, so I’ll plant tomatoes again this year.’ As my father used to say, ‘What makes money this year won’t make money next year,’ because everyone plants it. Therefore, production needs to be planned”.

A10 emphasized the need for specialization in production and other stages within the agricultural sector for effective crisis management, noting that tracking developments in competitor countries is also necessary for achieving long-term success.

According to Wang et al. [77] (p. 3), “Public–private collaborations have the potential to effectively respond to extreme events”. Public-private sector cooperation holds high potential for improving crisis operations by minimizing costs and prioritizing the necessary steps for more effective crisis management [78]. Moreover, “Collaboration between universities and industries is critical for skills development (education and training), the generation, acquisition, and adoption of knowledge (innovation and technology transfer), and the promotion of entrepreneurship (start-ups and spin-offs)”. [79] (p. 12). Similarly, the participants highlighted the lack of collaboration between the public sector, private sector, and universities, stating that such collaboration is essential for developing and implementing effective crisis management strategies and enhancing the sustainability and competitiveness of agricultural product exports. For instance, A12 expressed the need for public-private-university collaboration:

“Especially in our sector, everyone is left to fend for themselves. Neither the public sector nor universities nor the private sector can come together here. For example, we are currently facing a diversity problem. To address this, R&D efforts, which should primarily be financially supported by the public sector and informed by universities, are necessary. These innovations need to be quickly implemented because our job is to produce and sell. They will provide us with the innovations, and we will market them”.

A11 emphasized the necessity of collaboration between universities and the private sector, highlighting the importance of universities for the agricultural sector with the statement: “Universities are laboratories that can raise a country’s level of development in terms of R&D”. A11 also suggested that for effective crisis management, regional and national commissions should be established:

“Leading firms from the sector should be placed at the head of these commissions, and a SWOT analysis should be conducted. The strengths and weaknesses of the sector should be identified through SWOT analysis. After identifying the weak points, they should be prioritized. An assessment should be made to strengthen these weaknesses. Following this assessment, projects should be created and resources allocated based on how the state, firms, or other relevant regional NGOs and institutions can play a role in this context”.

A22 pointed out that there are problems related to crisis management in the agricultural sector, stating that feasibility, expertise, and planning in agriculture can only be effective if carried out by competent people. Otherwise, the plans may fail to achieve their goals and cause further harm to the sector. A22 expressed their views on this matter by saying, “The logic in our sector goes like this: problems will be fixed along the way. Another significant issue is that our sector, both in terms of export and production, has the lowest education level among industries in Türkiye. Therefore, there is no such planning”. A22 emphasized that the educational level in this sector needs to be improved first and foremost. They also suggested that university–public–private sector collaboration is necessary for more effective crisis management, offering the following proposal:

“Commissions consisting of people working in different fields can be established to produce reports on the sector. I might make mistakes if I rely solely on my own perspective, but if you present five different perspectives, you can derive a common wisdom from them and make suitable plans”.

A7 also offered their suggestion on public–private sector–university collaboration in crisis management:

“R&D should be conducted in the agricultural sector according to specific branches. While conducting R&D, a panel of experts should be established involving the relevant ministry, universities, and experts selected from banks. Through this expert panel, a system should be established where firms are closely examined, and promising firms are identified and financially supported”.

6. Discussion

According to the results of the study, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the importance given to agricultural products and the sustainability of agricultural product exports [23,57]. When viewed in the context of crisis management, managers have expressed that there were no pre-crisis measures or preparations for the sudden and devastating global pandemic. Crisis management for ensuring the sustainability of agricultural activities during the pandemic has been carried out through global and national regulations specific to the agricultural sector [58,59,60,61,62,63]. The steps taken in Türkiye immediately after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic as a global outbreak to ensure the sustainability of production and commercial activities in the agricultural sector have enabled the agricultural sector to be affected for a very short period by the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants have stated that due to panic buying and demand surges on a global scale for agricultural products, they engaged in trade at an unprecedented scale during the COVID-19 pandemic. In summary, it can be inferred that the crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic generally turned into an opportunity for businesses operating in the Antalya agricultural product export sector.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities in the agricultural products export sector in general, as well as various challenges in agriculture. These challenges were caused by disruptions in supply chains and increases in logistics costs [15,67,68,69,70,71]. During this period, the importance of supply logistics and transportation activities in the sustainability of agricultural product export activities has become more prominent. The participants stated that they experienced negative impacts in terms of logistics and transportation costs due to the pandemic. In order to manage the crisis and ensure sustainability in commercial activities, various methods such as reducing orders, sacrificing profit margins, downsizing, increasing prices, continuing production with different raw materials, and continuing activities with alternative routes and alternative transportation methods were followed.

The crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has led to global and national inflation and increased product and fuel prices, causing difficulties in the economic sustainability of the agricultural product export sector in Antalya post-pandemic. Post-COVID-19, businesses operating in the agricultural product export sector in Antalya are losing their competitive advantage due to rising costs in the logistics and transportation sectors and are striving to maintain their sustainability by sacrificing profit margins [74,75,76]. The interviews concluded that the agricultural export sector does not place sufficient importance on crisis management. The participants attributed the lack of awareness about crisis management to the low education level of those running the agricultural product export sector, the predominance of SMEs over corporate firms, and the perception that crises are external and therefore not much can be done to address them. On the other hand, it was found that some participants are making future plans for crises to ensure sustainability in their operations. These plans and strategies include diversifying products and portfolios, producing in different locations, forming various partnerships, changing presentation methods, closely monitoring the market to take precautions against crises, avoiding investments and borrowing, and trying to maintain what they currently have.

The suggestions from the participants for maintaining the sustainability and competitive advantage of agricultural product export activities in terms of crisis management are varied. Some participants recommended that to enhance sustainability and competitive advantage, operations should be based on certification and data-driven production and trade. Additionally, managers emphasized the need for sectoral unity, suggesting that through such unity, the sector’s SWOT analysis should be reviewed periodically. Based on the findings from these analyses, rational steps should be taken, and necessary adjustments made, ensuring that investment programs are data-driven and systematically planned. Participants highlighted that sectoral unions could facilitate collective action, especially during crisis periods, allowing the sector to navigate crises with minimal damage and maximum efficiency. Furthermore, to improve the efficiency and sustainability of agricultural product exports, it is necessary to increase state support for the agricultural sector, calculate base prices at optimal levels, and ensure that agricultural production and export statistics are continuously updated for data-driven production and export practices. Additionally, increasing awareness of crisis management in the agricultural sector and strengthening public–private sector–university collaboration are essential for creating informed plans and programs in agricultural production and export.

7. Conclusions

In this study, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sustainability of the agricultural product export sector in Antalya, which ranks first in Europe and tenth globally in agricultural output and is among the top in Türkiye for added value in agricultural exports, was examined through semi-structured, in-depth interviews within the context of crisis management. According to the study results, the increased importance placed on food during the COVID-19 pandemic supported the sustainability of agricultural activities. The pandemic emerged suddenly, and its effects were unpredictable; therefore, the participants had no preparations or plans for such a crisis before it occurred. The agricultural sector’s crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was generally managed by the state. Most of the participants described the pandemic period as the most productive, despite the disruptions in supply chains and the increased costs of logistics and transportation. The crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic turned into an opportunity for the agricultural product export sector in Antalya. To address the crisis created by supply chain disruptions and rising logistics and transportation costs, and to ensure the sustainability of commercial activities, several crisis management strategies were followed. These included reducing orders, sacrificing profit margins, downsizing, increasing prices, continuing production with different raw materials, and maintaining operations through alternative routes and transportation methods. Additionally, the economic upheavals caused by COVID-19 on a global scale resulted in increased inflation both globally and nationally. Today, along with rising inflation rates, product and fuel prices are also increasing. This has led to significant increases in logistics and transportation costs, forcing businesses to sacrifice profit margins to manage the crisis and maintain sustainability in their operations.

In addition, the study concluded that there is not enough awareness of crisis management in the agricultural product export sector. The most important reasons for this are the low average education level in the sector, the fact that the enterprises are structured in the form of SME-style family businesses rather than corporate structures, and the misperception that crises are exogenous and therefore there is nothing that can be done about crises. As a result of the study, it was found that only a small portion of the participants made future plans in the context of crisis management in order to ensure sustainability in their activities. In addition, the fragmented structure of the sector creates problems in terms of competitive advantage. For this reason, it may be beneficial to establish sectoral unity in order to ensure integrity in the activities and to protect the competitive advantage and sustainability of the activities by acting jointly, especially in times of crisis.

Furthermore, in terms of suggestions for the agricultural product export sector in the context of crisis management, the participants stated that state support and state-led planning should be increased in order to maintain competitive advantage and ensure sustainability in activities. In this context, in order to ensure sustainability in agricultural activities, production, and exports at an optimal level, more state-controlled planning is needed to update agricultural statistics, regulate the price structures of products, and conduct data-based production and trade. There is also a need for public-private sector and university cooperation partnerships to increase sectoral awareness of crisis management and to carry out activities in a systematic and rational manner based on scientific data.

As a result, the crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic turned into an opportunity for the agricultural product export sector in general, thanks to the practices put forward by the state to ensure sustainability in agricultural activities. In the post-COVID-19 pandemic period, problems have been experienced in the agricultural product export sector due to global and national inflation increases, which are the economic consequences of the pandemic, raising costs in general. In order to overcome these problems and gain awareness about crisis management, it is of great importance to increase government support in the agricultural sector and to establish public-private sector and university collaborations.

Finally, in this study, evaluating the sustainability of exports of agricultural products in the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic period in the context of crisis management can be a guide for businesses operating in the agricultural sector on crisis management. As a result of the literature review, it has been found that the role of crisis management has not been sufficiently investigated in studies on agriculture and COVID-19. In the case of the COVID-19 crisis, it is expected to complement the relevant gap in the literature on this issue by evaluating the sustainability of agricultural product exports from a crisis management perspective with a detailed analysis of the case of Antalya, which is at the forefront of agricultural product exports in Türkiye. The study may have practical implications for policy makers and sector stakeholders in terms of raising awareness about crisis management in the agricultural sector and drawing road maps. It is also expected that the study will contribute to the development of crisis management and agriculture literature in terms of theoretical implications. On the other hand, this study has several limitations. This study deals with the issue of crisis management in the Antalya agricultural products export sector by using in-depth interviews. In future studies, the issue of crisis management in the agricultural sector can be addressed in different sectors, different regions, and different countries in the field of agriculture, and comparisons can be made on the subject. In addition, the topics and scopes of future studies can be expanded by using different quantitative and/or qualitative research methods.