*5.3. Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusions*

Our research is subject to several limitations. First, the use of case methods and the accompanying limited sample could limit the generalizability of our findings. Future research using other methods such as surveys could more easily collect larger samples, confirm our exploratory findings, and provide broader generalizability. Further, we suggest that future studies should consider how to reliably measure FSC quality conventions and examine the role of firm positioning and performance against quality conventions in terms of sustainability, financial performance, and market share. More particular to supply chain management, the typology could be used to examine how firms that operate in multiple quadrants and across multiple supply chain stages balance the different types of network configurations and quality management systems required to fulfill multiple sets of quality conventions. The second limitation is that our sample is limited to FSC cases from the US. We suggest, however, that the use of quality conventions, consistent with its application in other disciplines, can be adapted to other industries. As such, we suggest that future work extend this framework to FSCs in other countries and industries.

In conclusion, the criticality of FSCs, as well as the extent to which they are embedded in social and ecological conventions demands a comprehensive and flexible quality framework. This study lays the foundation for future work and for managers to consider FSC quality in a different and more holistic manner. Looking ahead, we believe that there is potential for the integration of NRBV and CT to advance theory and practice beyond the food industry context.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, T.D.J.-H.; methodology, T.D.J.-H.; software, T.D.J.-H. and D.C.H.; validation, T.D.J.-H. and D.C.H.; formal analysis, T.D.J.-H. and D.C.H.; investigation, T.D.J.- H. and D.C.H.; resources, T.D.J.-H. and D.C.H.; data curation, T.D.J.-H.; writing—original draft preparation, T.D.J.-H.; writing—review and editing, T.D.J.-H. and D.C.H.; visualization, T.D.J.-H.; supervision, T.D.J.-H.; project administration, T.D.J.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for this study. Individuals were interviewed based on their personal knowledge of activities at each case study

organization. Each individual spoke on the conditions of: (1) anonymity in the primary interview data; and (2) individual statements were not made on behalf of the case study organization. Additional sources of data (i.e., websites, advertisements, public press) were derived from publically available sources accessed by the authors. Individual names were not recorded in the primary data, therefore individuals cannot be identified based on their statements. In addition, information on identifying organizational characteristics was limited to the data provided in Table 2.

**Informed Consent Statement:** All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available in Tables 2 and 3 of this article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
