<![CDATA[Counterfeit and imitation goods have posed a persistent commercial threat to heritage textile industries, batik and ikat among a wider family of regionally distinctive crafts. Environmental scanning (ES) and early warning systems (EWS) would seem the natural instruments for meeting that threat, embedded as both constructs are within strategic management and supply chain risk scholarship. The difficulty lay elsewhere. Work applying them to counterfeit detection in heritage textiles had accumulated in scattered pockets across management, law and engineering, with little sustained exchange between them. This study accordingly undertook a systematic literature review pursuing four lines of inquiry, namely how ES and EWS were operationalised to surface counterfeit risk, which technological and procedural components sustained systems that produced usable alerts, what systematic scanning yielded relative to unsystematic monitoring, and which barriers obstructed deployment among small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in developing economies. A fifth aim drew the four together into a conceptual framework. Retrieval proceeded through the Consensus academic search engine, which aggregates Semantic Scholar, Scopus, PubMed and arXiv. Nine thematic clusters returned 179 matched records, of which 90 unique records were screened in detail and 54 retained for narrative synthesis. Four patterns emerged. No system built expressly for heritage textile settings was found; the architectures encountered belonged to generic supply chain risk and brand protection frameworks, leaving the provenance concerns peculiar to heritage products unaddressed. Enabling technologies, among them RFID, blockchain, anomaly detection through artificial intelligence, and optical or fluorescent security materials, matured at considerable speed, yet their cost structures often placed them beyond the reach of artisan scale producers. Technological availability was less often the limiting factor than affordability and the capacity to implement and act on these technologies. The reviewed evidence consistently favoured systematic monitoring over ad hoc alternatives, although returns on protective investment were nonlinear. Adoption among SMEs stalled less on technical grounds than on the familiar triad of constrained finance, uneven digital literacy and thin institutional support, a pattern intensifying sharply in the Indonesian batik industry, where geographical indication and copyright registration among artisans remained sparse. The review advances a cooperative level conceptual framework that integrates scanning, early warning, affordability tiered technology, moderating conditions, and collective response pathways for heritage textile protection.]]>
