Next Article in Journal
Phytosomes-Based Nanocarriers Enhanced with Seaweed Extracts: Overcoming the Blood–Brain Barrier
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Temperature on the Upscaling Process of 6-Gingerol and 6-Shogaol Extraction from Zingiber officinale Using Subcritical Water Extraction
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Analysis of Severity of Losses and Wastes in Taiwan’s Agri-Food Supply Chain Using Best–Worst Method and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making †

Department of Business Administration, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung 413310, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 2024 4th International Conference on Social Sciences and Intelligence Management (SSIM 2024), Taichung, Taiwan, 20–22 December 2024.
Eng. Proc. 2025, 98(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025098008
Published: 9 June 2025

Abstract

Food loss and waste are critical challenges in Taiwan’s agri-food supply chain, deteriorating security and resource efficiency. By employing the best–worst method (BWM), a multi-criteria decision-making model was developed in this study to evaluate the severity of losses and wastes. Combining literature review results with expert survey analysis results, key loss points, and mitigation strategies were identified to enhance sustainability and efficiency in Taiwan’s agricultural food system. Among the seven stages of the agricultural food supply chain, supermarket waste (16.95%) was identified as the severest, followed by government policies (16.63%), restaurant waste (15.35%), processing loss (14.71%), production site loss (13.64%), household waste (11.93%), and logistics/storage/distribution loss (10.79%). In the subcategories of each supply chain stage, the eight severe issues were identified as “Inadequate planning and control of overall production and marketing policies” under government policies, “Adverse climate conditions” and “Imbalance in production and marketing” under production site loss, “Inaccurate market demand forecasting” and “Poor inventory management at supermarkets” under supermarket waste, and “Improper storage management of ingredients leading to spoilage” as well as “Inability to accurately forecast demand due to menu diversity” under restaurant waste. The least severe issues included “Poor production techniques” under production site loss. Other minor issues included “Inefficient use of ingredients due to poor cooking skills”, “Festive culture and traditional customs”, and “Suboptimal food labeling design”, all of which contributed to household waste. Based on these findings, we proposed recommendations to mitigate food loss and waste in Taiwan’s agricultural food supply chain from practical, policy, and academic perspectives. The results of this study serve as a reference for relevant organizations and stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Food is a necessity for human survival. However, with the rapid growth of the global population, one in nine people worldwide still suffers from hunger, translating to approximately 800 million individuals in a state of hunger [1]. To alleviate the pressure of population growth, food production must be increased by 60% to meet the global demand for food [2]. Paradoxically, global food loss and waste have not decreased, with an estimated 33–40% of food lost or wasted annually, which is projected to reach 2.1 billion tons, equivalent to USD 1.5 trillion, by 2030 [3,4].
The severity of food loss and waste goes beyond unmet human needs, as it also exacerbates issues such as water resource depletion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), by 2030, GHG emissions from the food system would account for one-quarter of global emissions, with 18% of these emissions stemming from food supply chain processes such as processing and retail [5,6].
Recognizing the severity of food loss and waste, the United Nations included these issues in two of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015. Specifically, Goal 12, sub-target 12.3, highlights the objective to reduce food loss and waste: “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.”
Taiwan has faced recurring issues of imbalance in the production and marketing of agricultural food. This problem is further influenced by Taiwan’s dense population, unique cultural and geographical characteristics, and household purchasing and consumption habits. Taiwan offers diverse sales channels for agricultural food, such as convenience stores, retail shops, traditional markets, and supermarkets. The high density and convenience of these purchasing channels often lead to increased food waste [7]. Given this situation, in this study, we identified and summarized the potential causes of food loss and waste within the agricultural food supply chain. By elucidating the current causes and severity of food loss and waste in Taiwan’s agricultural food supply chain, we suggested improvement measures for reducing food loss and waste based on the findings of the preceding analysis.

2. Literature Review

According to the definitions of Kusumowardani [8] and Parfitt [9], “loss” in agricultural food refers to the reduction in quantity occurring from initial production up to, but not including, retail sales. On the other hand, “waste” pertains to the discarding or loss of agricultural food occurring from the point of retail sales through to final consumption by end-users.
Borens [1] analyzed data published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and summarized that more than 2 billion tons of agricultural food were lost or wasted annually. “Loss” accounts for 16% of total agricultural production, predominantly occurring during harvesting (6%), post-harvest handling and storage (5%), and processing stages (5%). On the other hand, “waste” constituted 14% of total agricultural production, occurring primarily at the retail (5%) and consumption (9%) stages. The interconnected nature of the agricultural food supply chain necessitates a systemic study to identify and address the underlying causes of food loss and waste across the entire chain.
The literature review results on agricultural food loss and waste, including works by Papargyropoulou [10], Yadav [11], Luo [12], Derqui [13], Filimonau [14], Sakaguchi [15], Tomaszewska [16], Ferro [17], Hebrok and Boks [18], Stancu and Lähteenmäki [19], Huang [20], Filimonau and Delysia [21], and Secondi [22] were used to classify the causes of agricultural food loss and waste into the following seven dimensions and related factors as follows.
  • Production site loss: inadequate production techniques, extreme climatic anomalies, imbalances in production and marketing, and agreements with distributors;
  • Processing loss: stringent standards for agricultural product procurement, improper inventory management of agricultural foods, inappropriate or erroneous processing methods, and suboptimal packaging design for processed agricultural foods;
  • Logistics, storage, and distribution loss: inadequate logistics and storage/distribution infrastructure, improper logistics and storage/distribution management practices, insufficient capability of logistics personnel, and excessive food mileage;
  • Supermarket waste encompasses waste: inaccurate forecasting of market demand, overly stringent inspection specifications, poor inventory management in supermarkets, and failed promotional activities;
  • Restaurant waste: poor culinary skills leading to inefficient use of ingredients, an overly diverse menu making it difficult to accurately predict demand, improper storage management of ingredients resulting in spoilage, and exaggerated portion sizes aimed at attracting customers;
  • Household waste is produced: inefficient cooking techniques leading to underutilization of ingredients, unplanned purchasing of food/ingredients, festive culture, and traditional customs, inadequate or malfunctioning household refrigerator storage conditions, and poorly designed food labeling;
  • Government policies: overly stringent food safety regulations (e.g., shelf life, packaging standards, pesticide residue limits), inadequate planning and control of overall production and marketing policies, insufficient logistics-related infrastructure, and incomplete legal frameworks and supporting measures for the donation/sharing of near-expiry products.
This classification provides a comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing food loss and waste across various stages of the agricultural food supply chain.

3. Research Method

The multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) method is a tool mainly used for decision-makers facing complex situations. It enables the formulation of decision analysis results aligned with the attributes and characteristics of the problem [23]. Among the various MCDM methods, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is the most widely used. The best–worst method (BWM) is conceptually similar to AHP but simplifies the pairwise comparison process, making it easier for decision-makers to evaluate and compare criteria [24]. The following steps outline the application of BWM in this study.
  • Identify causes of agricultural food loss and waste: The main and sub-factors causing agricultural food loss and waste were determined and established as criteria for the BWM;
  • Select the best and worst factors: Experts were invited to evaluate the causes of food loss and waste across various stages of the supply chain, selecting the most severe (best) and least severe (worst) factors at each stage;
  • Compare other factors with the best factor: Experts rated the severity of other factors relative to the best factor on a scale from 1 to 9, where 1 indicated the least severe and 9 the worst;
  • Compare other factors with the worst factor: The severity of the worst factor was rated as 1. The experts conducted pairwise comparisons to rate the severity of all other factors relative to the worst factor on a scale from 1 to 9;
  • Calculate optimal weights: The optimal weights ( w 1 * , w 2 * , , w n * ) for each factor were computed based on the BWM process;
  • Consistency test: The consistency ratio (CR) was calculated to verify the internal consistency of each expert’s weight assessment, ensuring reliability in the evaluation process.
This structured method facilitated the prioritization of factors contributing to food loss and waste, providing actionable insights for addressing these issues systematically.

4. Results

19 experts were invited from relevant fields to complete the BWM questionnaire. The results derived from the BWM steps are summarized in Table 1.

5. Conclusions and Suggestions

Based on the BWM results, supermarket waste (16.95%) had the largest impact, followed by government policies (16.63%), restaurant waste (15.35%), processing loss (14.71%), production site loss (13.64%), household waste (11.93%), and logistics/storage/distribution loss (10.79%). The significant severity of supermarket waste in Taiwan was attributed to the high density of convenience stores, fresh produce supermarkets, and wholesale stores. With the increasing number of retail outlets, it becomes more challenging to accurately forecast sales at each location, exacerbating the problem of waste. Additionally, the BWM analysis results highlighted the critical role of government policies in mitigating loss and waste. This was evident not only in the sub-factor “C7-2 Inadequate production and marketing control policies” but also in “C1-3 Imbalance in production and marketing”, which is influenced by governmental planning. The severity of “supermarket waste” was largely caused by the intense retail competition and the difficulty in precisely predicting consumer demand in Taiwan’s dense retail landscape.
Based on the study results, the following recommendations were formulated from practical, policy, and academic perspectives to mitigate food loss and waste in Taiwan’s agricultural food supply chain.
1.
Practical perspective
As noted by Teng [7], the diversity of agricultural food sales channels in Taiwan contributes to the severity of supermarket waste. In Taiwan, small family businesses have become increasingly prevalent, which has shifted the primary sales channels to medium- and small-sized supermarkets and convenience stores. To address supermarket waste, a regionally integrated application (app) for near-expiry agricultural food products must be provided. This app allows supermarkets and convenience stores to consolidate and provide real-time information on near-expiry products available nearby, enabling consumers to make informed purchases and reducing waste at the retail level.
2.
Policy perspective
We identified “C7-2 Inadequate production and marketing control policies” as the sub-factor with the highest weighted importance. Although mechanisms such as production planning and price monitoring are implemented by Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture, their effectiveness remains limited. Effective government intervention, or the lack thereof, directly impacts the occurrence of loss and waste. It is therefore imperative for policymakers to refine and enhance these mechanisms, ensuring a more balanced and efficient alignment between agricultural production and market demand.
3.
Academic perspective
The definition of agricultural food encompasses a wide range of products, each with unique characteristics. Consequently, the post-harvest handling, processing, and logistical requirements vary significantly across different types of agricultural food. Future research is necessary to focus on specific agricultural products (e.g., rice) and leverage precise quantitative data to identify factors contributing to loss and waste. Such targeted studies enable actionable strategies tailored to the needs of specific agricultural products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.-H.Y.; methodology, W.-H.Y.; data collection, Y.-J.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-J.Y. and Y.-C.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.-C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely acknowledge the enthusiastic participation of all subjects involved in this study. Their willingness to contribute their time and effort was essential to the success of our research. We are grateful for their invaluable support and cooperation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Borens, M.; Gatzer, S.; Magnin, C.; Timelin, B. Reducing Food Loss: What Grocery Retailers and Manufacturers Can Do. Available online: https://reurl.cc/NyGA46 (accessed on 7 September 2022).
  2. Prosekov, A.Y.; Ivanova, S.A. Food security: The challenge of the present. Geoforum 2018, 91, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, C.; Jiang, H.; Badulescu, D.; Bac, D.P. Achieving Zero Hunger Goal through Minimizing Waste in Food Supply Chain: Evidence from Asian Emerging Region. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. BCG. Tackling the 1.6-Billion-Ton Food Loss and Waste Crisis. Available online: https://reurl.cc/4WX1r3 (accessed on 20 August 2018).
  5. Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Environmental Impacts of Food Production. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#article-citation (accessed on 7 September 2022).
  7. Teng, C.C.; Chih, C.; Yang, W.J.; Chien, C.H. Determinants and Prevention Strategies for Household Food Waste: An Exploratory Study in Taiwan. Foods 2021, 10, 2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kusumowardani, N.; Tjahjono, B.; Lazell, J.; Bek, D.; Theodorakopoulos, N.; Andrikopoulos, P.; Priadi, C.R. A circular capability framework to address food waste and losses in the agri-food supply chain: The antecedents principles and outcomes of circular economy. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 142, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 3065–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Papargyropoulou, E.; Lozano, R.; Steinberger, J.K.; Wright, N.; bin Ujang, Z. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yadav, V.S.; Singh, A.R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Raut, R.D.; Narkhede, B.E. A systematic literature review of the agro-food supply chain: Challenges, network design, and performance measurement perspectives. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 29, 685–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Luo, N.; Olsen, T.L.; Liu, Y. A conceptual framework to analyze food loss and waste within food supply chains: An operations management perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Derqui, B.; Fayos, T.; Fernandez, V. Towards a more sustainable food supply chain: Opening up invisible waste in food service. Sustainability 2016, 8, 693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Filimonau, V.; Matute, J.; Kubal-Czerwińska, M.; Krzesiwo, K.; Mika, M. The determinants of consumer engagement in restaurant food waste mitigation in Poland: An exploratory study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sakaguchi, L.; Pak, N.; Potts, M.D. Tackling the issue of food waste in restaurants: Options for measurement method reduction and behavioral change. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 430–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tomaszewska, M.; Bilska, B.; Tul-Krzyszczuk, A.; Kołożyn-Krajewska, D. Estimation of the scale of food waste in hotel food services—A case study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ferro, C.; Ares, G.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Curutchet, M.R.; Giménez, A. “I don’t throw away food unless I see that it’s not fit for consumption”: An in-depth exploration of household food waste in Uruguay. Food Res. Int. 2022, 151, 110861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hebrok, M.; Boks, C. Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design–An extensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 380–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stancu, V.; Lähteenmäki, L. Consumer-related antecedents of food provisioning behaviors that promote food waste. Food Policy 2022, 108, 102236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Huang, I.Y.; Manning, L.; James, K.L.; Grigoriadis, V.; Millington, A.; Wood, V.; Ward, S. Food waste management: A review of retailers’ business practices and their implications for sustainable value. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 125484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Filimonau, V.; Delysia, A. Food waste management in hospitality operations: A critical review. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Secondi, L.; Principato, L.; Laureti, T. Household food waste behavior in EU-27 countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy 2015, 56, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kumar, A.; Sah, B.; Singh, A.R.; Deng, Y.; He, X.; Kumar, P.; Bansal, R.C. A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 596–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 2015, 53, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Weighted factors contributing to food loss and waste in the agricultural food supply chain.
Table 1. Weighted factors contributing to food loss and waste in the agricultural food supply chain.
Main FactorWeight
(%)
RankSub-FactorOriginal Weight (%)Adjusted Weight (%)Rank
C1
Production site loss
13.645C1-1 Poor production techniques10.921.4929
C1-2 Extreme climatic anomalies34.904.764
C1-3 Imbalance in production and marketing32.194.396
C1-4 Distributor agreements21.993.0018
C2
Processing loss
14.714C2-1 Stringent standards for product procurement28.394.187
C2-2 Improper inventory management27.994.129
C2-3 Inappropriate processing methods24.053.5413
C2-4 Suboptimal packaging design19.572.8820
C3
Logistics, storage, and distribution loss
10.797C3-1 Inadequate infrastructure30.233.2615
C3-2 Poor management practices28.073.0317
C3-3 Insufficient personnel capability26.802.8919
C3-4 Excessive food mileage14.901.6128
C4
Supermarket waste
16.951C4-1 Inaccurate market demand forecasting34.145.782
C4-2 Overly stringent inspection specifications15.872.6922
C4-3 Poor inventory management27.784.715
C4-4 Failed promotional activities22.213.7612
C5
Restaurant waste
15.353C5-1 Poor culinary skills18.172.7921
C5-2 Overly diverse menu options26.924.138
C5-3 Improper storage management of ingredients32.915.053
C5-4 Exaggerated portion sizes22.003.3814
C6
Household waste
11.936C6-1 Inefficient cooking techniques16.081.9227
C6-2 Unplanned purchases25.763.0716
C6-3 Cultural customs and celebrations16.471.9726
C6-4 Inadequate or malfunctioning refrigerator21.312.5423
C6-5 Poor food labeling design20.382.4325
C7
Government policies
16.632C7-1 Overly stringent food safety regulations15.202.5324
C7-2 Inadequate production and marketing control38.846.461
C7-3 Insufficient logistics infrastructure22.843.8011
C7-4 Incomplete framework for near-expiry donations23.133.8510
This table consolidates the weighted importance of various factors contributing to food loss and waste ranked both at the primary and sub-factor levels.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, W.-H.; Chen, Y.-C.; Yang, Y.-J. Analysis of Severity of Losses and Wastes in Taiwan’s Agri-Food Supply Chain Using Best–Worst Method and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Eng. Proc. 2025, 98, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025098008

AMA Style

Yang W-H, Chen Y-C, Yang Y-J. Analysis of Severity of Losses and Wastes in Taiwan’s Agri-Food Supply Chain Using Best–Worst Method and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Engineering Proceedings. 2025; 98(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025098008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Wen-Hua, Yi-Chang Chen, and Ya-Jhu Yang. 2025. "Analysis of Severity of Losses and Wastes in Taiwan’s Agri-Food Supply Chain Using Best–Worst Method and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making" Engineering Proceedings 98, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025098008

APA Style

Yang, W.-H., Chen, Y.-C., & Yang, Y.-J. (2025). Analysis of Severity of Losses and Wastes in Taiwan’s Agri-Food Supply Chain Using Best–Worst Method and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Engineering Proceedings, 98(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025098008

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop