Reduce food loss and waste

As of 2024, 80% of the top 50 food and agriculture companies had established targets to reduce food loss and waste. While setting targets to reduce food loss and waste is important for focusing attention on the issue and setting ambition, companies must also take actions to implement their targets. Such actions may include investing in improved supply and demand forecasting, training staff on best practices to reduce food loss and waste, switching to optimal packaging, re-engineering processing to reduce losses and waste, abandoning marketing strategies that incentivize over-purchasing and offering smaller portion sizes.

The share of the world’s top 50 food and agriculture companies that have active food loss and waste reduction programs has increased substantially, from 10% of companies in 2017 to 60% of companies in 2024. Encouragingly, some companies are already reporting substantial reductions in their food waste due to such actions, including IKEA’s largest retailer Ingka Group (54% reduction), Fresh Del Monte (42% reduction), Ahold Delhaize (35% reduction), Danone North America (30% reduction) and Kroger (26% reduction). The 10x20kx30 initiative will also engage 10 large agricultural companies to support over 200,000 small producers in reducing food losses during and after harvest.

Corporate efforts to collect data on food loss and waste across their supply chains can provide the foundation for companies to develop targets and implement actions to reduce food loss and waste. They can also help inform national food loss and waste inventories. Additionally, publicly reporting on progress enables greater transparency and accountability.

The share of the world’s 50 largest food companies that are measuring their food loss and waste increased from 32% in 2018 to 56% in 2021. About two-thirds of the companies that measure their food loss and waste publicly report their progress. However, a more recent assessment covering the top 350 food and agriculture companies found that as of 2023, only 16% of relevant companies measured food loss and waste.

Poor infrastructure, including the lack of usable roads, can constrain access to markets, slow the transit of food away from farms and increase the likelihood that food is spoiled or damaged once it has left the farm. Given the difficulty in measuring many of the infrastructure challenges that increase post-harvest losses, this indicator focuses on rural communities’ access to roads. Though this is a measurable proxy for access to markets, it only addresses one facet of this challenge.

As of 2024, the World Bank had assembled data on the Rural Access Index (RAI), an index that measures access to transportation in rural areas, for only 29 countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. For most countries, data is available only for a single year between 2009 and 2022, so the measurements are not necessarily comparable across countries. The reported share of rural population living within two kilometers of an all-season road varies substantially, ranging from 18% in Lesotho (2016 data) to over 99% in the United Arab Emirates (2021 data).

Similarly, a global map of travel time to cities (which are usually the market centers and thus serve as an indicator for market accessibility), revealed that only 51% of people in low-income countries live within an hour of a city, compared to 91% in high-income countries.

In addition to creating opportunities to reduce post-harvest food losses, improving access to all-season roads may also enhance agricultural productivity and resilience. Road access, however, sometimes drives deforestation and biodiversity loss, creating environmental trade-offs that may undermine long-term sustainability. These varying outcomes highlight the importance of considering local conditions and complementary factors when assessing the impact of road infrastructure on intended outcomes.

Given the limited coverage and lack of time series data, there is a clear need for more comprehensive and consistent data collection to effectively measure road access over time and across a broader range of countries.

In addition to innovations in research, improving access to existing technologies, infrastructure and equipment is needed to reduce food loss and waste. Public and private finance to deploy existing interventions will be needed, particularly in lower-income countries.

Examples of such interventions include refrigerated storage and transport systems, industrial drying systems, packaging materials, communications technologies to optimize processes and improved software for forecasting supply and demand, though the appropriateness and effectiveness of interventions vary in different contexts. Access to extension services for producers to reduce food loss and training for retail and food service employees on best practices to reduce food waste present opportunities for intervention.

The ReFED Capital Tracker tracks the growth in investments in solutions to reduce food loss and waste, including prevention, rescue and recycling. Although the dataset is limited to the United States, it represents a tangible approach for monitoring the growth of finance dedicated to these solutions that other countries could replicate. From 2012 to 2024, investments in solutions to reduce food loss and waste totaled over $11 billion cumulatively in the United States, with notably high levels in 2021 and 2022. The vast majority of these investments have come from private sources (97%), compared to philanthropic (1.6%) and public (1.0%) spending.

Limited food management knowledge, skills and practices across those working in food supply chains are a key driver of food loss and waste. With adequate and independent funding, agricultural extension services can help close these gaps upstream in food supply chains. They can enhance the ability of farmers, as well as small and medium enterprises, to adopt improved practices or new technologies that can reduce food losses.

The ratio of extension agents to farmers represents a proxy for the share of farmers with access to extension services. While recent data is not available, 2012 data from the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services indicated great variability across countries. For example, in China and Vietnam, there was one extension worker for every 280 farm households, while in Indonesia, each worker supported about 2.8 villages. In India, only 6.8% of farmers were reached due to unfilled positions, leaving farmers to rely on peers or input dealers for advice. More data is needed to monitor changes in the availability of extension agents over time.

Even with potential increases in service accessibility, many developing countries face additional challenges that can hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of agricultural extension services. This includes weak connections among research, education and extension institutions; inadequate coverage; limited infrastructure; restricted access to credit and markets; financial limitations; and lack of diverse approaches.

While the number of extension agents is an important indicator, the quality and relevance of extension services are equally critical. Extension quality encompasses multiple dimensions, including the relevance, availability, timeliness, cost and appropriateness of delivery methods. The quality of extension services can significantly impact the satisfaction and adoption of encouraged strategies by farmers and others working in food supply chains.