MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology

ISSN 2454-5880

Yoddee & Chompu-inwai, 2023

Volume 9 Issue 2, pp. 01-16
Received: 26th June 2023
Revised: 03rd October 2023, 27th October 2023
Accepted: 03rd November 2023
Date of Publication: 15th November 2023
DOI- https://doi.org/10.20319/mijst.2023.92.0116
This paper can be cited as: Yoddee, B. & Chompu-inwai, R. (2023). Loss Analysis in Bread Production
Process Using Material Flow Cost Accounting Technique. MATTER: International Journal of Science
and Technology, 9(2), 01-16.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ or send a
letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA

LOSS ANALYSIS IN BREAD PRODUCTION PROCESS

USING MATERIAL FLOW COST ACCOUNTING TECHNIQUE
Bunyaporn Yoddee
Student, Master’s Degree Program in Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
bunyapornyod@gmail.com

Rungchat Chompu-inwai
Ph.D., Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University,
Chiang Mai, Thailand
rungchatc@hotmail.com

Abstract
The case study factory manufactures a range of bread and bakery products for distribution in the
North of Thailand. Losses from the production process were recently discovered, which besides
being lost costs, also impacted the environment. This research is conducted under the concept of
Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) to analyze the losses from each process of the case study
bread factory. This is to pinpoint where most of the losses occur and suggest methods for future
improvement. This research is conducted with the principle of Plan Do Check Action (PDCA). The
“Plan” was to determine a target product, which in this case was raisin bread, as it accounted for
the largest proportion of production. Subsequently, a study was conducted of the production

1
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

process, and a scope under the “Do” stage of the procedure was determined. Input and output
factors were identified for each Quantity Center (QC) in both physical units and financial units.
Subsequently at the “Check” stage, an analysis of costs was conducted for each QC with the
MFCA technique. This was divided into positive product, meaning costs generating revenue, and
which were manifest in the product, and negative product, which were costs not generating
revenue and were losses from each production stage. Finally, at the “Action” stage, negative
products were ranked using Pareto diagram to identify and evaluate opportunities for
improvement. The research found that the total costs to produce one production lot of raisin bread
were 2,935.55 THB, which were divided into materials costs of 2,270.79 THB (77.35%), system
costs of 500.30 THB (17.04%) and energy costs of 164.46 THB (5.60%). Overall, negative product
was 25.19%, of which negative product in material costs was 19.41%. This negative product was
wastage and losses from dough and fillings being deposited in the machinery, and the failure of
packaging films when they were being installed in the packing machine. It was also found that
negative materials costs arose maximum in the QC of packing. The conclusions from this research
are that it has informed about losses arising in the production process and evaluated them in the
form of costs, which should help in proposing methods to reduce this wastage in the future.
Keywords
Material Flow Cost Accounting, Bread Production, Material Flow, Material Costs, System Costs,
Energy Costs

1. Introduction
Although consumption levels of bread among the Thai public are considered low
compared to other countries, the Thai bread and bakery industry shows clear ongoing growth
trends. Consumer demand is increasing from urban consumer behavior preferring convenience
foods and snacks. Production in Thailand’s bread and bakery industry is expanding. As an industry,
technology is being applied to production with the introduction of modern machinery enabling
more efficient production. There is also a constant state of product development adding value to
the products, to make their attributes more outstanding and diverse. Coupled with a more modern
transportation system, the shelf life of products has been extended, all of which are factors
supporting growth in the bread and bakery industry (Food Intelligence Center, 2016).
However, the bread industry also has an environmental impact. Bread is a food made
from wheat flour mixed with water and yeast. Other ingredients are added to provide color, taste

2
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

and aroma for each category of bread. The ingredients are integrated into dough which is then
formed into shapes and proven at the appropriate temperature and humidity to get the yeast
working, before baking. The industrial production of bread requires efficient flour milling
machines and kneading machines, and large ovens with temperatures of over 230°C, which require
a lot of energy. The transportation of raw materials and the finished bread to stores also require
gas and oil. Moreover, to produce flour, 66% or 2/3 of greenhouse gas emissions come from
growing the wheat crop, which is the key raw material for flour and bread. Another impact on the
environment is waste from the production process and consumption, such as expired products
which must be discarded in large volumes, compared to total production volumes (Green News,
2017).
Research of the literature discovered that many studies had the target to reduce waste
from the production process and evaluate environmental impacts from the production of industrial
bakeries, such as Laurence, Hartono and Christiani (2018) evaluated the life cycle of bread
production process using life cycle analysis framework in ISO 14040. The research shows that the
most important factor contributing to environmental impact is electricity use.
The case study factory conducted the production and distribution of a diverse range of
bakery products in the north of Thailand. The factory is currently facing issues similar to other
factories in the same industry, such as waste and losses from the production process. For instance,
at the forming stage there is dough which was formed, but did not pass the size, shape or weight
standards which had been specified, making it a waste product. However, in some cases it was
possible to rework the product, or sell it as animal feed. Still, it is a lost cost and also impacts the
environment. This research is therefore applying the technique of Material Flow Cost Accounting,
(MFCA) to analyze the costs lost from each stage of the factory’s bread production process, to
pinpoint where the most losses occur, and seek methods for improvement in the future. Compared
to other productivity improvement tools and techniques such as Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma
or Kaizen, etc. (Sharma, Sharma & Singh 2015; Shrivastava, Krishna, Sharma & Sharma, 2015),
MFCA has the advantage that it can be used to simultaneously reduce losses and environmental
impacts (Nishitani, Kokubu, Kitada, Guenther & Guenther, 2022). In addition, material flow
model in MFCA can be used to trace and quantify the flows of materials in the process in physical
and monetary units. This information can be used to find solutions to reduce material losses, as
well as negative environmental effects, and related expenses (Kokubu & Tachikawa, 2013).

3
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

2. Literature Review
MFCA is one of a number of tools used to evaluate environmental impacts which
originated in Germany (Wagner, 2015). It was seriously adapted in Japan and from there MFCA
has been applied in many countries and specified as ISO-14051 (Nakajima, 2006; Schmidt &
Nakajima, 2013). MFCA is a technique to characterize and indicate losses from work processes,
systems or inefficient production technology, or to improve a system. Volumes of production are
analyzed to compare them with volumes of raw materials brought in. When the production
obtained has a weight or amount lower than the amount of raw materials brought in, this illustrates
loss arising in the production process. Losses of material are evaluated in the form of costs. Costs
are divided by costs generating revenue or manifest in the product which are called “positive
product”, and costs not earning revenue as well as losses in the production process, which are
called “negative product” (Nakajima, 2006; Chattinnawat, Teeratanasombut & Kammoon, 2015).
From studying past research studies, there were few studies that analyzed material flow
in the bread or pastry production industry, but not many used the MFCA technique. For example,
Kheiralipour and Sheikhi (2021) analyzed material and energy flow in different bread baking types
in Iran. The results can be used for reducing the energy and material consumption in the bakery
production, as well as decreasing environmental impacts. Furthermore, in the study by Amicarelli,
Lombardi, Varese and Bux (2023), the material flow analysis was used to evaluate the
sustainability of Italian artisan bread production by comparing a baseline and war scenario. This
could assist artisan bakers in managing resources, waste and associated impacts from an economic
and environmental point of view.
Although the bakery industry has not had MFCA applied to it very much, MFCA has
been applied to a wide range of other industries including ceramics, timber and furniture, textiles,
metallurgy and plastics, as well as the food industry. For instance, in order to improve process
effectiveness, eliminate wastes, and reduce production costs, Chattinnawat et al. (2015) applied
MFCA in conjunction with Lean manufacturing technique to the production of canned sweet corn
in Thailand. It was found that the overall cost per unit decreased with higher proportion of positive
product cost. Furthermore, Amicarelli, Roe and Bux (2022) used MFCA to evaluate food loss and
waste costs in the Italian Potato Chip Industry before and during the COVID-19 lockdown. The
results could improve company efficiencies and contribute to the sustainable resource and waste

4
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

management. In addition, Bux and Amicarelli (2022) applied MFCA to the beef, pork and poultry
industries of Italy. The research indicated that MFCA was of benefit in making business decisions
focused on quantity, quality and cost, which is different from general considerations of the
financial statement, while enabling analysis and management of waste in the factory.

3. Research Methodology and Results

This research made analysis of costs of losses arising in the production process of bread
by applying the MFCA technique according to the PDCA cycle (ISO, 2011; Chompu-inwai,
Jaimjit & Premsuriyanunt, 2015; Walz & Guenther, 2021) with the methods of research shown in
Figure 1. Details and results of this research are as follows:

PLAN
-Determine target product
- Study steps of the production process, determine the scope of evaluation, and specify
Quantity Centers (QCs)

DO
- Identify inputs and outputs for each QC
- Specify flow volumes of materials in physical units and in financial units

CHECK
Analysis of costs with MFCA technique to allocate positive product and negative product
arising in each QC.

ACTION
Ranking negative product of each QC to identify and evaluate opportunities for
improvement.

Figure 1: Research methodology

(Source: ISO, 2011)

5
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

The main objective of this research is to present loss analysis. For more information
about loss analysis including techniques for reducing losses, please refer to Chompu-inwai et al.,
(2015). In the aforementioned article, the research was divided into two main parts. In the first
part, MFCA was applied to identify resource consumption inefficiencies in the production process
and determine the sources of these inefficiencies. This part followed MFCA implementation steps
constructed in accordance with a PDCA cycle. In the second part, the tools and techniques required
to improve process and reduce losses were then explored and proposed.
3.1 Determining the target product, studying of production process, and determining a scope
and Quantity Centers
After consultation with the case study factory, the factory wanted to study its raisin
bread product first, as it had the highest proportion of production, as high as 50% of the same
category of bread products. Total production is 700 to 800 items daily (1 production lot). This was
therefore determined to be the target product for this research. The bread bun with a raisin filling
(depicted in Figure 2) had a central circumference of 6.4-6.8 cm with a weight per item of 35-39
gram, containing averagely 17.15 gram of filling. This research studied the data of one production
lot.

Figure 2: Target product (raisin bread)

(Source: Authors’ Own Illustration)
Researchers performed a study of the raisin bread production process with steps shown in Figure
3. This starts from mixing the dough and extruding the dough, then forming the pieces of dough,
with weight tested there of 23-26 gram. If the weight is up to standard, the dough is sent for
decoration and then to the next step of the process. If the weight is not to standard, the dough is
returned to the extrusion machine once more. The buns are then placed on racks holding 24 buns
each. The decoration involves an egg glaze and sprinkling white sesame seeds for decoration.

6
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

When decoration is complete, employees put the racks on a truck and push them to the Proving
Room.

Mixing dough
Mixing
dough
Extruding dough

Forming dough
Fail
Forming
Weighing

Pass
Decoration
Decoration

Proving

Proving Fail

Sizing

Pass

Baking
Baking

Fail
Weighing, removing
waste

Pass
Reduced to
Filling
Adding filling clear

Packing Individual packing

Figure 3: Steps of producing raisin bread

(Source: Authors’ Own Illustration)

7
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

The proving processes the dough to rise. In this room, the temperature and moisture are
controlled for the yeast to work fully and enable the dough to rise fully. From there the dough is
left for a specified period of time. The next check is that if the dough is not yet standard size, the
proving process will continue. Once the desired size is obtained, the racks are removed from the
trucks to enter the baking process, where the baking is in a large tunnel oven, for 25-30 minutes.
After baking is complete, the employees bring the racks back to the trucks, at which stage, they
are inspected by weighing, and waste product is selected out and discarded. Waste at this stage of
the process finds customers who are willing to buy it at a reduced price and use it to make fish
food. The good product is sent for packing. The packing process is automated packing machines,
with film cut at 132 mm intervals at a speed of 87 packs per minute. This is the end of the
production process.
The next step of specifying the scope of evaluation means specifying a start point and
end point of the production process, and specifying Quantity Centers (QC) which have volumes
of material passing through in the manufacturing process. QCs are specified according to steps in
the production process, so QC1 is the Mixing Dough stage, QC2 is the Forming stage, QC3 is the
Decoration stage, QC4 is the Proving stage, QC5 is the Baking stage, QC6 is the Filling stage, and
QC7 is the Packing stage respectively.
3.2 Identifying Inputs and Outputs for each Quantity Center
This stage has the objective to identify amounts of production factors entering and
exiting each QC. The inputs are materials and energy while the outputs are product, waste and
energy waste. Data was collected at the work stage of the raisin bread process at the case study
factory. The inputs and outputs for each QC are connected throughout the scope of consideration.
This stage started from specifying amounts of material flows in physical units, in which
all amounts of inputs and outputs were studied in units of weight (kilogram, kg). This enables a
study of the balance of materials at each QC, in which inputs should equal outputs and waste.
Table 1 is the Material Balance Table of QC1, Mixing Dough. It can be seen that at this stage, the
material was dough, with a weight of 18.220 kg, which gave product weighing 18.043 kg. Waste
dough attached to the machine weighed 0.177 kg, which was a 0.98% proportion of negative
product by weight. As for the material balances of other QCs, they are not shown here, but were
prepared in the same way.

8
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

Table 1: Material Balance Table at QC1, Mixing Dough

Material Balance Table, QC1
Input: Material Output: Waste Output: Product
Material Amount (kg.) Waste Amount (kg.) Product Amount (kg.)
Dough 18.220 Waste dough in machine 0.177 Good dough 18.043
Total (kg.) 18.220 Total (kg.) 0.177 Total (kg.) 18.043
% weight 100% % weight 0.98% % weight 99.02%
Cost input Cost of loss Cost of product
(negative product) (positive product)
Total (THB) 477.22 Total (THB) 4.68 Total (THB) 472.54
% of cost 100% % of cost 0.98% % of cost 99.02%
(Source: Authors’ Own Illustration)
As already mentioned, inputs and outputs at each QC are connected throughout the
scope of consideration. Therefore, it is possible to create a Material Flow Model which is shown
in Figure 4. It is a diagram showing the flow of materials or the details and amounts of materials
entering and exiting each QC connected throughout the scope of consideration. Total inputs are
identified at each QC, from all categories of inputs, both currently occurring, and positive product
flowing from the previous QC.

Dough -Egg 0.090 kg Raisins -Film 2.418 kg

18.220 kg -Sesame 0.119 kg 12.279kg -Sticker 0.072 kg

Raisin
QC1 QC2 QC3 QC4 QC5 QC6 QC7 bread
Mixing dough Forming Decoration Proving Baking Filling Packing 716
items

Dough stuck Dough stuck Filling on Film

in machine in machine utensil wasted
0.177 kg 0.157 kg 0.732 kg 0.528 kg

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive product

product product product product product product -Dough 17.886 kg
-Dough -Dough -Dough -Dough -Dough -Dough -Egg 0.090 kg
18.043kg 17.886 kg 17.886 kg 17.886 kg 17.886 kg 17.886 kg -Sesame 0.119kg
-Egg 0.090 kg -Egg 0.090 kg -Egg 0.090 kg -Egg 0.090 kg -Raisin filling
-Sesame -Sesame -Sesame -Sesame 11.547kg
0.119kg 0.119kg 0.119kg 0.119kg -Film 1.890kg
-Raisin filling -Sticker 0.072 kg
11.547kg

Figure 4: Material Flow Model

(Source: Authors’ Own Illustration)

9
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

For instance, in Figure 4, considering QC2 Forming, the remaining 18.043 kg of positive
product or material flew from the previous QC1 Mixing Dough into QC2 Forming, as some parts
stuck to the machines and wasted in the mixer and the extrusion machine at QC1. There was no
new additional material being added to QC2 Forming. There were additional losses of dough stuck
in the machine at QC2 of 0.157g, with a remaining positive product (dough) of 17.886 kg flowing
to the next QC. Information for other QCs can be explained in the same way.
Subsequently are determination of amounts of material flow in units of money. In each
QC, data is collected on costs in 4 areas which are, material cost (MC), energy costs (EC), system
costs (SC) and waste management costs (WC), detailed as follows.
Material costs are material inputs and outputs (product and waste) at each QC which can
be identified from determining the product and waste in physical units of material (in this study,
weight), and the unit price of that material. For instance, in the Material Balance Table at QC1 in
Table 1, the Dough Mixing stage, the material being input was dough with a weight of 18.220 kg,
which had a price of 26.192 THB/kg. THB means Thai baht; which 1 US dollar was approximately
35 baht on the day of the research. Therefore, the costs for the inputs at QC1 were calculated to
be 477.22 THB, of which 472,54 THB was positive product and 4.68 THB was negative product.
Energy costs are the costs or expenses for energy used at each QC, with the data
collected directly from the machine or electrical equipment being used, which is then timed, to
calculate the energy cost.
System costs are expenses arising in the process that are extraneous to material costs,
energy costs and waste management costs, such as labor, maintenance, depreciation and
transportation. Labor costs were calculated from employees’ real work times at each QC. The
company has completely deducted depreciation on machinery according to accounting procedure,
and so this parameter was not considered.
Waste management costs are costs concerned with the disposal of waste arising at every
QC, including waste disposal charges and transportation. Waste management costs are all
determined to be negative product. However, this research did not have a waste management cost,
as waste at every stage of the process was sold as a discount to make into animal feed, so there
was no need for disposal.

10
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

3.3 Analysis of costs with the MFCA technique (allocating positive product and negative
product in each QC)
Positive product or previous input costs from previous process (classified into MC, SC
and EC) are combined with new input costs at the QC under consideration to become total or
combined costs before allocation. Analysis of proportions of positive product and negative product
uses the “Law of Mass Balance” in which input mass must equal output mass plus waste in the
process, considering material flowing from the previous QC. The total or combined material costs,
as well as total system costs and total energy costs can be allocated into positive product and
negative product using the proportions of positive product and negative product by weight that is
obtained from the previous step.
Table 2: Material Flow Cost Matrix at QC1
Material Flow Cost Matrix QC1
Cost MC SC EC WC Total Cost
Previous input - - - - -
(new) input 477.22 56.67 27.15 - 561.04
Total 477.22 56.67 27.15 - 561.04
Positive product 472.54 56.11 26.88 - 555.54
Negative product 4.68 0.56 0.27 - 5.50
(Source: Authors’ Own Illustration)
Table 2 shows the Material Flow Cost Matrix at QC1, in which QC1 was the starting
QC, so there was no input of positive product from the previous QC (or previous input). Total MC,
SC and EC before allocation were 477.22 THB, 56.67 THB and 27.15 THB
respectively. Allocation of positive product and negative product of the materials was as
previously explained. The allocation of SC and EC could use negative product proportion by
weight which was equal to 0.98%. Therefore, the positive product and negative product of SC
were equal to 56.11 THB and 0.56 THB respectively. The positive product and negative product
of EC were equal to 26.88 THB and 0.27 THB respectively. Calculating costs on the principles of
MFCA at other QCs was done in the same way. For instance, in the calculations at QC2, the
positive product of MC, SC and EC from QC1, which were 472.54 THB, 56.11 THB and 26.88
THB, were combined with new input costs at QC2 to become total or combined costs before
allocation.

11
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

When calculating costs from QC1 to QC7 in series, reports of costs arise according to
category of positive product and negative product, separated into MC, SC, EC and WC, as shown
in Table 3, Combined Material Flow Cost Matrix of all QC. It can be seen that combined costs to
produce one production lot of raisin bread were 2,935.55 THB, which was divided into materials
costs of 2,270.79 THB (77.35%), system costs of 500.30 THB (17.04%), energy costs of 164.46
THB (5.60%), while there was no waste management cost. Negative product was calculated at
25.19%, of which negative product in material costs was 19.41%. The highest was waste product
getting deposited in the machinery, and failed packing film, which were not generating revenue.

Table 3: Combined Material Flow Cost Matrix of all QC

Cost MC SC EC WC Total cost
Combined result 2,270.79 500.30 164.46 0.00 2,935.55
77.35% 17.04% 5.60% 0.00% 100%
Positive product 1,701.09 373.19 121.93 0.00 2,196.21
57.95% 12.71% 4.15% 0.00% 74.81%
Negative product 569.70 127.11 42.53 0.00 739.34
19.41% 4.33% 1.45% 0.00% 25.19%
(Source: Authors’ Own Illustration)

3.4 Ranking the importance of negative products from each QC using a Pareto diagram
This stage of the procedure is to rank the importance of negative products from each QC
to identify and evaluate opportunities for improvement. The Pareto diagram was used as shown in
Figure 5. It can be seen that negative product for materials costs at QC7 had the highest value,
which was film wastage in packing at amount of 0.528 kg, or a value of 457.65 THB. Therefore,
the case study factory should focus on remedying the cause of this issue first.

12
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

Figure 5: Pareto Diagram Showing Negative Product from Each QC

(Source: Authors’ Own Illustration)
4. Conclusions and Suggestions
This research implemented the technique of MFCA to analyze losses from each stage
of the production of raisin bread at the case study factory. This went through the process stages of
mixing dough, forming, decoration, proving, baking, filling and packing. The methodology
followed the principles of Plan Do Check Action (PDCA), and the procedures of MFCA. The Plan
phase involved determining the target product, studying the production process, and determining
a scope of evaluation and QCs. The Do phase involved identifying inputs and outputs for each QC
and specifying flow amounts of materials in physical units and financial units. The Check phase
involved analyzing of costs with MFCA technique to allocate positive product and negative
product arising in each QC. The Act phase involved ranking negative product of each QC to
identify and evaluate opportunities for improvement.
The research showed how total costs to produce one production lot of raisin bread could
be divided into which proportions of material costs, system costs and energy costs. It was also
possible to distinguish positive product costs, meaning costs generating revenue and manifest in
the product, and negative product costs, meaning costs not generating revenues and which were
waste at each stage of production. This informed of the waste arising at each stage of production,
evaluated in the form of costs. This pinpointed the stages of greatest waste, assisting parties
concerned to propose methods to reduce this wastage in the future.
In addition, the research discovered that the greatest waste was at the packing stage, by
wasting film used for packing the raisin bread, a result of employees setting the packing speed to
be too fast. As a result, employees stationed at the end of the packing machine could not insert the

13
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

bread in time, with a result of empty packs coming out. There was also wastage of film in the
initial phase of setting the machine. When the roll of film was exhausted, it had to be replaced with
a new roll. Therefore, to reduce waste and negative product, the research is proposed to pack
products with film of the same kind in large volumes, in a single instance, for continuous
production until the roll of film was exhausted, so film would not be wasted while making the
initial settings for the machine on several occasions. Also, there should be studies to specify an
optimal packing speed, in line with the work-rate of the employees.
This research focuses on demonstrating loss analysis using MFCA. Although proposed
methods to reduce losses were presented, no actual implementation of the suggested methods has
taken place in the case study factory. Therefore, this research has not yet presented results for
reducing losses. For future research, various simulation methods may be conducted to predict the
improvement results (Chattinnawat et al., 2015). After that, MFCA may be used to analyze loss in
the production process again to compare the results before and after improvements.
The benefits from this research of analyzing waste and loss in the production process of
raisin bread at the case study factory, are that this research methodology can also be applied to
other products of the case study factory. Also, the research methodology is useful to other
entrepreneurs and particularly those at a similar level to the case study factory, which would be
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). SMEs have the greatest proportion in Thailand, and
have a key role in developing the national economy. This gives the SMEs capabilities to compete
and be more resilient by reducing their costs and increasing their profits. Eventually, this will
improve the country’s macro economy.
5. Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank all executives and employees of the case study factory
for providing information and excellent cooperation with the research.

REFERENCES
Amicarelli, V., Roe, B.E. & Bux, C. (2022). Measuring food loss and waste costs in the Italian
potato chip industry using Material Flow Cost Accounting. Agriculture, 12(4), 523.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12040523
Amicarelli, V., Lombardi, M., Varese, E. & Bux, C. (2023). Material flow and economic cost
analysis of the Italian artisan bread production before and during the Russia-Ukraine

14
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

conflict. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 101, 107101,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107101
Bux, C. & Amicarelli, V. (2022). Material flow cost accounting (MFCA) to enhance
environmental entrepreneurship in the meat sector: Challenges and opportunities.
Journal of Environmental Management, 313,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115001
Chattinnawat, W., Teeratanasombut, M., & Kammoon, C. (2015). Development of analysis
method of material flow cost accounting using Lean technique in food production: A
case study of Universal Food Public (UFC) Co., Ltd. Engineering and Applied Science
Research, 42(2), 155–172,
https://ph01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/easr/article/view/34878/28960
Chompu-inwai, R., Jaimjit, B. & Premsuriyanunt, P. (2015). A combination of Material Flow
Cost Accounting and design of experiments techniques in an SME: the case of a wood
products manufacturing company in northern Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production,
108(Part B), 1352-1364, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.039
Food Intelligence Center (January, 2016). Area based Industry (in Thai). Food Intelligence
Center. Retrieved from, https://fic.nfi.or.th/area-based-Industry-detail.php?smid=1126
Green News (2017, August 23). Shocking study results as bread is slowly killing our planet (in
Thai). Green News. Retrieved from
https://greennews.agency/?p=14960&fbclid=IwAR2OK-
izbMCvLqmz4Kkc8YiJKNvyMDFbn1Bp7NzESE5o43kQ84OrzYqQJAs
ISO. (2011). Environmental Management – Material Flow Cost Accounting- General
Framework, Switzerland.
Kheiralipour, K. & Sheikhi, N. (2021). Material and energy flow in different bread baking types.
Environment. Development and Sustainability, 23, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01069-2
Kokubu, K. & Tachikawa, H. (2013). Material Flow Cost Accounting: Significance and Practical
Approach. In: Kauffman, J.& Lee, KM. (Eds), Handbook of Sustainable Engineering.
Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8939-8_96

15
MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN 2454-5880

Laurence, Hartono, N. & Christiani, A. (2018). Case study of life cycle assessment in bread
production process. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 195(1),
012043. https://DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/195/1/012043
Nakajima, M., (2006). The New Management Accounting Field Established by Material Flow
Cost Accounting (MFCA). Kansai University Review of Business and Commerce, 8,
1-22. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228714991.pdf
Nishitani, K., Kokubu, K., Kitada, Q.W.H., Guenther, E. & Guenther, T. (2022). Material flow
cost accounting (MFCA) for the circular economy: An empirical study of the triadic
relationship between MFCA, environmental performance, and the economic
performance of Japanese companies. Journal of Environmental Management, 303,
114219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114219
Schmidt, M. & Nakajima, M. (2013). Material flow cost accounting as an approach to improve
resource efficiency in manufacturing companies. Resources, 2(3), 358–369.
https://doi.org/10.3390/resources2030358
Sharma, P., Sharma, N. K., & Singh, M. (2015). Process improvement by implementation of
Kaizen as a quality tool within defined constraints: a case study in manufacturing
industry. MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology, 1(1), 182–194.
https://doi.org/10.20319/mijst.2016.s11.182194
Shrivastava, A., Krishna, A., Sharma, P., & Sharma, S. (2015). Lean co-creation: effective way
to enhance productivity. MATTER: International Journal of Science and
Technology, 1(01), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.20319/mijst.2015.11.96107
Wagner, B. (2015). A report on the origins of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) research
activities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108(Part B), 1255–1261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.020
Walz, M. & Guenther, E. (2021). What effects does material flow cost accounting have for
companies? Evidence from a case studies analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology.
25(3), 593–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13064

16