Prioritization of Water Footprint Management Practices and Their Effect on Agri-Food Firms’ Reputation and Legitimacy: A Best–Worst Method Approach

Agricultural production is responsible for most of the withdrawal of water volume. There has been increasing the pressure on stakeholders to adapt water usage behavior and manage water resources. In this context, water footprint management (WFM) practices have been implemented. Despite the positive benefits of the adoption of WF practices, the selection and prioritization of WFM practices remains a challenge. In addition, the effects that each of these individual practices have on reputation and legitimacy have not been investigated. To fill these research gaps, this study determined the relative priority of seven different WFM practices and the relative importance of each of these practices to increase agri-food firms’ reputation and legitimacy. This study applied the best–worst method (BWM) with a set of expert Chilean professionals in the field. The practice related to the promotion of the measurement of the water footprint throughout the supply chain was considered the most vital and the one with the greatest effects on firms’ reputation and legitimacy. The practice related to the establishment of water auditing and control systems was considered the least important and the one that generates lower effects on firms’ reputation and legitimacy. Our study also found that lack of financial resources is the main barrier to WFM implementation. These findings are useful for companies that are not capable of developing a complete program of WFM adoption due to lack of resources to implement all these practices. By knowing the importance of each practice, farmers can select the practices that will bring the greatest benefits.