Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Fostering reverse logistics in India by prominent barrier identification

and strategy implementation to promote circular economy
Pankaj Dutta a, *, Sahil Talaulikar b, Vinay Xavier a, Shubham Kapoor a
a
Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, 400076, India
b
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reverse Logistics (RL) is becoming a critical strategic differentiator among organisations and business
Received 30 June 2020 entities for a sustainable environment, value creation, and promoting a Circular Economy (CE). Hence,
Received in revised form this topic is relevant in the current Indian context. This paper explores the RL practices that drive
21 January 2021
operational efficiency while promoting cleaner production. This study aims to identify the barriers to RL
Accepted 2 February 2021
Available online 12 February 2021
implementation and bring together a practical approach to overcome all the relevant barriers in the RL
sector in the Indian context. The survey of previous literature suggests that researchers have tried to
Handling editorDr Sandra Caeiro prioritise barriers to RL implementation. However, this paper intends to analyse the barriers from a CE
perspective and propose a framework for developing strategies with a structured implementation for
Keywords: managers in India’s RL industry. Effects of these barriers have been analysed, while concurrently
Reverse logistics developing strategies to mitigate them and gauge the impact of strategies on the system of barriers using
Circular economy an evaluation model developed by incorporating quantitative techniques-grey-DEMATEL (Decision-
Barriers and strategies making trial and evaluation laboratory), agglomerative hierarchical clustering, fuzzy measure and fuzzy
Grey-DEMATEL
integral. The study aims to serve as a guiding framework for decision-makers to identify the barriers in
Sustainability
their organisations and map the barriers to contemporary strategies to tackle them. The insights from the
India
analysis show difficulty in managing quality of circular goods as the prominent barrier followed by a lack
of responsibility and initiation by top management. Key strategies identified to mitigate the barriers are
classified into priority, long-term, contingency, and non-priority zones. Consumer education, proper
logistics network utilisation and efficient warehousing are key strategies that companies should adopt on
a priority basis.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction advantage (Bressanelli et al., 2019). Despite the benefits posed by

The economic growth in recent years, coupled with the growing
middle class has led to a steady rise in consumption behaviours
worldwide. These factors in addition to the current trend of plan-
ned obsolescence which has seeped into manufacturing have led
consumers to prematurely discard products, which leads to a loss of
utility and value (Ma et al., 2019). However, there is an opportunity
to restore this lost utility and value by incorporating reverse lo-
gistics (RL) and circular economy (CE) principles in the reclamation
of these products (Dominguez et al., 2019). There is growing
importance being given to RL processes’ strategic application to
achieve sustainable development goals and gain a competitive
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pdutta@iitb.ac.in (P. Dutta).
the adoption of RL processes, companies often overlook the reverse
flow of goods, especially during the status quo. They do not opti-
mise the reverse flow instead, concentrating on the forward flow.
The adoption of RL processes will eventually help the industrial
economy achieve its restorative and generative goals, which will
help the industry move towards a circular economy. RL and CE have
a vital link in their activities, but each concept’s implementation
has been done in isolation (Sehnem et al., 2019). The study adopts a
methodology to analyse RL’s adoption through the lens of CE
principles, which can be used as a potential measure to identify and
develop a better reverse supply chain. However, CE concepts are
broader in their scope as they consider the forward and reverse
supply chain in a cohesive model. Companies need to adopt the
right strategy to ensure that their forward and reverse supply chain
goes hand in hand and cost-effectively. RL processes’ adoption is
vital for companies to ensure that they promote CE and cleaner

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126241
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
production concepts, while important from the environmental
perspective. It is also beneficial to their company and can be sus-
tained in the long run (Islam and Huda, 2018). A model that com-
panies can adopt is the “6 R” approach, which encompasses
reducing, reuse, recycling, recovering, redesign, and remanu-
facturing in line with RL and CE principles (Corre ^a and Xavier,
2013).
Returned products have a process of their own. Many companies
may not be aware that by focusing on the returns process, they can
better manage their brand and improve their overall net recovery
on returned products (Larsen et al., 2018). There is a difference in
the perception of the beginning of the returns process. It is
considered a part of product design in mature manufacturing in-
dustries, wherein even after the product design stage, many raw
materials and other accessories used for production can be recy-
cled/reused. While in other non-manufacturing sectors, like e-
commerce, the return process only starts once the customer returns
the product due to damage or end of life (Dutta et al., 2020). These
diverse interpretations of the returns process make the decision-
making process challenging in such environments.
1.1. Motivation of the study
In developed countries, significant developments have
happened, and the promotion of RL is being done. However, in
India, there is a considerable lack of RL practices (Das and Dutta,
2015; Dutta et al., 2016). The survey of the literature suggests
that researchers have previously tried to prioritise the barriers to RL
in the Indian context (Jindal and Sangwan, 2011; Yogi, 2015);
however, quantitative models which consider the interrelation-
ships among the barriers and espouse the implementation of RL by
suggesting appropriate strategies to reduce the effect of the barriers
in an Indian context is inchoate.
More recent studies on RL in the Indian context (Lamba et al.,
2019) have prioritised the barriers without considering their in-
terrelationships. Thus, creating a clearer picture, albeit having
overlooked any feedback caused due to interrelationships it does
not present an accurate representation of the system of barriers.
Moreover, these studies focus on the operations management and
economic aspects that pose barriers to the implementation of RL.
The paper intends to broaden the scope by also considering envi-
ronmental and social sustainability dimensions, by considering the
ethical implications of RL implementation, by looking at these ac-
tivities from a CE perspective to extend and manage the quality and
lifecycle of products (Sarkis et al., 2010).
As per Kiron et al. (2017), companies that focus on material is-
sues will achieve an increased profit from sustainable practices. As
the concept of CE differs from the traditional way of linear economy
in which goods are manufactured, sold, and disposed of leading to
economic and resources losses. Therefore, companies that redesign
their supply chain for CE may obtain environmental, social and
economic benefits (Bressanelli et al., 2019).
However, several barriers may inhibit the attainment of these
benefits, making the transition to CE difficult for many (Govindan
and Hasanagic, 2018). For example, the literature widely iden-
tifies the uncertainties about quality, quantity, and product returns
timing that arises in closed-loop supply chains (Das and Dutta,
2012), which transfers into ambiguities in activities like, capacity
planning for revamping events such as remanufacturing
(Kocabasoglu et al., 2007).
Additionally, with the recent rise in the internet penetration
across India coupled with the democratisation of access to the
internet have boosted e-commerce sales, which have resulted in
the rise of returns in the E-commerce sector and has put the
spotlight on return’s policy and in turn on RL (Mukhopadhyay and
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
Setoputro, 2004). Thus, there is a growing impetus on the organi-
sations to focus on their core competencies and operational effi-
ciencies to better handle their RL activities. There is a need for these
organisations to gain feedback from their customers and integrate
this information with key decision-makers’ perspective to identify
the barriers related to the implementation of RL processes. Study-
ing RL activities in the current situation is of utmost importance to
make our supply chain resilient. With the intention, to cover these
lacunae in the research of execution of RL activities in the Indian
context, the following research questions are posed:
RQ1: What are the significant barriers to the implementation of
RL practices in India?
RQ2: How can decision-makers and industry experts accurately
represent their opinion on the barriers impeding RL implementa-
tion while also highlighting the significant interrelations between
the barriers?
RQ3: What strategies would be adequate for overcoming the
identified barriers and adopting circular economy principles?
RQ4: What is the industrial experts’ opinion about the effec-
tiveness of the strategies in achieving the goals of cleaner
production?
The following objectives are framed to answer the above
questions:

To identify the critical barriers to the implementation of RL in
India.

To quantify the “cause” and “effect” relationships among the
selected barriers.

To ascertain the prominence of the selected barriers from the
experts’ perspective.

To identify the strategies that will help mitigate the prominent
barriers to the realisation of RL in India.

To exhibit the managerial inferences for improving the RL
practices and how feasible and effective the strategies identified
are.

To develop a decision-making model and identify how the latest
industry 4.0 technologies fit into the RL system.
Thus, to achieve the objectives mentioned above, the study
explores the concept of RL in the Indian context. The study iden-
tifies the challenges faced by the organisations in multiple in-
dustries in implementing the concept of CE, in turn, attaining the
principles of cleaner production. Organisations across other
developing countries can adopt the research framework proposed
in the study to strategise how to tackle barriers faced.
By an in-depth literature review, the present study intends, first,
to recognise the various barriers of RL implementation. The liter-
ature review is followed by a discussion with the multiple experts’
(various stakeholders) to finalise a list of 23 barriers. The analysis is
then done to understand the interrelationships of the barriers from
the experts’ perspectives. These stakeholders are academic re-
searchers, Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) employees, cus-
tomers, managers in companies close to customers. To analyse the
interrelationship among barriers, a hybrid method of Grey theory
and Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL),
i.e. Grey-DEMATEL, is applied. Fig. 1 presents the systematic pro-
cedure for analysing the barriers cause and effect relations. The
remainder of this paper is arranged in the following ways: Section 2
summarises the literature review related to the RL practices. The
evaluation structure, along with the underlying quantitative
modelling techniques, is discussed in Section 3, along with the
process implemented for studying the strategies. Section 4 de-
scribes the application of the methodology in the context of Indian
RL industry. The result and discussion of experts’ perspectives are
presented in Section 4, and implementation planning of the
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
Fig. 1. Research framework for inhibitors identification and strategy analysis.
strategies is explained in section 4.3. The discussion and managerial
inferences of the study are presented in Section 5. Finally, the
conclusion, limitations and future scope are provided in Section 6.
2. Literature review
India is a developing nation, and there are many challenges that
companies in India face while implementing RL. RL as a sector in
India has improved ever since adopting the Goods and Service Tax
(GST) and achieving infrastructure status. Companies have adopted
many new changes and innovations like Industry 4.0 and concepts
like cleaner production, set to drive the reverse logistics industry.
RL implementation is also an essential aspect of achieving triple
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
bottom line goals, including environmental, economic, and social
factors (Budak, 2020). Despite these developments over the years,
RL implementation continues to face operational and financial is-
sues which adversely affects the efficiency and the execution of RL
processes in the supply chain.
Previous literature suggests that most studies have a granular
focus on RL implementation barriers, exploring particular sectors in
specific geographies. In the paper, Prajapati et al. (2019), the au-
thors have tried to develop solutions based on a study on the Indian
electrical manufacturing industry. In Rahman et al. (2020), the
authors have considered an emerging economy like Bangladesh
and have tried to develop strategies for the plastic industry. These
studies are focussed on specific sectors or some general aspects that
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
are not entirely up to date with the current Indian scenario. This
study has tried to overcome that gap by consolidating barriers from
such previous research papers; it has been presented in section 2.1.
Moreover, the study aims to analyse some of the barriers posed
using CE principles. Some supply chain initiatives can bolster RL’s
implementation by looking at RL from a circular economy
perspective. The first is the importance of product design, and the
role green design can play in boosting RL. Green design is closely
related to analysing the lifecycle of products, waste management,
and the conservation of resources (Lin, 2013; Buyukozkan and Cifci,
2012). A well-designed product in line with the green design
principles includes considerations such as design to facilitate the
reuse and recycling of products and design to boost remanu-
facturing to return the product in a better condition (Eltayeb et al.,
2011). The design of a product is driven by the green purchasing
initiatives which are also crucial for making the implementation of
RL feasible by factoring in green purchasing for supplier selection
strategies (Rao and Holt, 2005). The next section highlights the
current barriers in the RL industry.
2.1. Barriers to reverse logistics
Across different countries, there are many barriers to promote
RL, which affects its efficient functioning. In Walker et al. (2008),
the author has identified a few internal barriers like the cost and
lack of legitimacy. Moktadir et al. (2019) has shown that the lack of
interest and support from the top-level management team
regarding RL, lack of implementation knowledge and support also
plays a crucial role in hampering the implementation of RL by
companies. Companies often prefer to focus on the forward part of
the supply chain and neglect the reverse logistics as they feel it is an
extra burden on the company, and the value addition is less (Lamba
et al., 2019). Similar findings have been shown in (Moktadir et al.,
2020), the study has identified barriers like insufficient technol-
ogy and infrastructure, financial constraints, unsupportive organ-
isational and operational policies, and inadequate knowledge as
inhibitors to RL implementation.
There are various economic challenges while setting up an RL
network. These include initial investments in transportation and
collection point setup, which affects the company’s bottom line
(Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Kaviani et al., 2020). Cost con-
straints are crucial aspects of a decision taken by any company,
particularly in developing countries (Ali et al., 2018; Moktadir et al.,
2020). Most companies see RL mainly as cost centres because of
which the unorganised sector in developing countries handles RL
activities. The investments required to set up a reverse logistics
network, including the ancillary costs to set up the required in-
formation and technology infrastructure to facilitate data man-
agement. It is vital to monitor key metrics to create and execute an
effective strategy for RL implementation. Beiler et al. (2020) show
that storage costs, recycling ratio, employment ratio, and similar
metrics help to improve RL functioning. The costs expensed on
product returns in RL are often not optimised as those of forward
logistics as mostly, supply chains are only optimised related to
forward logistics (Bernon et al., 2018).
The barriers external to companies include regulation, insuffi-
cient supplier commitment, and other industry-specific barriers.
Sharma et al. (2011) has identified various other barriers like lack of
supply chain management performance, lack of improved man-
agement systems, and administrative issues that affect RL. Em-
ployees opine that issues like the lack of suitable government
policies, administrative resources, cost-effective recycling tech-
nology, and public participation are some of the main barriers for
RL implementation (Zhou et al., 2007).
Multiple stakeholders are involved along the reverse flow, and
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
proper coordination must ensure RLs successful implementation
(Lamba et al., 2019). However, due to concerns regarding the se-
curity of the information shared, it poses a hurdle for vertical and
horizontal integration to aid coordination across the supply chain.
Thus, there is a dire need to encourage supplier collaboration,
which can help companies manage supplier performance to ensure
that the purchased materials are suitable for recycling, refurbishing
or reuse (Zhu and Sarkis, 2007). The collaboration would also help
organise the operations along different tiers of the supply chain to
drive down costs and reduce wastage (Azevedo et al., 2011). Other
barriers to coordination may be due to the general lack of aware-
ness among the public due to which the sales of refurbished/
returned products are less compared to products made from ‘virgin’
materials. Thus, companies need to manage interactions between
them and other supply chain members by being more involved in
their customers’ environmental performance. Consumer collabo-
ration will help reduce costs and will enhance the responsiveness
to consumer worries (Azevedo et al., 2011). This includes sharing
technical information with consumers, consumer support and
collaborative ventures (Eltayeb et al., 2011).
This study has tried to gather various barriers which are not only
seen in India but also in other countries. These barriers were then
analysed to see how relevant they are in the current Indian context.
Some of the barriers seem to correlate to other barriers and influ-
ence each other significantly. The cause and effect relationship
developed between these barriers help us develop the right stra-
tegies for each barrier. In Appendix A, Table 6, shows all the barriers
that were initially identified and their main groupings. Table 1
shows the final 23 barrier list that is used for strategy develop-
ment. The next section will introduce and elaborate on the evalu-
ation model to analyse the barriers and study the impact of the
strategies formulated.
3. Constructing an evaluation structure
In this section, the underlying concepts of the evaluation model,
agglomerative hierarchical clustering for barrier reduction, the
grey-DEMATEL method for studying the interrelationships among
the barriers, and fuzzy measure and integrals used to determine the
impact of strategies are discussed.
In literature, there are few studies committed to studying the
interrelationships between the barriers to RL implementation in
the Indian business ecosystem. With the intention, to cover these
lacunae in the research of execution of RL activities in the backdrop
of the Indian business ecosystem, the study aims to:
1. Conduct an extensive literature review to identify barriers to the
implementation of RL in the Indian context.
2. Conduct a pilot study followed by a questionnaire survey to
examine the absolute impact of these barriers on RL imple-
mentation and further reduce the number of barriers by
grouping based on their similarities to a reduced set of barriers.
3. Study the interrelationships between the finalised barriers
along with the degree of their influence amongst themselves
based on the input of experts’.
4. Formulate strategies to counter the barriers identified based on
the insights provided by analysing the intertwined relations.
5. Conduct a third survey to study customers’ and decision-
makers’ perceptions of the formulated strategies’ effectiveness
and feasibility.
6. Present a sequenced plan to implement these strategies while
highlighting the managerial and policy implications.
The paper proposes a hybrid model for identifying dominant
barriers that hinder the execution of RL practices, while also
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241

Table 1
Description of the final list of 23 barriers.

No. Barriers Barrier description References

B1 Lack of responsibility & Top management often does not want to make the change and are Su et al. (2013); Liu and Bai (2014); Rogers and Tibben-Lembke,
initiation by top happy with the current situation. The management finds the 2001; Ravi and Shankar (2005); Li and Olorunniwo (2008)
management refurbishment/recycling process to be not attractive.
B2 Lack of relevant training on Multiple stakeholders are involved in setting up the RL network, i.e. Shah et al. (2019); Liu and Bai (2014); Rogers and Tibben-Lembke,
RL for stakeholders getting the product from the customers to the manufacturers for 2001; Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Van Weelden et al. (2016)
recycling. It is vital that all players are well trained for the proper
management of RL processes.
B3 Managing material quality The entire RL setup is currently highly unorganised; it is a part of ~ ez
Meyer et al. (2017); Ghisellini et al. (2016); Singh and Ordon
of circular products waste management. It reduces the quality of materials when it (2016)
finally reaches the manufacturer making it difficult for some
products to be reprocessed again.
B4 Product design challenges Ensuring the right product quality, design, and optimum price for a Piyathanavong et al. (2019); Ghisellini et al. (2016)
to enable reuse & refurbished product is often difficult to ascertain.
remanufacturing
B5 Limitation of technology for Product tracking is vital for RL to ensure product quality and avoid Shah et al. (2019); Su et al. (2013); Shahbazi et al. (2016);
tracking recycled materials losses. Although new technologies have been developing, Artificial Rahimifard et al. (2009); Dadhich et al. (2015); Velis and Vrancken
and products Intelligence (AI) and Industry 4.0 technology are only in the nascent (2015); Ghisellini et al. (2016)
stage of deployment in RL.
B6 Lack of suitable indicators Performance measurement to measure the efficiency of the RL Meyer et al. (2017); Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Su et al.
and metrics to measure setup and product tracking system is lacking. (2013); Li and Olorunniwo (2008); Li and Yu (2011)
performance
B7 Lack of cleanliness and Collection points are often not maintained properly, making it Brklja
c et al. (2017)
difficulty in segregating difficult to segregate the waste, especially in the case of plastic
waste/returns at source waste.
B8 Lack of incentives and Low government incentives tend to demotivate companies from Shah et al. (2019); Su et al. (2013); Rogers and Tibben-Lembke,
government tax taking up the initiative to set up an RL network. 2001; Li and Olorunniwo (2008); Lau and Wang (2009);
exemptions Rahimifard et al. (2009); Sauve  et al. (2016); Geng and Doberstein
(2008)
B9 Unorganised recycling The current recycling industry mostly consisting of waste pickers (2017); Srivastava (2008)
industry and other players who are highly unorganised, the current RL setup
has tremendous room for improvement.
B10 Ineffective recycling Lack of official policies to implement and encourage the adoption of de Man and Friege (2016)
policies in the country RL activities.
B11 Want for the ‘thrill’ of Customers often prefer to buy a new product and avoid recycled Van Weelden et al. (2016); Zhijun and Nailing (2007); Dadhich
newness by consumers products even if it is of good quality. et al. (2015)
B12 Lack of reliable information Customers are unaware of the advantages of reusing products and Piyathanavong et al. (2019); Su et al. (2013); Liu and Bai (2014);
disseminated to the public often fail to support the RL initiatives adequately. Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar, 2016
about RL
B13 Cannibalisation of existing The existing product portfolio is affected due to circular products Brklja c et al. (2017); Tukker (2015)
products by new ‘circular’ which have a negative effect on revenue.
products
B14 Limited market availability There are limited opportunities for consumers to opt for Brkljac et al. (2017); Van Weelden et al. (2016)
of reuse products in general remanufactured products.
B15 Lack of standardisation for Owing to the highly complicated returns process, ensuring uniform Meyer et al. (2017); Van Weelden et al. (2016)
refurbished products product quality is often a challenge for the companies.
B16 Unpredictable demand for Forecasting the demand is an integral part of any company. It is Brkljac et al. (2017); Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Ravi and
return products often difficult to predict the volume when refurbished products are Shankar (2005); Lau and Wang (2009); Srivastava (2008)
involved, making the actual supply either in excess or falls short of
the real demand.
B17 Improper setup of collection Setting up of collection points to facilitate the necessary standards Ghisellini et al. (2016)
points and transportation of customer convenience to return the products is difficult to
achieve in terms of their cost and upkeep.
B18 Higher priority given to Companies tend to focus on their forward logistics setup and sales Bartl (2015)
other issues in the Supply of the regular product portfolio. They tend to neglect the reverse
Chain flow of products as it considered to be less attractive.
B19 Supply chain design Setting up and designing the RL network is difficult, considering Piyathanavong et al. (2019); Bartl (2015)
challenges for reuse & some companies often face an issue with their main forward
remanufacturing logistics network.
B20 Hesitation of Information Information sharing about products is critical to any company; they Brklja c et al. (2017); Li and Olorunniwo (2008); Lau and Wang
sharing and security risk often would not want third-party companies to set up their reverse (2009)
from partners logistics network.
B21 Lack of Economies of scale Low sales of returned products make it difficult to compensate for Shah et al. (2019); Meyer et al. (2017); Lau and Wang (2009)
the overall fixed costs, thus increasing the per-unit production cost
of returned products. The uncertainty in product returns affects
scalability in production, making companies unsure as to the extent
to which the RL model can be scaled.
B22 Lack of a business plan for Companies find it difficult to develop strategies to ensure the Scheinberg et al. (2016); Lewandowski (2016)
returns returned products are sold and ensure proper product portfolio
utilisation.
B23 Very high initial investment The initial cost of setting up collection points, machinery, and other Piyathanavong et al. (2019); Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Ravi
fixed expenses like connecting it to the current forward logistics and Shankar (2005); Lau and Wang (2009); Rahimifard et al.
setup is significant. These factors dissuade the company from (2009); Srivastava (2008)
incurring this additional cost in the short term.

5
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
studying the intertwined relations between these barriers to
highlight the pertinent influences amongst the barriers. Based on
these relationships, strategies are formulated to mitigate these
barriers and help foster the implementation of RL in India. Subse-
quently, the model will evaluate these strategies to gauge their
effects on salient barriers while concurrently considering the am-
biguity of subjective perception of the decision-makers. Based on
the analysis of the results, the paper aims to propose a sequenced
plan of executing these strategies to catalyse the implementation of
RL in line with the core competencies of organisations.
Many quantitative methods in literature do not measure the
effect of the barriers in a comprehensive manner and overlook the
interrelationships between factors. Most models only concentrate
on prioritising the barriers to be tackled (Lamba et al., 2019).;
however, the vision this methodology creates is of a clearer albeit
hierarchical structure that drives the decision-makers to resort to
linear activism that tends to disregard any feedback and may lead
to creating new problems in the process of solving prevailing ones.
Thus, applying the DEMATEL method highlights and illustrates the
interrelationships among the barriers to serve as a more inclusive
model to also determine the influential relationships. Moreover,
incorporating grey theory into the DEMATEL method ensures that
the evaluation model is comprehensive and robust even in uncer-
tain environments (Su et al., 2016).
By nature, the MCDM environment is a complex and subjective
decision-making process. Hence, there may be instances where the
interrelationships between barriers may lead to the inclusion of
synthetic effectiveness inherent in systems that are intertwined
and interaffected; these effects may be magnified by the subjective
perception of experts towards the strategies proposed, often
assuming the barriers to be equally weighted. Thus, there is a need
for non-additive methods, fuzzy measures, and fuzzy integrals to
aggregate the information from the experts to calculate the relative
impact of these strategies.
Agglomerative Hierarchical clustering, grey-DEMATEL, fuzzy
measure, fuzzy integral, and the intention of combining these
methods will be explained as follows.
3.1. Barrier reduction using clustering analysis
Since the barriers in existent complex problems are too large, to
determine the dependent or independent relation with others. The
total number of barriers are reduced, as it would be tedious and
enervating for respondents to analyse the comparative effect of
several barriers affecting a complex problem such as the imple-
mentation of RL. The initial set of barriers identified from literature
are grouped based on their similarity in the impact they have on the
implementation of RL practices, which in turn hinders the adoption
of CE principles along the supply chain. The study adopts the
clustering method of agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC)
for the purpose of barrier reduction. AHC is a data mining tech-
nique, for clustering analysis to build a hierarchy of clusters,
wherein the clustering algorithm takes a “bottom-up” approach of
hierarchical clustering depending on the measure of similarity,
each barrier starts as an individual cluster, and the clusters are
grouped as we move up the hierarchy. The clustering is done based
on a linkage criterion.
For the linkage criteria, Ward’s method is implemented; this
indicates which two clusters are to be grouped as we move up the
hierarchy. The sum of squared errors is used as the objective
function (equation (2)), and the grouping is done based on the
optimal value of this function, it is expressed mathematically in
equation (1). This method produces clusters such that it minimises
the total variance within a cluster; it chooses barriers incrementally
so that the increase in variance within a cluster is minimum after
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
grouping.
X n 
m X 2
SSEðiÞ ¼ Xij  Xj (1)
i j
where m is the number of barriers being evaluated, and n is the
total number of instances obtained for every barrier, Xj is the mean
of all instances for a barrier.
Dða; bÞ ¼ SSEða; bÞ  ðSSEðaÞ þ SSEðbÞÞ (2)
A small increase in SSE indicates that all barriers in the cluster
are close to the cluster mean and have a high degree of similarity.
The main procedure of AHC can be described in the following steps:
Step 1. Start with a collection C with n singleton clusters; each
cluster contains one barrier.
Take the next steps recursively to have n  1 clusters then n  2
clusters and so on, until all barriers are clustered into one group.
Step 2. Find a pair of clusters which are most similar from the
collection, that is, a pair for which DðCa ; Cb Þ is the least.
Step 3. Merge the clusters Ca and Cb to form a new cluster Caþb.
Step 4. Remove Ca and Cb from the collection, add Caþb to the
collection.
By following this algorithm, the barriers are grouped based on
their similarity to minimise the variance between barriers in the
cluster. The results are illustrated using a dendrogram for ease of
visualising the process of clustering. After consultations with ex-
perts, the barriers are grouped using the dendrogram as our
guiding tool to formulate a list of the most critical barriers to RL
such that the barriers cover all essential aspects of the problem.
This final list of 23 barriers in Table 1 will be analysed using grey-
DEMATEL to study their interrelationships.
3.2. Studying interrelationships between barriers using Grey-
DEMATEL
The DEMATEL method, developed by the Battelle Memorial
Institute of Geneva, is used to research and solve convoluted, dis-
organised and intertwined problems, to find solutions for the same
(Gabus and Fontela, 1972). DEMATEL being based on graph theory is
one of the better-suited methods that facilitate the in-depth un-
derstanding of a problem by illustrating the interrelationships be-
tween factors, providing profound insights. The structure of the
relations is presented as a digraph representing the influential re-
lationships while also highlighting the degree of the effects be-
tween barriers (Shao et al., 2016). Often in complex systems, it can
be difficult for decision-makers to determine specific goals as there
is always the possibility of interdependence between the factors
that make the system protean (Tseng, 2009). The barriers analysed
are evaluated as “cause” and “effect” groups coupled with the
digraph obtained, can be used to simplify complex systems which
will help discern critical relations and aid decision-makers identify
and understand crucial factors for further discussion to the
formulation of solutions (Kumar and Anbanandam, 2020; Chen and
Yang, 2019). Moreover, the DEMATEL methodology offers to mea-
sure the interrelationships between the barriers with greater detail
as compared to techniques such as Interpretive structural model-
ling (ISM)/Total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) which
offer only two levels (0e1), while also capturing two-way re-
lationships which are not considered in ISM/TISM.
Human opinions and attitudes are subjective and uncertain in
nature. Moreover, in expert opinion-based research, the responses
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
are collected using a linguistic assessment scale that is comprised of
equidistant values. Ergo, the perception of the experts has a critical
influence as the same linguistic term may have different meanings
to different individuals. Thus, there is a certain degree of subjec-
tivity and ambiguity in the assessment process; it would not be
suitable to evaluate individual opinions using crisp values in such
an environment (Liang et al., 2016). Taking all these factors into
consideration, the paper integrates the DEMATEL method with the
grey methodology to refine the quality of decision-making, in turn,
enabling the process of actualising strategic goals into effective
action. Another significant advantage of the grey-DEMATEL meth-
odology is that it gives satisfactory outcomes using relatively small
amounts of data especially in MCDM environments having a high
degree of variability (Moktadir et al., 2018; Bai and Sarkis, 2013).
The steps of the grey-DEMATEL methodology have been elab-
orated on in Appendix B (Ju-Long, 1982; Opricovic and Tzeng,
2003).
3.3. Aggregating the strategy effectiveness using fuzzy measure and
fuzzy integral
Based on the analysis of the barrier system, strategies are
formulated to mitigate the effect of the barriers. To gauge the
impact of these strategies, a third survey is taken where the
respondent is asked to score the strategy’s impact on each barrier
on a scale of 0e4. The responses are averaged over all respondents
using triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) which are elaborated upon
in Appendix C. The “effect” barriers have been excluded from the
list to study the impact of the strategies, as these barriers have no
pronounced impact on other barriers and most of their impact is a
result of the aggregation of the impact of the “cause” barriers.
Consequently, the impact of strategies on the “effect” barriers is
calculated by aggregating the effect of the strategies on the “cause”
barriers using fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral. The reason for
choosing to apply fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral is discussed,
and these concepts are introduced as follows.
Traditionally, researchers use quantitative techniques that are
additive in nature to aggregate information to evaluate the in-
terrelationships among the factors. The motivation to apply fuzzy
measure and fuzzy integral is based on the assumption that due to
Fig. 2. Synthetic effects between strategy effectiveness on barriers.
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
human perception’s subjective nature, there are synthetic effects
(illustrated in Fig. 2) that are captured due to the interrelationships
among the barriers. These synthetic effects, in turn, may lead to
overestimating the effect of the strategy due to “double counting”
the direct effect as well as the indirect effect of the strategy through
the impact it has on the “cause” barriers which is redundant. In the
proposed methodology, the paper steers away from the traditional
additive model to adopt non-additive techniques such that the
measure of a set and the measure of its complement does not add
up to give the measure of the entire space (Tzeng et al., 2007). As
there are complex interrelationships that exist between the bar-
riers, the effectiveness of a strategy on a barrier will also have an
indirect effect on all the barriers affected by the barrier being
evaluated. Therefore, there is a chance of synthetic effectiveness
being captured due to the direct and indirect effects, which may
inflate the strategy’s effectiveness score. To avoid misrepresenting
the effectiveness of a strategy, fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral
have been used to aggregate the impact of the strategies on the
barriers. The fuzzy measure, coupled with fuzzy integral, can cap-
ture any synergy that may exist if a strategy mitigates a barrier and
its “cause” and “effect” barriers, as well. Fuzzy measure and fuzzy
integrals are capable enough to analyse the process of human
evaluation and can help understand the decision-makers prefer-
ence structure. The definition and properties of the fuzzy measure
have been given in Appendix D (Sugeno, 1974).
Y
n
lþ1¼ ð1 þ lbi Þ (3)
i¼1
Let us assume, X represents the set of barriers affecting the
“effect” barriers or as all the barriers a strategy influences, while bi
are the weights of the barriers computed using the grey-DEMATEL
methodology that are part of the set X. Equation (3) is used to
calculate the value of l by substituting the weights of the barriers
that are part of X for a given strategy, to establish the combined
effect of the strategy on all barriers in X. The fuzzy integral is often
used in combination with the fuzzy measure for aggregating in-
formation. The Choquet integral of fuzzy measure has been used to
calculate the total effect of the strategy by combining its effect on
each individual barrier, as well as, capturing the synergy or the
redundancy that might exist in terms of the effect on all barriers in
the set X: The concept of fuzzy integral is presented in Appendix E
(Chen and Tzeng, 2001; Chiou and Tzeng, 2002). The effectiveness
of the strategies have been aggregated, which are then normalised
to give their relative contribution. Their measure of relative
importance and feasibility is used to analyse and sequence the
implementation of the strategies formulated.
Thus, the evaluation structure has been discussed and the mo-
tivations to integrate the quantitative techniques justified. The
subsequent section presents the application of the evaluation
structure and the methodology illustrated in Fig. 1.
4. Results and discussion
This section presents the results of the evaluation structure
introduced in Section 3. The section highlights insights and in-
ferences obtained from these results and explains how an organi-
sation can apply it according to its core competencies.
4.1. Grouping barriers using the dendrogram
For the first step of the analysis, 70 responses received for
Questionnaire 1 are analysed which are aimed at finding the ab-
solute impact of an exhaustive list of 49 barriers on the imple-
mentation of RL shown in Table 6 in Appendix A. Respondents
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241

include industry professionals from different industries and

0.142
0.132
0.159
0.125
0.138
0.126

0.124

0.119
0.129
0.117
0.119
0.131
0.081
0.084
0.074
0.045
0.040
0.044
0.108
0.112

0.101
0.106

0.075
masters’ students with prior industry work experience; familiar

B23
and experienced with reverse logistics.
According to the questionnaire reliability analysis results, the

0.123
0.120
0.139

0.115

0.109
0.115
0.113

0.112
0.043
0.046
0.051
0.033
0.044
0.039
0.103
0.105
0.104
0.103
0.097

0.105
0.101
0.077
0.092
Cronbach’s a value obtained is 0.915, which is higher than the

B22
threshold value of 0.8, which shows that the questionnaire reli-
ability is significant and reliable. Agglomerative Hierarchical

0.122
0.121
0.144

0.123

0.118

0.127
0.113

0.113
0.049
0.049
0.047
0.029
0.070
0.037
0.105
0.099
0.115
0.102
0.100
0.109

0.105
0.071

0.104
B21
Clustering is performed on this dataset to obtain the dendrogram
to aid experts in grouping the barriers. The dendrogram is illus-

0.104
0.100
0.110
0.082
0.091
0.094
0.027
0.024
0.031
0.020
0.022
0.024
0.080
0.076
0.090
0.073
0.066
0.088
0.079
0.049
0.082
0.089
0.076
trated in Fig. 7 in Appendix A. Using the dendrogram as the

B20
guiding tool, the experts’ group the barriers to form the final list of
23 barriers shown in Table 1.

0.118
0.124
0.139

0.123
0.111
0.115
0.110
0.053
0.055
0.070
0.044
0.032
0.030
0.099
0.098
0.112
0.096
0.100

0.073
0.106
0.109
0.107
0.102
B19
4.2. Analysis of barriers using grey-DEMATEL

0.124
0.125
0.137
0.116
0.115
0.106
0.046
0.048
0.054
0.035
0.053
0.035
0.090
0.093
0.108
0.096
0.098
0.075
0.096
0.092
0.113
0.115
0.100
B18
After grouping the barriers to obtain a final list of 23 barriers,
Grey-DEMATEL is used to analyse the relationship among the

0.123
0.120
0.131

0.123
finalised barriers based on the survey input of experts in Ques-

0.098
0.111
0.105
0.046
0.059
0.061
0.043
0.028
0.032
0.094
0.092
0.097
0.098
0.061

0.100
0.091
0.090
0.116
0.097
B17
tionnaire 2. The interrelationships between the final barriers are
studied along with the degree of their influence amongst them-

0.121
0.144

0.125

0.118

0.121
0.115

0.107

0.116
0.043
0.036
0.042
0.027
0.066
0.054
0.106
0.108

0.065
0.099
0.114
0.104
0.104
0.102

0.092
selves. This sub-section looks at the results of the Grey-DEMATEL

B16
analysis conducted amongst 12 respondents.
The insights provided by the grey-DEMATEL analysis are

0.130
0.109
0.109

0.097
0.107
0.099
0.035
0.031
0.036
0.025
0.029
0.028
0.088
0.081
0.066
0.095
0.086
0.109
0.097
0.087
0.098
0.103
0.091
B15
showcased in Table 2, wherein each element of the matrix quan-
tifies the effect the barriers have on each other. Table 2 shows the
TRM; the values above the identified threshold are shown in bold

0.128
0.108
0.109

0.099
0.106
0.106
0.034
0.033
0.036
0.024
0.090
0.058
0.097
0.063
0.113
0.087
0.088
0.109
0.099
0.088
0.100
0.107
0.091
letters. These values will help the decision-makers in choosing the B14
significant interrelationships between barriers. This would mean, 0.098
0.091
0.102
0.088
0.082
0.079
0.027
0.024
0.028
0.017
0.049
0.047
0.050
0.090
0.092
0.070
0.066
0.086
0.075
0.069
0.080
0.089
0.071
using the table, decision-makers can identify the top barriers that
B13

influence a barrier. Practically, this would suggest, the organisa-

tion can choose which barriers need to be targeted and which
0.099
0.105
0.114
0.084
0.083
0.082
0.027
0.026
0.033
0.018
0.027
0.020
0.078
0.076
0.087
0.074
0.079
0.088
0.082
0.076
0.081
0.094
0.082
barriers will create a ‘chain’ of effects on each other. Each column
B12

of the TRM in Table 2 can also be visualised as a digraph to

graphically encapsulate all the barriers that directly or indirectly
0.079
0.083
0.106
0.084
0.085
0.078
0.025
0.022
0.026
0.015
0.021
0.052
0.078
0.086
0.072
0.060
0.060
0.081
0.071
0.057
0.079
0.084
0.069
B11

influence a barrier. For example, all the barriers that influence B9

(Unorganised recycling industry) have been illustrated in Fig. 3.
0.119
0.129
0.138

0.118
0.100
0.114
0.116
0.056
0.066
0.069
0.025
0.031
0.028
0.097
0.103
0.112
0.092
0.097
0.113
0.111
0.098

0.115
0.095
The row sum and column sum of the TRM are analysed to study
B10

their interrelationships, by adding the row sum and the column

sum of corresponding barriers, that is when i ¼ j. The sum
0.139
0.136
0.149

0.125
0.119

0.117
0.128

0.117
0.133

0.123
0.126
0.110

0.069
0.077
0.041
0.086
0.033
0.042
0.101

0.100

0.112
0.104

0.103
ðRi þ Dj Þ signifies the importance of that barrier, ðRi þ Dj Þ essen-
B9

tially signifies the total effect, the receiving as well as the exerting
effect of the barrier on the system. Similarly, the difference
0.118
0.105
0.105

0.095
0.107
0.102
0.036
0.029
0.058
0.059
0.034
0.025
0.081
0.091
0.096
0.080
0.084
0.111
0.100
0.083
0.098
0.101
0.082
ðRi Dj Þ signifies the overarching contextual relation of that bar-
B8

rier compared to all barriers in the system. If ðRi Dj Þ is positive for
a barrier it is classified as a “cause” barrier, while if ðRi Dj Þ is
0.122
0.127
0.108

0.098
0.109
0.098
0.030
0.045
0.071
0.041
0.025
0.051
0.094
0.091
0.090
0.072
0.104
0.106
0.091
0.077
0.093
0.108
0.087
B7

negative for a barrier it is classified as an “effect” barrier. Thus, if

ðRi Dj Þ is positive then the barrier has a net cause in propping up
0.104
0.116
0.107
0.094
0.097
0.059
0.031
0.026
0.033
0.018
0.023
0.022
0.085
0.081
0.102
0.075
0.077
0.094
0.086
0.076
0.085
0.097
0.069

other barriers, while if ðRi Dj Þ is negative the barrier relies on the
B6

state of the causing barriers. These measures are given in Table 3,

along with their contextual relation and weights. To analyse the
0.127
0.121
0.107

0.099
0.069
0.103
0.039
0.046
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.025
0.085
0.089
0.108
0.088
0.087
0.100
0.096
0.091
0.092
0.102
0.088

influence and the relation of each barrier in tandem, both mea-

B5

sures are encapsulated in the form of a grid, as illustrated in Fig. 4.

In Fig. 4, the ðRi þ Dj Þ values are plotted on the horizontal axis
0.125
0.125
0.133
0.069
0.111
0.108
0.051
0.035
0.038
0.021
0.029
0.029
0.099
0.098
0.114
0.092
0.086
0.114
0.108
0.101
0.093
0.115
0.089

which represents the total effect while the ðRi Dj Þ values are
B4

plotted on the vertical axis to incorporate the contextual relations

0.119
0.127
0.090
0.109
0.111
0.110
0.075
0.038
0.051
0.030
0.031
0.040
0.091
0.097
0.106
0.109
0.102
0.114
0.111
0.092
0.099
0.114
0.101

of the barriers.
B3

The diagram of barriers in Fig. 4 shall be analysed as follows.

The graph is to be divided into four regions:
Total relationship matrix.

0.117
0.067
0.107
0.100
0.092
0.092
0.031
0.030
0.038
0.022
0.025
0.033
0.086
0.083
0.091
0.079
0.080
0.090
0.090
0.078
0.080
0.099
0.087
B2

Region 1- This region constitutes barriers that have a minimal

effect on other barriers and have low prominence.
0.121
0.138

0.120
0.118
0.083

0.109
0.112
0.112
0.051
0.061
0.064
0.042
0.051
0.033
0.106
0.103
0.116
0.096
0.084

0.106
0.096
0.112
0.104

Region 2- This region constitutes barriers that have a trivial

B1

impact on other barriers.

Table 2

Region 3- This region constitutes barriers having a high degree

B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9

of prominence and driving other barriers. Decision-makers

8
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241

Fig. 3. An example of a barrier digraph (B9 Unorganised recycling industry).

Table 3
Region 4- This region constitutes barriers with high promi-

Sum of influences given and received for each barrier0. nence, but other barriers drive these barriers. The barriers
Barriers Row sum Column RþD R-D Relation Weight driving the factors in this region needs to be addressed imme-
R sum diately. Region 3 and 4 are essential areas to focus on for the
D decision-makers.
B1 2.593 2.139 4.731 0.454 Cause 0.057832
B2 2.636 1.698 4.333 0.938 Cause 0.058795 The inferences from Fig. 4 are as follows:
B3 2.909 2.068 4.977 0.841 Cause 0.064897
B4 2.300 1.984 4.284 0.316 Cause 0.05131
B5 2.443 1.863 4.307 0.580 Cause 0.054496
Fifteen barriers fall in cause group and eight in the effect group.
B6 2.344 1.660 4.004 0.684 Cause 0.052289 Among the causal group, B2> B3> B6> B5> B13>
B7 1.008 1.939 2.947 0.932 Effect 0.022478 B15 > B20 > B1>B22 > B18 > B4>B14 > B19 > B21 > B17. This
B8 0.989 1.877 2.866 0.888 Effect 0.022058 order implies the lack of relevant training on RL for stakeholders
B9 1.096 2.391 3.487 1.296 Effect 0.024439
B10 0.749 2.141 2.891 1.392 Effect 0.016713
(B2) is the most prominent barrier to the realisation of CE
B11 0.877 1.471 2.348 0.594 Effect 0.019565 practices in India, as it is driving many other barriers. This is due
B12 0.828 1.613 2.441 0.785 Effect 0.018472 to the interaction of external, organisational, and individual
B13 2.100 1.569 3.669 0.530 Cause 0.046838 
factors (Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007). The various stakeholders may
B14 2.130 1.975 4.105 0.155 Cause 0.047518
lack training on how to handle the returned products. This is due
B15 2.360 1.834 4.194 0.526 Cause 0.052645
B16 2.003 2.128 4.131 0.125 Effect 0.044681 to the lack of knowledge about the requisite technology, opti-
B17 2.024 2.015 4.039 0.009 Cause 0.045157 misation practices or even operations. The second most prom-
B18 2.428 2.070 4.499 0.358 Cause 0.05417 inent barrier is the difficulty in managing the material quality of
B19 2.261 2.124 4.385 0.137 Cause 0.050437 circular products (B3). This is because of the unpredictability in
B20 2.053 1.576 3.629 0.477 Cause 0.045802
B21 2.203 2.175 4.377 0.028 Cause 0.049132
the volume of returns, their cleanliness, and difficulty in
B22 2.449 2.087 4.537 0.362 Cause 0.054639 accessing the collections points amongst other reasons.
B23 2.046 2.431 4.476 0.385 Effect 0.045638
The effect group consists of eight inhibitors: B10, B9, B7, B8, B12,
B11, B23, B16 in decreasing order of their absolute value (more
negative to less negative). The ineffective recycling policies in
the country (B10) is the most influenced factor, followed by the
unorganised nature of the RL industry (B9).
should target the barriers present in Region 3 for achieving
The top five barriers with the highest values in the prominence
higher efficiency. column (R þ D) are B3>B1>B22 > B18 > B23. This means that

9
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
Fig. 4. Cause and effect diagram of barriers.
difficulty in managing material quality of circular products is the
most prominent barrier. As per the experts, this could be
because of the reduced quality of the material reaching the
remanufacturer or recycling company is so low that it could not
serve as raw material for the next cycle. Many experts believe
that the internal management of the company and their lack of
responsibility (B1) is also a cause for the industry remaining
unorganised and the company not being able to reach their RL
goals. This means that individual manager’s factors and organ-
isational factors might influence the decision to execute RL

programs in companies (Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007).

Very high initial investment (B23) and Unorganised recycling
industry (B9) have the most significant number of barriers
affecting them (12 and 11, respectively).
4.3. Strategy formulation and measuring its effects
Based on the insights gained by analysing barriers in section 4.2,
a list of strategies was identified as shown in Table 4, to mitigate the
barriers for an organisation in their RL circular supply chain.
To identify the strategies which could be useful, an extensive
literature review was conducted by consulting with industry pro-
fessionals for insights to formulate ten main strategies to counter
the barriers based on the relations identified in the results of the
grey-DEMATEL analysis. The identified strategies were mapped to
the barriers that they are effective in mitigating. Each strategy’s
effect is aggregated using Fuzzy measure and Fuzzy Integral to
compare each strategy’s overall effect.
A final survey was conducted to study customers’ and decision-
makers’ perceptions of the formulated strategies’ effectiveness and
feasibility. The survey reinforced and aided the final mapping of the
ten strategies to the 23 barriers by evaluating their feasibility and
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
relative importance using the planning matrix.
The achievability of the strategies is indicated by the value of
their relative contribution measured by external stakeholders. The
achievability of strategies is computed by aggregating their effect
on strategies using fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral, which
concurrently also considers the weights of the barriers it mitigates.
The feasibility of executing these strategies is to be measured by the
corresponding organisation. The feasibility measure is aggregated
using Triangular Fuzzy Numbers (TFNs); the method of aggregation
is elaborated in Appendix C.
As shown in Fig. 5, a planning matrix is used to categorise the
ten strategies into four different zones based on their feasibility and
relative contribution values. The four zones in the planning matrix
can be used as strategic maps. The mean of measures is commonly
used to divide the matrix into these zones in strategic planning.

Priority zone: High feasibility and high contribution: These
strategies need significant attention and excellent resource
allocation from management.

Long term zone: Low feasibility and high contribution:
Consider the possibility of adding/transferring more resources
for these strategies in the long term from that allocated to attain
contingency zone strategies.

Contingency zone: High feasibility and low contribution: These
strategies are attainable with current resources and have a
relatively minimal impact on the barriers than strategies in the
priority and long term zone.

Non-Priority: Low feasibility and low contribution: These
strategies should be considered last for resource allocation.
Using the values obtained from the survey, a threshold for the
feasibility and relative contributions can be found out. A scatter plot
can be drawn using Relative contribution on the Y-axis, and
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241

Table 4
Description of the ten strategies identified.

S.No. Proposed Strategies Description

S1 Product design and Superior product design and quality standards can translate to increased customer loyalty by researching and incorporating user
quality preferences. Better designs translate to longer life, higher reusability, and enables a second life cycle for the EOL products. Feeding forward
logistics with insights from the RL processes increases quick response, driving research and development in new directions. To reduce
increased spending on RL, quality controls should be in place at the earliest stages possible, so that there are fewer product recalls or returns.
Product standardisation to ensure the volume of returns can also be considered across multiple product lines. Better data analytics and
advanced technology will help designing products as per the customer needs (Dowlatshahi, 2010).
S2 Role of government The government can introduce policies to promote CE, RL as part of their CSR activities which are mandatory for companies to promote
cleaner production and environment-friendly initiatives. Governments can incentivise the reuse of products by consumers boosting
sustainability. Tax rebate should be extended for remanufactured goods or tax products that cannot be remanufactured will encourage
organisations to adopt CE friendly product designs (Bernon et al., 2018).
S3 Educating top Significant changes are driven by the top-down approach in most industries; adopting this becomes essential to spread awareness among
management top management. To have them on board to understand the competitive advantages of implementing RL, based on responsible business
practices, working on the triple bottom line, building sustainability in business, better network depth, and gaining invaluable trust among
consumers, rather than just commercial considerations driving business strategies. RL and CE is an essential step towards a cleaner and

greener business practice (Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007).
S4 Selective Reverse To make RL economically attractive and garner the highest returns from remanufactured products, the market demand must be monitored.
Logistics The supply is adjusted to synchronise the rate of collection rates, return timings, and reusability rates. Hence, it is crucial to carefully select
the right product portfolio for which RL should be implemented. Introducing RL for all the products might not be economically viable and
would hamper the entire setup. A strategy should be developed involving the Sales & Marketing team to evaluate the possibility of leasing
out products rather than selling them, making the product ‘circular’. Companies must identify such products in their product portfolio
(Dowlatshahi, 2010; Bernon et al., 2018).
S5 Consumer education Customers should be fully aware of the refurbished products’ efficiency, which might be lower than the new products and should be priced
accordingly. The consumer should be educated, introducing awareness programmes, advertisements to educate people about being
sensitive towards the environment to change their attitude towards remanufactured products (Bernon et al., 2018).
S6 Outsourcing Outsourcing can help integrate recycling and remanufacturing tasks to a 3 PL provider and provide a suitable production strategy to
maximise profits for the manufacturer and the supply chain system. Identify sufficient conditions on the cost parameters and the return
fraction that guarantee the existence of an optimal threshold policy for outsourcing. To get this support, put together a financial model
showing asset recovery versus asset write-off (Chiu et al., 2011).
S7 Leagile methods A hybrid mix between lean and agile strategies should be adopted. The core of lean lies in cost optimisation and the agile focus on showing a
swift response to the demand volatility. This method is mostly applicable in transportation (backhauling) to enable better planning of
decoupling points (Banomyong et al., 2008).
S8 Network utilisation Utilise the existing networks to bring down the cost of collection, such as existing municipal curbside collection services, e-commerce
delivery services, food delivery services, and producers and retailers’ sales network. This process also includes incentivising informal
collectors and ensure proper utilisation of collection points. Setting up the location of the test and grade function in the network is very
important for the incoming goods flows. It more than often boils down to a trade-off between transportation and investment costs at this
step. (Tuzkaya et al. (2011)).
S9 Use of technology Develop and deploy software that optimises transportation planning, achieving reduced material handling, and enabling real-time
information sharing to improve warehousing efficiency. These result in better space utilisation of storage facilities and reduced potential
damage to returned goods. Industry 4.0 enabled best in class RL processes with increased visibility at the stores, and SKU levels help
eliminate waste and reduce the cost of operations. SaaS solutions that remove the guesswork from returned products can help make
decisions quickly (Bernon and Cullen, 2007).
S10 Efficient warehousing Virgin warehousing operations and remanufactured warehousing operations will have very different costs associated with them which
needs to be addressed while making this business decision. These differences are crucial to be factored in for an accurate determination of
remanufactured costs, and the eventual prices decided on. A third-party warehousing solution can also be favoured, considering a higher
percentage of error-free deliveries are observed in outsourced warehouse operations. They are more flexible than in-house warehousing
operations. From RFID scanners to smart management systems, Industry 4.0 brings many technologies into the warehouse, making
the warehouse a mini-ecosystem (Dowlatshahi, 2012).

feasibility expressed as a percentage on the X-axis. The relative
contribution and feasibility threshold values are found to be 0.095
and 0.645 (64.5%). These are indicated on the scatter plot as hori-
zontal and vertical lines, respectively, as shown in Fig. 5.
The following observations can be made from Fig. 5:

The difference in the relative contribution of the combinations
(S5, S8), (S5, S4), (S5, S3), (S10, S4), (S10, S3), (S9, S4), (S9, S3),
(S6, S4), (S6, S3), (S7, S2) (10 groups) is greater than their dif-
ference in the feasibility. The companies should pay more
attention to the strategies with high relative contributions than
those with higher relative feasibility. This difference would also
tell the combinations of strategies that could be used to mitigate
similar barriers.

The strategies are also mapped to the barriers that they are most
likely to mitigate through the Fuzzy measure and Fuzzy integral
methods to get the effect of strategies on barriers considered
independently. Table 5 shows this mapping.
Threshold value: 0.065 The values highlighted represent values
greater than the threshold value.
The strategy-barrier map in Table 5 could be comprehended in
two ways:

For a strategy, decision-makers could point out the barriers that
could be mitigated by implementing that strategy. Only those
barriers are mapped, with values above the threshold value of
0.065 (geometric mean). The level of implementation would be
based on the planning matrix described earlier. The degree to
which the barriers get mitigated would depend on the other
influencing barriers, the significance of their interrelationship.
The decision-maker would try to apply a minimum number of
strategies to mitigate the maximum number of barriers.

For a barrier, decision-makers can evaluate which strategies can
be applied that would mitigate this barrier. There could be
multiple strategies that would help mitigate a barrier. The
organisation can choose and prioritise strategies that are
feasible for them with higher contribution values (as per the
planning matrix). However, only barriers classified as causal

11
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241

Fig. 5. Four planning zones of planned strategies.

Table 5
Strategy e Barrier map.

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

B1 0.069 0.079 0.080 0.063 0.077 0.076 0.066 0.076 0.063 0.062
B2 0.070 0.063 0.067 0.077 0.062 0.055 0.070 0.070 0.064 0.077
B3 0.077 0.080 0.072 0.078 0.062 0.079 0.067 0.073 0.086 0.069
B4 0.059 0.062 0.059 0.059 0.052 0.056 0.065 0.067 0.061 0.056
B5 0.068 0.062 0.065 0.071 0.070 0.057 0.066 0.056 0.058 0.067
B6 0.056 0.058 0.062 0.065 0.072 0.051 0.060 0.070 0.059 0.074
B7 0.015 0.014 0.020 0.015 0.020 0.019 0.019 0.020 0.017 0.017
B8 0.021 0.014 0.019 0.020 0.020 0.018 0.021 0.020 0.017 0.023
B9 0.019 0.021 0.019 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.019 0.020 0.020 0.019
B10 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.013 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.013
B14 0.059 0.061 0.057 0.051 0.044 0.066 0.061 0.058 0.058 0.066
B15 0.066 0.062 0.055 0.062 0.059 0.071 0.067 0.063 0.061 0.061
B16 0.035 0.032 0.031 0.034 0.037 0.036 0.033 0.037 0.036 0.035
B17 0.056 0.051 0.051 0.057 0.053 0.053 0.050 0.047 0.048 0.049
B18 0.061 0.078 0.071 0.064 0.066 0.078 0.070 0.069 0.069 0.060
B19 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.062 0.061 0.056 0.054 0.064 0.061 0.057
B20 0.031 0.029 0.044 0.030 0.036 0.040 0.044 0.033 0.048 0.032
B21 0.063 0.056 0.052 0.058 0.064 0.063 0.048 0.049 0.056 0.063
B22 0.065 0.069 0.064 0.064 0.074 0.054 0.067 0.058 0.068 0.061
B23 0.037 0.037 0.039 0.037 0.037 0.038 0.038 0.037 0.038 0.037

groups would be included here as others are the effects of these
barriers.
We present the implications of the inferences made from these
results and how the evaluation structure developed earlier con-
tributes to the literature in the next section.
5. Discussions
This section underscores the implications of the inferences and
the insights obtained as a result of the analysis of barriers and the
strategies developed to mitigate them. The strategies that have
been identified are applicable to the Indian context and can be
implemented based on the company’s goals. Most of the strategies
are general in nature and can be applied to multiple sectors. It is

12
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
vital for managers to understand the barriers and the corre-
sponding strategies that need to be implemented in their industry.
In Fig. 6, it is showcased as to how companies can go about using
this study and practically implement the recommended strategies
in their company. Organisations can use relevant portions of the
framework shown in Fig. 6 for the decision-making process.
5.1. Managerial implications
This section shows how managers can implement the strategies
that have been identified in this study while also highlighting the
Fig. 6. Decision-making framework.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
crucial interrelationships identified in the results section. These are
the more practical aspects and when combined with the theoretical
concepts will help managers set up their RL network:
The reason Managing material quality of circular products (B3)
is the most prominent barrier can be attributed to the rise of
intricate product design and the increasing number of manufac-
turers resorting to customisations with an aim to making their
product unique, to contribute to customers specific requirements
(Kang and Hong, 2010). These pose a challenge to recyclers and
remanufacturers, which explains the driving force (B3) has on
Product design challenges to enable reuse and remanufacturing
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
(B4). The shortcomings in managing quality have propped up the
lack of metrics to measure performance (B6) and lack of stand-
ardisation of refurbished products (B15), leading to an increased
variety in product quality in the market for refurbished products.
These barriers give rise to Unpredictable demand for returned
products (B16), as consumers have a high perception of risk and a
lower perception of quality which leads to a lower willingness to
pay (WTP) which in turn forces the companies to hold back refur-
bished products as the availability of these products is uncertain.
This dynamic is identified by analysing Want for thrill of newness
by consumers (B11) and Limited market availability of reused
products (B14). These factors lead to Lack of Economies of Scale
(B21) and Lack of initiatives taken by top management (B1) which
can be explained by limited adoption of Circular business models
(Kok et al., 2013), short-term goals that dominate corporate
governance (Van Eijk, 2015) and the high upfront costs to imple-
ment RL (B23). This nexus of barriers can be tackled by imple-
menting strategies like Educating top management (S3), Selective
reverse logistics (S4) and Consumer education (S5) in tandem, as
shown in Fig. 5 with all these strategies having a high degree of
importance.
Limitation of technology to track recycled materials and prod-
ucts (B5) is one of the significant barriers for reverse logistics
implementation, in addition to barriers like Lack of relevant
training (B2) and Lack of suitable indicators (B6) affect the supply
chain design as well as the predictability of the returned products
as shown in our cause-effect mapping. To rectify this, managers can
use the latest technology to improve efficiency as highlighted by
the strategy Use of Technology (S9).
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Industry 4.0 are the next big op-
portunities to capitalise on, as various studies have shown that they
can significantly improve RL, the only central pain point being
network design. Genetic Algorithm (GA) is one of the forms of AI
that can solve the issue of network design issue by an electronic
retailer handling consumer returns (Xing et al., 2010). The
computational experimentation studies the trade-offs between the
inventory carrying and holding costs and the location costs and
customer service (Dutta and Chakraborty, 2010). There are also
implementable SaaS solutions that reduce the stochasticity of
returned products and help to decide efficiently whether the de-
cision is to refurbish, reroute, liquidate, or scrap. These solutions
can automate returns sorting and make it faster, which also helps
keep more goods out of landfills and thereby promoting the Cleaner
Production concept. Another concept of Industry 4.0 in RL is Asset
Tracking Efficiencies, which uses GPS and RFID to track products
coming back from the consumers and utilises IoT sensors to get
information on the returned product. When combined with
blockchain, this concept improves security and provides trans-
parency in the entire reverse supply chain. Retailers can track
returns with the help of product line, manufacturer, store, date of
sale and consumer data. Other benefits of Industry 4.0 include
enhanced responsiveness, forecasting, connected fleets, perfor-
mance management system (Luthra et al., 2020), revenue oppor-
tunities and recycling (Shah et al., 2019).
Another aspect is the importance of network utilisation to
reduce costs, as mentioned in Network Utilisation (S8). As indicated
by our study, Improper setup of collection points and trans-
portation (B17) is one of the key barriers, resulting in higher costs
for managing the product returns. To solve this, setting up collec-
tion points is important (Ripanti et al., 2016). The efficiency in
designing the network of collection points helps in reducing the
overall costs involved. Testing collected products early in the
network will reduce the total shipment distance since graded
products can be directly sent to the corresponding recovery stage.
Individual collection can provide opportunities for separating
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
recoverable items from scrap right at the source, thereby reducing
the need for sorting later in the channel (Fleischmann, 2003). Other
ways to reduce costs is to coordinate with third-party organisations
and utilise their expertise in this field. These organisations will also
help in reducing unnecessary costs for the initial setup.
The planning matrix identified in this paper gives an indicative
idea of how companies should go about implementing each strat-
egy. Companies can implement the above strategies to promote a
CE, a key factor in sustainable production and consumption.
6. Conclusion and future work
This study’s objective was to understand and develop a practical
approach to overcoming all the relevant RL implementation bar-
riers in the Indian context, helping companies efficiently imple-
ment the reverse supply chain. A framework is developed to
achieve the above objective where the barriers were identified and
prioritised based on literature review and internal discussion on
company revenue, cost, and customer base insights.
This study has several key contributions to the field of RL and
Circular supply chain, which are unique apart from the strategies
that have been suggested. The development of strategies based on
their effectiveness helps managers have a practical outlook on how
they can go ahead using this study to implement the strategies in
their company. Consumer education, network utilisation and effi-
cient warehousing are the top priority strategies that companies
should pursue. Moreover, developing a framework that managers
can use to review their current status and then go ahead, imple-
menting the strategies suggested in this study is a key contribution.
Outsourcing the tasks of remanufacturing and recycling to an
integrated third-party logistics provider, aids in selecting a pro-
duction strategy that will maximise profits for the manufacturer
and the supply chain system, improve the bottom lines for the
company, and encourage environmentally-friendly practices to
minimise energy consumption. Similarly, Industry 4.0 enabled RL
processes with increased sophistication at the store level will help
regulate and track the nodes of the supply chain better, ensuring
delays are minimised, and the circular supply chain becomes more
responsive than before. It is established that there is a close relation
between CE implementation and the overall shift towards envi-
ronmental sustainability and how this impacts not only the oper-
ational efficiency of the company but also helps in improving its
overall brand value.
The present research is conducted thoroughly and is validated
by industry experts. There are some limitations with our study
which leaves some scope for future researchers to explore. The
research has been conducted in the context of Indian companies,
and hence generalisation of the results may not be possible. Future
works may study and compare the contexts of different environ-
ments for RL implementation to highlight the role they play. The
analysis of the feasibility of strategies proposed could be done in
detail, illustrating the level of technology, labour, and cost as major
resources. Future researchers would bring in new perspectives by
involving some government departments to gain a more holistic
view of the barriers and strategies on policy. The method for
evaluating these measures can be explored by combining other
quantitative and qualitative models to capture the practical aspects
in greater detail. Some of the new strategies that can be imple-
mented need further study, and it must be a coordinated effort by
both the researchers and companies to implement them. Research
has been going on in network optimisation and Artificial Intelli-
gence (AI), which shows excellent prospects. It is vital for com-
panies to understand each strategy’s implication and find that
strategy that has maximum impact on their company.
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pankaj Dutta: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft,
Methodology, Supervision, Investigation, Visualization, Writing -
review & editing, Validation. Sahil Talaulikar: Writing - original
draft, Methodology, Diagram and flowchart preparation, Writing -
review & editing, Validation. Vinay Xavier: Writing - original draft,
Methodology, Diagram and flowchart preparation, Writing - review
& editing, Validation. Shubham Kapoor: Writing - original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126241.
References

Alvarez-Gil, M.J., Berrone, P., Husillos, F.J., Lado, N., 2007. Reverse logistics, stake-
holders’ influence, organisational slack, and managers’ posture. J. Bus. Res. 60
(5), 463e473.
Ali, S.M., Arafin, A., Moktadir, M.A., Rahman, T., Zahan, N., 2018. Barriers to reverse
logistics in the computer supply chain using interpretive structural model.
Global J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 19 (1), 53e68.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Machado, V.C., 2011. The influence of green practices on
supply chain performance: a case study approach. Transport. Res. E Logist.
Transport. Rev. 47 (6), 850e871.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2013. A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business pro-
cess management critical success factors. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 146 (1), 281e292.
Banomyong, R., Veerakachen, V., Supatn, N., 2008. Implementing leagility in reverse
logistics channels. Int. J. Logist.: Research and Applications 11 (1), 31e47.
Bartl, A., 2015. Withdrawal of the Circular Economy Package: A Wasted Opportunity
or a New Challenge?.
Beiler, B.C., de Arruda Igna cio, P.S., Júnior, A.C.P., Anholon, R., Rampasso, I.S., 2020.
Reverse logistics system analysis of a Brazilian beverage company: an explor-
atory study. J. Clean. Prod. 274, 122624.
Bernon, M., Tjahjono, B., Ripanti, E.F., 2018. Aligning retail reverse logistics practice
with circular economy values: an exploratory framework. Prod. Plann. Contr. 29
(6), 483e497.
Bernon, M., Cullen, J., 2007. An integrated approach to managing reverse logistics.
Int. J. Logist.: research and applications 10 (1), 41e56.
Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., Saccani, N., 2019. Challenges in supply chain redesign for
the Circular Economy: a literature review and a multiple case study. Int. J. Prod.
Res. 57 (23), 7395e7422.
Brkljac, N., Milisavljevi c, S., Deli  
c, M., Beker, I., Sevic, 2017. D. Reverse Logistics
Implementation Barriers in Organisations on the Territory of AP Vojvodina.
Budak, A., 2020. Sustainable reverse logistics optimisation with triple bottom line
approach: an integration of disassembly line balancing. J. Clean. Prod. 122475.
Büyüko €zkan, G., Çifçi, G., 2012. A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Syst.
Appl. 39 (3), 3000e3011.
Chen, H.C., Yang, C.H., 2019. Applying a multiple criteria decision-making approach
to establishing green marketing audit criteria. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 256e265.
Chen, Y.W., Tzeng, G.H., 2001. Using fuzzy integral for evaluating subjectively
perceived travel costs in a traffic assignment model. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130 (3),
653e664.
Chiou, H.K., Tzeng, G.H., 2002. Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making approach
for industrial green engineering. Environ. Manag. 30 (6), 816e830.
Chiu, Y., Lin, P.C., Hsu, H.H., 2011. Considering third-party logistics providers in
reverse logistics. J. Chin. Inst. Ind. Eng. 28 (7), 512e520.
Corre ^a, H.L., Xavier, L.H., 2013. Concepts, design and implementation of Reverse
Logistics Systems for sustainable supply chains in Brazil. Journal of Operations
and Supply Chain Management (JOSCM) 6 (1), 1e25.
Dadhich, P., Genovese, A., Kumar, N., Acquaye, A., 2015. Developing sustainable
supply chains in the UK construction industry: a case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
164, 271e284.
Das, D., Dutta, P., 2012. A simulation study of bullwhip effect in a closed-loop supply
chain with fuzzy demand and fuzzy collection rate under possibility constraints.
Int. J. Ind. Manuf. Eng. 6 (4), 466e473.
Das, D., Dutta, P., 2015. Design and analysis of a closed-loop supply chain in pres-
ence of promotional offer. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53 (1), 141e165.
de Man, R., Friege, H., 2016. Circular Economy: European Policy on Shaky Ground.
Dominguez, R., Ponte, B., Cannella, S., Framinan, J.M., 2019. On the dynamics of
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
closed-loop supply chains with capacity constraints. Comput. Ind. Eng. 128,
91e103.
Dowlatshahi, S.H.A.D., 2010. A cost-benefit analysis for the design and imple-
mentation of reverse logistics systems: case studies approach. Int. J. Prod. Res.
48 (5), 1361e1380.
Dowlatshahi, S., 2012. A framework for the role of warehousing in reverse logistics.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (5), 1265e1277.
Dutta, P., Chakraborty, D., 2010. Incorporating one-way substitution policy into the
newsboy problem with imprecise customer demand. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200 (1),
99e110.
Dutta, P., Das, D., Schultmann, F., Fro €hling, M., 2016. Design and planning of a
closed-loop supply chain with three way recovery and buy-back offer. J. Clean.
Prod. 135, 604e619.
Dutta, P., Mishra, A., Khandelwal, S., Katthawala, I., 2020. A multiobjective optimi-
sation model for sustainable reverse logistics in Indian E-commerce market.
J. Clean. Prod. 249, 119348.
Eltayeb, T.K., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T., 2011. Green supply chain initiatives among
certified companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: investigating
the outcomes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (5), 495e506.
Fleischmann, M., 2003. Reverse Logistics Network Structures and Design.
Gabus, A., Fontela, E., 1972. World Problems, an Invitation to Further Thought
within the Framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva,
Switzerland, pp. 1e8.
Geng, Y., Doberstein, B., 2008. Developing the circular economy in China: challenges
and opportunities for achieving’leapfrog development’. Int. J. Sustain. Dev.
World Ecol. 15 (3), 231e239.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the ex-
pected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic sys-
tems. J. Clean. Prod. 114, 11e32.
Govindan, K., Hasanagic, M., 2018. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and
practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res.
56 (1e2), 278e311.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2018. Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain of Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)/E-waste: a comprehensive litera-
ture review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 137, 48e75.
Jindal, A., Sangwan, K.S., 2011. Development of an interpretive structural model of
barriers to reverse logistics implementation in Indian industry. In: Glocalized
Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
pp. 448e453.
Ju-Long, D., 1982. Control problems of grey systems. Syst. Contr. Lett. 1 (5),
288e294.
Kang, C., Hong, Y.S., 2010, January. Dynamic disassembly planning for remanu-
facturing of multiple types of products. In: International Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Confer-
ence, vol. 44144, pp. 385e394.
Kaviani, M.A., Tavana, M., Kumar, A., Michnik, J., Niknam, R., de Campos, E.A.R.,
2020. An integrated framework for evaluating the barriers to successful
implementation of reverse logistics in the automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod.
272, 122714.
Kiron, D., Unruh, G., Reeves, M., Kruschwitz, N., Rubel, H., ZumFelde, A.M., 2017.
Corporate sustainability at a crossroads. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 58 (4).
Kocabasoglu, C., Prahinski, C., Klassen, R.D., 2007. Linking forward and reverse
supply chain investments: the role of business uncertainty. J. Oper. Manag. 25
(6), 116e1141.
Kok, L., Wurpel, G., Ten Wolde, A., 2013. Unleashing the Power of the Circular
Economy. Report by IMSA Amsterdam for Circle Economy.
Kumar, A., Anbanandam, R., 2020. Evaluating the interrelationships among in-
hibitors to intermodal railroad freight transport in emerging economies: a
multi-stakeholder perspective. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 132, 559e581.
Lamba, D., Yadav, D.K., Barve, A., Panda, G., 2019. Prioritising barriers in reverse
logistics of E-commerce supply chain using fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process.
Electron. Commer. Res. 1e23.
Larsen, S.B., Masi, D., Jacobsen, P., Godsell, J., 2018. How the reverse supply chain
contributes to a firm’s competitive strategy: a strategic alignment perspective.
Prod. Plann. Contr. 29 (6), 452e463.
Lau, K.H., Wang, Y., 2009. Reverse logistics in the electronic industry of China: a case
study. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 14 (6), 447e465.
Lewandowski, M., 2016. Designing the business models for circular economydto-
wards the conceptual framework. Sustainability 8 (1), 43.
Li, J., Yu, K., 2011. A study on legislative and policy tools for promoting the circular
economic model for waste management in China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.
13 (2), 103.
Li, X., Olorunniwo, F., 2008. An exploration of reverse logistics practices in three
companies. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 13 (5), 381e386.
Liang, H., Ren, J., Gao, Z., Gao, S., Luo, X., Dong, L., Scipioni, A., 2016. Identification of
critical success factors for sustainable development of biofuel industry in China
based on grey decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL).
J. Clean. Prod. 131, 500e508.
Lin, R.J., 2013. Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain manage-
ment practices. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 32e39.
Liu, Y., Bai, Y., 2014. An exploration of firms’ awareness and behavior of developing
circular economy: an empirical research in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 87,
145e152.
Luthra, S., Kumar, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Mangla, S.K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2020. Industry
4.0 as an enabler of sustainability diffusion in supply chain: an analysis of
P. Dutta, S. Talaulikar, V. Xavier et al.
influential strength of drivers in an emerging economy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (5),
1505e1521.
Ma, J., Zhu, L., Guo, Y., 2019. Strategies and stability study for a triopoly game
considering product recovery based on closed-loop supply chain. Operational
Research 1e22.
Meyer, A., Niemann, W., Mackenzie, J., Lombaard, J., 2017. Drivers and barriers of
reverse logistics practices: a study of large grocery retailers in South Africa.
Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management 11 (1), 1e16.
Moktadir, M.A., Rahman, T., Ali, S.M., Nahar, N., Paul, S.K., 2019. Examining barriers
to reverse logistics practices in the leather footwear industry. Ann. Oper. Res.
1e32.
Moktadir, M.A., Ahmadi, H.B., Sultana, R., Liou, J.J., Rezaei, J., 2020. Circular economy
practices in the leather industry: a practical step towards sustainable devel-
opment. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119737.
Moktadir, M.A., Ali, S.M., Rajesh, R., Paul, S.K., 2018. Modeling the interrelationships
among barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry.
J. Clean. Prod. 181, 631e651.
Mukhopadhyay, S.K., Setoputro, R., 2004. Reverse logistics in e-business. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 34 (1), 70e89.
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2003. Defuzzification within a multicriteria decision
model. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Syst. 11 (5), 635e652.
Piyathanavong, V., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Kumar, V., Maldonado-Guzm an, G.,
Mangla, S.K., 2019. The adoption of operational environmental sustainability
approaches in the Thai manufacturing sector. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 507e528.
Prajapati, H., Kant, R., Shankar, R., 2019. Prioritising the solutions of reverse logistics
implementation to mitigate its barriers: a hybrid modified SWARA and WASPAS
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 240, 118219.
Rahimifard, S., Coates, G., Staikos, T., Edwards, C., Abu-Bakar, M., 2009. Barriers,
drivers and challenges for sustainable product recovery and recycling. Inter-
national Journal of Sustainable Engineering 2 (2), 80e90.
Rahman, T., Ali, S.M., Moktadir, M.A., Kusi-Sarpong, S., 2020. Evaluating barriers to
implementing green supply chain management: an example from an emerging
economy. Prod. Plann. Contr. 31 (8), 673e698.
Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and eco-
nomic performance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25 (9), 898e916.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., 2005. Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse
logistics. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72 (8), 1011e1029.
Ripanti, E.F., Tjahjono, B., Fan, I.S., 2016. Circular economy in reverse logistics:
formulation and potential design in product refurbish. Prod. Oper. Manag. 6, 1.
Rogers, D.S., Tibben-Lembke, R., 2001. An examination of reverse logistics practices.
J. Bus. Logist. 22 (2), 129e148.
Sarkis, J., Helms, M.M., Hervani, A.A., 2010. Reverse logistics and social sustain-
ability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17 (6), 337e354.
Sauve, S., Bernard, S., Sloan, P., 2016. Environmental sciences, sustainable devel-
opment and circular economy: alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary
research. Environmental Development 17, 48e56.
Scheinberg, A., Nesi c, J., Savain, R., Luppi, P., Sinnott, P., Petean, F., Pop, F., 2016. From
collision to collaborationeIntegrating informal recyclers and re-use operators
in Europe: a review. Waste Manag. Res. 34 (9), 820e839.
Sehnem, S., Vazquez-Brust, D., Pereira, S.C.F., Campos, L.M., 2019. Circular economy:
benefits, impacts and overlapping. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 24 (6), 784e804.
Shah, S., Dikgang, G., Menon, S., 2019. The global perception of industry 4.0 for
reverse logistics. International Journal of Economics and Management Systems
4, 103e107.
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 294 (2021) 126241
Shahbazi, S., Wiktorsson, M., Kurdve, M., Jo € nsson, C., Bjelkemyr, M., 2016. Material
efficiency in manufacturing: Swedish evidence on potential, barriers and stra-
tegies. J. Clean. Prod. 127, 438e450.
Shao, J., Taisch, M., Ortega-Mier, M., 2016. A grey-DEcision-MAking Trial and Eval-
uation Laboratory (DEMATEL) analysis on the barriers between environmen-
tally friendly products and consumers: practitioners’ viewpoints on the
European automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3185e3194.
Sharma, S.K., Panda, B.N., Mahapatra, S.S., Sahu, S., 2011. Analysis of barriers for
reverse logistics: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Modeling and
Optimization 1 (2), 101.
Singh, J., Ordon~ ez, I., 2016. Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: impor-
tant lessons for the upcoming circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 342e353.
Srivastava, S.K., 2008. Network design for reverse logistics. Omega 36 (4), 535e548.
Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., Yu, X., 2013. A review of the circular economy in
China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 42, 215e227.
Su, C.M., Horng, D.J., Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S., Wu, K.J., Chen, H.P., 2016. Improving
sustainable supply chain management using a novel hierarchical grey-
DEMATEL approach. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 469e481.
Sugeno, M., 1974. Theory of Fuzzy Integral and its Applicaations. Doct. Thesis. Tokyo
Institute of Technology.
Tseng, M.L., 2009. A causal and effect decision making model of service quality
expectation using grey-fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (4),
7738e7748.
Tukker, A., 2015. Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economyea
review. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 76e91.
€
Tuzkaya, G., Gülsün, B., Onsel, Ş., 2011. A methodology for the strategic design of
reverse logistics networks and its application in the Turkish white goods in-
dustry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 49 (15), 4543e4571.
Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.W., 2007. Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning
programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL.
Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (4), 1028e1044.
Van Eijk, F., 2015. Barriers & drivers towards a circular economy. Literature Review.
Acceleratio: Naarden 1e138. The Netherlands.
Van Weelden, E., Mugge, R., Bakker, C., 2016. Paving the way towards circular
consumption: exploring consumer acceptance of refurbished mobile phones in
the Dutch market. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 743e754.
Velis, C.A., Vrancken, K.C., 2015. Which Material Ownership and Responsibility in a
Circular Economy?.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental
supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sec-
tors. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14 (1), 69e85.
Xing, B., Gao, W.J., Battle, K., Marwala, T., Nelwamondo, F.V., 2010. Artificial Intel-
ligence in Reverse Supply Chain Management: the State of the Art. arXiv pre-
print arXiv:1012.4046.
Yogi, K.S., 2015. Performance evaluation of reverse logistics: a case of LPG agency.
Cogent Business & Management 2 (1), 1063229.
Zhijun, F., Nailing, Y., 2007. Putting a circular economy into practice in China. Sus-
tainability Science 2 (1), 95e101.
Zhou, L., Naim, M.M., Wang, Y., 2007. Soft systems analysis of reverse logistics
battery recycling in China. Int. J. Logist.: Research and Applications 10 (1),
57e70.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on
emergent green supply chain practices and performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45
(18e19), 4333e4355.