4th International Conference on Mechanical, Production and Automobile Engineering (ICMPAE'2013) Oct.
6-7, 2013 Dubai (UAE)
Comparative Study of Green Supply Chain:
Barrier Analysis
Nooru Haq. A, and Mathiyazhagan K
Abstract— Sustainable environment is a sizzling topic among the
researchers and academicians. Globally, all industries are switching
over their traditional supply chain management systems to
environmental management system because of getting pressures from
the legislation and customers. In this regard, Green supply chain
management (GSCM) is a tremendous concept to reduce
environmental pollution and improve the environmental
performances. Adoption of GSCM into organization is a tough task
and requires more analysis. There are many obstacles (barriers) are
occurred during adoption of GSCM. Especially, Indian industries
were facing many barriers for GSCM adoption. During eradication of
barriers for GSCM adoption, every organization has different
opinions about each barrier. Different industries were having
different opinions for each barrier based on their industrial
perspective. Objective of this study is to analyze the various barrier
impacts to different sectors based on the one independent hypothesis:
Different sectors have different opinions.
Keywords— GSCM, Barrier analysis in different sectors,
ANOVA and Tukey’s test.
I. INTRODUCTION
P RESENTLY customers are having more conscious of the
world’s environmental troubles like global warming, toxic
substance usage, and decreasing in non- renewable
resources. For these reason industries are given special
attention to think about environmental concerns in their
manufacturing activities with regard to their supply bases,
integrating traditional supply chain management (TSCM) with
environmental issues. In this perspective industries were
started to adopt environmental friendly management systems
like GSCM. Recently, GSCM is hot topic in academic
research and industrial practices [1]. As industry perspective,
implementing GSCM is a tough task and requires more
analysis. In practice there are many obstacles are occurred
during adoption of GSCM. Those obstacles called as barriers.
Especially Indian industries have notable awareness about
environmental issues and they are facing many barriers. For
this reason, they were started to analyze the barriers impacts to
make an execution of GSCM initiatives in their organization.
During this process, managers of each industry from various
departments are does not know which barrier gave more
negative impact to engage GSCM? and which industry facing
Noorul. Haq. is with the National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli,
Tamilnadu, India – 620015. (Phone: +919443193311; fax: +91(0431) 250013;
e-mail: anhaq@nitt.edu).
Mathiyazhagan. K. was with National Institute of Technology,
Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu, India – 620015. (madii1984@yahoo.com)
37
more barrier impacts?. From this point of view, objective of
study were framed and fulfills the answers for those questions.
In this study, 10 barriers were considered and it is categorized
under three groups according to similarities of its definition.
Detailed questionnaire is prepared and circulated among
industries belonging to various industries under automobile,
textile and electrical/electronic sectors. Through this survey,
industries are asked to rate the impact of each barriers.
Statistical analysis of the data involved the use of one-way
single factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), followed by a
pair-wise comparison of means using Tukey’s Test. The
analysis is performed for different sectors have different
opinions for GSCM adoption and justification of results also
discussed.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Zhu et al. (2008) pointed out that Chinese manufacturer to
improving their environmental image and performance
through environmental management systems such as GSCM
adoption. Because, industries to sustain and maintain their
competitiveness within the international business arena.
Setthasakko [2] analyzed to gain an understanding of the most
important barriers to the adoption of environmental
responsibility in organizations and identified top three barriers
namely lack of a system perspective on seafood sustainability,
absence of top management commitment and cultural
diversity. Kogg [3] pointed out that the lack of clout is one of
the main important barriers to implement the GSCM practices
in industries. Lack of clarity on the business requirement is
one of the barriers to engage GSCM. Zhu and Sarkis [4]
mentioned that the automotive industries facing the major
obstacles due to lack of knowledge, systems, markets,
technology. Thierry et al. [5] found that companies have
problems to locate appropriate data and information for
decisions concerning GSCM. The lack of financial resources
is one of the barriers for GSCM adoption to industries.
Robinson and Wilcox [6] found that industries were feels that
cost of implementation of GSCM is given most important
negative motivation. In India, few researchers were analyzed
barriers for GSCM adoption in different sectors [7] - [9]. But
there is no work for analyzing comparative study for barrier
impacts. Because, Zhu and Sarkis [4] mentioned that different
industries were have different opinions about GSCM adoption
in Chinese perspective. Similarly Indian industry also has
different opinions about barriers for GSCM adoption. Based
on this hypothesis of study were framed: Different industries
have different opinions.
 4th International Conference on Mechanical, Production and Automobile Engineering (ICMPAE'2013) Oct. 6-7, 2013 Dubai (UAE)
III. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Mudgal et al. [7] mentioned that different sectors given
different opinions for same barriers and Mathiyazhagan et al.
[8] also mentioned that different automotive industries are
given different feedback. Similarly Zhu and Sarkis [4] argued
that different sectors have different pressure impacts in
Chinese perspective. From this observation, hypothesis of this
study were framed. The identified 10 barriers from the
literature were given below.
Cost (C)
High investments and less Return-on-Investments (C1)
Cost for switching to the new system (C2)
Risk in hazardous material inventory (C3)
Knowledge (K)
Low environmental awareness of workers in organizations
(K1)
Lack of Eco-literacy amongst supply chain members (K2)
Lack of customer awareness and pressure about GSCM (K3)
Technology (T)
Lack of awareness about reverse logistics adoption (T1)
Lack of new technology, materials and processes (T2)
Lack of technical expertise (T3)
Complex in design to reuse or recycle the product (T4)
Sources: [7], [8], [9], [3]
IV. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT AND DATA COLLECTION
The collected 10 barriers from the literature has been
prepared in an questionnaire format and also we provided
separate rating facilities for each barrier to mention their
opinions in terms of 1 to 5 scale: 1- Not at all barrier; 2 - Not
important barrier; 3 – Barrier, but not important; 4–Important
barrier and 5 - Extremely important barrier to 25 industries
under 3 sectors. After one month duration 11 industries were
replied such as automobile -4; electrical/electronic – 3 and
textile - 4. These industries are located in Southern India.
Response rate is 44%; so it is acceptable range for research
[10].
A. Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was developed to use a
researcher to test hypothesis. Also ANOVA is to test for
significant differences between class means, and this is done
by analyzing the variances. Tukey's multiple comparison tests
are also called Tukey's honestly significant difference test.
Thus, Tukey’s multiple comparison tests was used to compare
the difference between each pair of means with appropriate
adjustment for the multiple testing.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Collected data from the experts was evaluated with help of
ANOVA F test and Tukey’s test for significant mean
differences. Table 1 is shows the F test and Turkey’s test
values for 3 sectors of 10 barriers. In this study three different
combination of sector comparison was performed such as
automobile and Electrical/Electronic (A&E/E); Automobile &
Textile (A&T); Electrical/Electronic & Textile.
38
TABLE 1
Sector comparative analysis for GSCM barriers
From the Table I, we observed that three sectors have
different opinions about barriers during adoption of GSCM.
Under cost category, three sector comparison were shown high
significant mean differences in two barriers such as C1 (A&T)
and C2 (A&E/E; A&T). Especially, High investments and less
Return-on-Investments (C1) barrier has high significant mean
differences among the 10 barriers of 3 sector combinations. It
is shows that return on investment are factor is not important
barrier in automobile sectors but it is important barrier for
textile sectors. For this reason, this sector comparison has
0.013 significant mean values. Similarly C2 barrier is shown
two significant mean differences in A&E/E and A&T sector
comparisons. These two comparisons clearly mentioned that
automobile and electrical/electronic sectors following different
activities to eradicate the barriers to adoption of GSCM. Also
textile sector follows some different activities for eradicating
the Cost for switching to the new system (C2) barrier compare
to automobile sectors.
All three sector industries were feels that Risk in hazardous
material inventory (C3) is barrier but not important barrier. It
is evident that these sectors were following same kind of
activities to eradicate this barrier C3. In Knowledge category
only one sector comparison (A&T) has shown the high
significant mean differences. Remaining barrier sector
comparisons were shown less mean differences. This 0.013
value is mention that Lack of Eco-literacy amongst supply
chain members (K2) barrier is given more negative impact in
textile sector over automobile sectors. Also this value shows
that textile supply chain members have less eco-literacy and
need to learn more eco-literacy.
Similarly under technology barrier category one sector
comparison shows high significant mean differences among
three sector comparisons. Remaining sector comparisons were
shown less and very less mean differences. It is inferred that
automobile, electrical/electronic and textile sectors given
almost equal opinion for four barriers. Under automobile and
electrical/electronic comparison Complex in design to reuse or
recycle the product (T4) barrier have less mean difference
over four barriers. It is pointed out that design of reuse and
 4th International Conference on Mechanical, Production and Automobile Engineering (ICMPAE'2013) Oct. 6-7, 2013 Dubai (UAE)

recycled product in new product design is varied among Schneidewind, U. (Eds), Strategy and Organisation in Supply Chains,
Springer, London, pp. 65-8, 2003
automobile and electrical/electronic sectors. Under automobile
[4] Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, “An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain
and textile sector comparison, Lack of awareness about management in China: Drivers and practices”, Journal of Cleaner
reverse logistics adoption (T1) barrier shows high mean Production, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 472-486, 2006
significant differences. In automobile industry already started [5] M. Thierry, M. Salomon, J. Nunnen, L. Wassenhove, (1995). “Strategic
issues in Product Recovery Management”, California Management
to adopt the reverse logistic concept in their organizations but
review, 1995, Winter, vol. 37, no 2, pp. 114-135.
still some motivations were needed to complete 100% of [6] D. R. Robinson, S. Wilcox, “The greening of the supply chain. Logistics
reverse logistic adoption. However, textile sectors feels that Management”, Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database, vol.
reverse logistic concept adoption is tough and complicated 47, no. 10, pp. 67A-72A, 2008
[7] K. Mathiyazhagan, K. Govindan, A. N. Haq, Y Geng, “An ISM
practice in their organizations. For this reason, this sector
approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain
comparison obtained 0.013 values. Finally, management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 47, pp. 283-297, 2013
electrical/electronic and textile sector comparison shows very [8] R. K. Mudgal, R. Shankar, P. Talib, T. Raj, “Modeling the barriers of
less significant mean differences. This is evident that these green supply chain practices: an Indian perspective”, International
Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, vol. 71, pp. 81-107,
two sectors were feels that barriers under technology category
2010
are same negative impacts to GSCM adoption. [9] K. Muduli, K. Govindan, A. Barve, Y. Geng, “Barriers to green supply
chain management in Indian mining industries: a graph theoretic
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 47, pp. 335-344, 2013
[10] M. Malhotra, V. Grover, “An Assessment of Survey Research in POM:
GSCM is tremendous concept to improve environmental
from Constructs to Theory”, Journal of Operations Management, vol. 16,
performance as well as economic performance. Also this no. 4, pp. 407-425, 1998
concept improves the global environmental performance local
environmental performance. This paper analyzes the barrier
impact significant mean differences among the three different
sectors (automobile, electrical/electronic and textile) with help
of statistical approach. Out of thirty different sector
comparison for ten barriers automobile and textile sector
comparison shows four high mean significant differences
under three category of barriers such C1, C2, K2 and T1. It is
concluded form this result that automobile and textile sector
feel different opinion about these four barriers and also they
were following different kind of eradication practices for
GSCM adoption in their organizations. This paper provided
the good indication about sector opinions about different
barriers for GSCM adoption in Indian perspective. Also this
study is a benchmark study to improve environmental
performance by means of GSCM adoption. This study is proof
for different sectors have different opinions about barriers for
GSCM adoption in Indian context. Also this paper offers that
which industry facing high barrier impacts for GSCM
adoption and which sector has less barrier impact for GSCM
adoption. This study is helpful to mangers to identify their
lacking for GSCM adoption and it is helpful to improve entire
nation environmental performance by means of knowledge
sharing and good communication about analyzing the barriers
for GSCM.
This study conducts only three sectors with ten barriers
further it is greatly possible to extend the comparative analysis
in more sectors with more number of barriers.

REFERENCES
[1] X. Huang, B. L. Tan, D. Li, “Pressures on Green Supply Chain
Management: A Study on Manufacturing Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises in China”, International Business and Management, vol. 4,
no. 1, pp. 76-82, 2012
[2] W. Setthasakko, “Barriers to implementing corporate environmental
responsibility in Thailand - a qualitative approach”, International Journal
of Organizational Analysis, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 169-183, 2009.
[3] B. Kogg, “Power and incentives in environmental supply chain
management”, in Seuring, S., Muller, M., Goldbach, M. and

39