Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26687-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Sustainability in Pakistan’s textile industry: analyzing barriers

and strategies for green supply chain management implementation
Du Jianguo1 · Yasir Ahmed Solangi1

Received: 27 December 2022 / Accepted: 23 March 2023 / Published online: 28 March 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
The industries view green supply chain management (GSCM) as a viable means of achieving sustainable operations by
reducing environmental impact and enhancing operational performance. Although conventional supply chains still dominate
many industries, integrating eco-friendly practices through green supply chain management (GSCM) is crucial. Nonetheless,
there are several barriers that hinder the successful adoption of GSCM practices. Therefore, this study proposes fuzzy-based
multi-criteria decision-making approaches comprised of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and the Technique for
Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS). The study evaluates and overcomes barriers to the adoption
of GSCM practices in the textile manufacturing sector of Pakistan. After the comprehensive literature review, this study
identifies 6 barriers, 24 sub-barriers, and 10 strategies. The FAHP method employs to analyze the barriers and sub-barriers.
Then, the FTOPSIS method ranks the strategies to overcome various identified barriers. Based on the FAHP results, the
most significant barriers to the adoption of GSCM practices are technological (MB4), financial (MB1), and information and
knowledge (MB5). Further, the FTOPSIS indicates that increasing the research and development capacity (GS4) is the most
vital strategy for implementing GSCM. The study’s findings have important implications for policymakers, organizations,
and other stakeholders interested in promoting sustainable development and implementing GSCM practices in Pakistan.

Keywords Green supply chain management · Sustainable development · Barriers · Strategies · Fuzzy AHP · Fuzzy TOPSIS

Introduction automobile, mining, agriculture, food, and plastics, may face

Environmental sustainability is gaining attention and popu-
larity among researchers and supply chain managers due to
increasing green concepts and government regulations to
adopt green supply chain management (GSCM) practices
(Agarwal et al. 2018; Pieroni et al. 2019). Globally, a number
of industries have switched over to GSCM practices since
the market competition is very high among its customers
and suppliers. It is worth noting that despite the benefits of
GSCM, many industries still face economic, environmental,
and social barriers that prevent them from transforming their
existing supply chains (Bocken et al. 2019; Lahane and Kant
2022). The different industries, such as textile, chemical,
Responsible Editor: Arshian Sharif
* Yasir Ahmed Solangi
yasir.solangi86@hotmail.com
1
School of Management, Jiangsu University,
Zhenjiang 212013, China
various problems while adopting GSCM practices in their
supply chains. Beton et al. (2014) highlight that the tex-
tile manufacturing industry is a complex and diverse sector
that encompasses various units, including chemical, cloth-
ing, cotton, logistics, synthetic fiber, and waste disposal.
Textile practitioners have criticized this industry because it
pollutes the environment. The industry has been associated
with global warming, high volume of nonrenewable resource
waste, and the considerable use of toxic chemicals and pes-
ticides (Alay et al. 2016). The manufacturing processes of
this industry use various harsh chemicals, which adversely
affect the environment and cause depletion of water and
resources, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and several
health issues.
In this regard, the textile manufacturing industry is under
significant pressure to adopt GSCM practices due to robust
governmental regulations and public awareness about the
benefits of sustainable supply chains (Diabat et al. 2014).
In order to mitigate the negative impact of their operations,
industries must transition to greener practices that prioritize

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
58110
environmental and human health throughout the entire sup-
ply chain, from material sourcing and production to disposal
(Kaur et al. 2018; Su et al. 2021). The GSCM reflects the
safety of the environment at each step of the textile manu-
facturing and production process, which is a helpful prac-
tice in reducing the negative impact on the environment.
Moreover, the implementation of GSCM practices can help
textile industries to cut costs, save high operational energy,
enhance efficiency, and decrease toxic waste generation
(de Oliveira et al. 2018). Despite the numerous benefits of
GSCM, the textile manufacturing industry in Pakistan has
yet to adopt green supply chain practices. In many Asian
countries, textile industries produce a vast number of tex-
tile products every year, but only a few prioritize the use of
sustainable materials and recycling practices (Vafadarnikjoo
et al. 2021).
In this study, the case of the Pakistani textile manufac-
turing industry is taken to conduct the research. This sector
provides the highest number of employment to the economy
of Pakistan. Pakistan is an expeditiously developing country
and is predicted to become the 20th major economy of the
world by 2030 and the 16th major by 2050 (Hussain 2017).
The manufacturing sector is considered the country’s back-
bone as it is the second-highest segment of the economy,
making 13.5% of the gross domestic product (Ahmed et al.
2020a). Pakistan’s manufacturing industry continues to rely
on traditional supply chain operations that have a negative
impact on the environment. To address this issue, industries
in Pakistan must prioritize the development of a new supply
chain system that prioritizes environmental sustainability
by modifying their existing supply chain operations. (Kilic
and Yalcin 2020). The transition from old to new supply
chains, however, presents a number of obstacles that prevent
the adoption of GSCM (Majumdar and Sinha 2019). The
barriers to the adoption of GSCM practices are complex,
and as such, industries must formulate effective strategies to
overcome them. In this study, various barriers, sub-barriers,
and strategies have been assessed and ranked based on the
fuzzy-based multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) appli-
cations. The fuzzy set theory integrates with the Analytical
Hierarchy Process and the Technique for Order of Preference
by Similarity to Ideal Solution to form FAHP and FTOPSIS.
The fuzzy set theory helps in minimizing the complexities or
errors made during the human assessment, which makes it
easier for decision-makers to analyze the decision problem
using linguistic terms (Kul et al. 2020). Thus, the underly-
ing aim is to address the complexities in the industries for
implementing GSCM. Initially, the FAHP method evaluates
and ranks the various barriers and sub-barriers. Next, the
FTOPSIS method analyzes and prioritizes several core strat-
egies for the adoption of GSCM practices. Therefore, the
objective is to integrate the FAHP and FTOPSIS methods
to analyze various barriers, sub-barriers, and strategies to
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127
implement GSCM in the context of the textile manufacturing
industry in Pakistan.
The current research is important because GSCM prac-
tices are essential for sustainable development and environ-
mental protection. The study’s novelty and contribution to
the state of the art lie in its use of a fuzzy MCDM to ana-
lyze the barriers, sub-barriers, and strategies to implement
GSCM practices in Pakistan. The MCDM approach allows
the integration of multiple criteria, the consideration of
uncertainty and vagueness in decision-making, and the eval-
uation of the robustness of the results obtained. Moreover,
the findings contribute to the existing literature on GSCM
by providing insights into the barriers to implement green
supply chain practices in the context of a developing country
and propose effective strategies for overcoming these bar-
riers. The proposed decision model is expected to deliver
a significant and effective solution method to adopt green
concepts in the industry.
Theoretical background
This section provides a comprehensive theoretical back-
ground of GSCM, barriers, and strategies to implement
sustainable supply chain. The concept of GSCM is gaining
attention and popularity throughout the world because of
its commitment to sustainability for organizations (Fahim-
nia et al. 2015; de Oliveira et al. 2018). The GSCM helps
to reduce several environmental issues like air emissions,
energy consumption, solid waste disposal, and reduction in
the usage of toxic and chemical materials (Huo et al. 2019).
GSCM practices integrate the coordination of the organi-
zation segments like production process, inbound and out-
bound logistics, reverse logistics, internal and external sup-
ply chain, customer requirements and responsiveness, and
product quality (Chen and Ye 2022). This integrated sustain-
able supply chain operation yields better economic, envi-
ronmental, and social performance, which results in overall
enhanced organizational performance (Cristini et al. 2021).
Applications of MCDM applied in GSCM
The adoption of green practices is often hindered by numer-
ous barriers, and as a result, industries have struggled to
make significant progress in implementing GSCM practices.
To address this issue, various research studies have utilized
MCDM approaches to identify, evaluate, and prioritize the
barriers to the adoption of GSCM. Table 1 presents a sum-
mary of recent GSCM studies that have employed MCDM
methods.
As many industries continue to operate their supply
chain practices in traditional ways, it is imperative to
transform these practices into green practices to reduce
 Table 1  Relevant MCDM-based studies on the assessment of GSCM practices
Research focus Industry Research finding Method Reference

Assessing barriers to GSCM redesign and adoption Cashew The findings of this study reveal that government and Grey-decision-making trial Agyemang et al. (2018)
practices industry support is vital to address barriers and evaluation laboratory
(DEMATEL)
Analyzing and prioritizing the GSCM practices Laptop manufacturing The results of this research found that eco-designing Fuzzy VlseKriterijumska Rostamzadeh et al. (2015)
of the product is the most significant criterion, fol- Optimizacija I Kompro-
lowed by green production, green purchasing, and misno Resenje (VIKOR)
green recycling
Analyzing the strategies for implementing GSCM Manufacturing The results show that the environmental management AHP Luthra et al. (2013)
practices system and top management perspective are the
most vital strategies
Analyzing the barriers to the adoption of e-waste Electronics and waste recycling The outcome of this research indicates that a lack of DEMATEL Kumar and Dixit (2018)
management public awareness and a lack of policies and regula-
tions are the two most significant barriers
Barriers analysis for GSCM adoption Various manufacturing industries The findings present that technology is the first-rank AHP Govindan et al. (2014)
barrier that impedes the development of GSCM
practices
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127

Evaluate the barriers to GSCM adoption
Examining barriers in GSCM
Assessing barriers to implementing sustainable
consumption and production practices
Analyze the indicators for GSCM implementation
Investigating the interrelationships among barriers to
GSCM practices
Assessing and ranking barriers to achieving sustain-
able supply chains
Modeling the interactions among barriers to GSCM
Food packaging The findings indicate that the lack of a training DEMATEL Wang et al. (2016)
program is the most influential barrier, and poor
customer awareness is the second most important
barrier
Manufacturing The study results present that the lack of training and DEMATEL Kaur et al. (2018)
knowledge is found to be a significant barrier. Top
management commitment is the second significant
barrier in the Canadian manufacturing industry
Plastic manufacturing The results indicate that government support and AHP Luthra et al. (2016)
policies are recognized as the top-ranked barrier to
implementing GSCM initiatives
The auto components manufacturing The findings of this study display that carbon DEMATEL Li and Mathiyazhagan (2016)
management is the most significant indicator in
measuring sustainable supply chain operations
Rubber products manufacturing The results indicate that commitment to top-level Fuzzy AHP Narayanan et al. (2019)
management is a significant barrier
Auto ancil​laries The research findings demonstrate that the organiza- Fuzzy AHP Mangla et al. (2017)
tion barrier gained the highest importance that
impedes the supply chain adoption
Leather The outcome of this study shows that a lack of Grey-DEMATEL Moktadir et al. (2018)
customer awareness in adopting green products is a
top-ranked casual barrier, and the reverse logistic is
found as an influenced barrier

13
58111
58112
the environmental degradation caused by industrial
activities. As a result, it has been identified that numer-
ous studies have employed MCDM methods to identify
and analyze the industry’s GSCM practices. Each study
has different aim and objectives to solve the decision
problem. This study aims to analyze and prioritize the
core barriers and strategies using FAHP and FTOPSIS
methods for the adoption of GSCM in the manufacturing
industry in Pakistan.
Identified barriers and sub‑barriers of GSCM
This research identifies the various vital barriers and sub-
barriers that impede the adoption of GSCM practices
in the manufacturing industry of Pakistan. The barriers
hinder industries from adopting green supply operations
from processes to production. Therefore, after a detailed
literature survey, this research identified and finalized 6
barriers and 24 sub-barriers. These barriers are financial
barriers (MB1), market barriers (MB2), outsourcing bar-
riers (MB3), technological barriers (MB4), information
and knowledge barriers (MB5), and managerial barriers
(MB6). Moreover, five sub-barriers have been identified
under MB1, three sub-barriers under MB2, four sub-bar-
riers under MB3, four sub-barriers under MB4, four sub-
barriers under MB5, and four sub-barriers under MB6,
respectively. Table 2 presents the barriers, sub-barriers,
and their brief description of GSCM practices.
Identified strategies of GSCM
This research identified multiple core strategies to remove
the barriers for the development of green supply chain con-
cepts in the manufacturing industry. The study finalized 10
strategies after a thorough literature review. Table 3 shows
the various strategies for adopting GSCM practices.
Research gap analysis
Globally, many countries face environmental and sustain-
ability issues and challenges concerning global warming,
climate change, and natural resource scarcity (Ahmed
et al. 2020b). Given these challenges, industries must
transition from their current supply chains to sustainable
industrial practices to eliminate polluting environmental
activities (Koberg and Longoni 2019). Thus, after com-
prehensively examining the literature review, this section
identifies the research gap in conducting this research. It is
recognized that MCDM methods are beneficial in analyz-
ing and ranking GSCM-related decision-making problems
(Chen et al. 2020). To the best of the author’s knowledge,
no research has examined the barriers, sub-barriers, and
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127
strategies using fuzzy-based MCDM methods in the con-
text of the manufacturing sector in Pakistan. This research
shall help industry managers and practitioners to adopt
GSCM practices in the country.
Proposed integrated decision methodology
The fuzzy MCDM is a suitable approach for this analysis
because it allows for the integration of multiple criteria,
strategies, and the consideration of uncertainty in decision-
making (Xu et al. 2019). This involves assigning linguis-
tic variables to decision criteria and using fuzzy logic to
represent the imprecise and uncertain nature of decision-
making. The approach used in this study involves identifying
the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in Pakistan
and evaluating them based on their importance, severity,
and urgency. The FAHP approach is used to determine
the weights of the decision criteria, while the FTOPSIS
approach is used to rank the barriers based on their relative
importance. The fuzzy-based MCDM approach is suitable
for analyzing the barriers to implementing GSCM practices
in the textile manufacturing industry of Pakistan. Initially,
a thorough literature review was conducted to identify the
most critical barriers, sub-barriers, and strategies to imple-
ment GSCM practices. Thus, the study identified the 6 bar-
riers, 24 sub-barriers, and 10 strategies after analyzing the
detailed literature review. The FAHP method is employed
to evaluate barriers and sub-barriers. In comparison, the
FTOPSIS technique is used to determine strategies for the
adoption of GSCM practices.
In this research, 10 experts were consulted to assign
weights to barriers and sub-barriers and score each strat-
egy concerning each sub-barrier. The experts were asked to
provide their feedback through web mail service, and they
belonged to academia, industries, economists, and research
analysts. These experts were professional, experienced, and
well aware of the economic, environmental, and social con-
ditions of the country. The integrated decision model of this
study is presented in Fig. 1.
Fuzzy AHP method
The AHP is a prevalent method of MCDM, which Saaty
develops in the 1970s (Saaty 1990). This study used a fuzzy
set theory to minimize the vagueness of the decision prob-
lem. This theory supports obtaining more consistent results.
This research uses pairwise comparison in the matrix using
triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) (Solangi et al. 2019a). The
TFNs scale is shown in Table 4.
The following are the main steps of fuzzy AHP based on
the Gogus and Boucher approach (Gogus and Boucher 1998).
Step I: Define the triangular fuzzy matrix (TFM):
 Table 2  GSCM barriers and sub-barriers with their brief description
Barrier Sub-barrier Brief description Reference

Financial barriers (MB1)
High investment cost (MB11)
Financial limitations (MB12)
Non-availability of bank loans (MB13)
Eco-friendly packaging cost (MB14)
This GSCM sub-barrier refers to the considerable Govindan et al. (2014); Wang et al. (2016); Mangla
investment cost with low returns in implement- et al. (2017); Agyemang et al. (2018)
ing green practices, such as the cost of imported
chemicals being extremely high in adopting green
supply chain practices
This sub-barrier indicates that the industries have Govindan et al. (2014); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015);
financial limitations in adopting GSCM prac- Luthra et al. (2016); Agyemang et al. (2018)
tice; therefore, the bank or any financial institute
should finance other incentives with a low-interest
rate
This sub-barrier described industries as struggling Govindan et al. (2014); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015);
to get bank loans to adopt the green concept; Mangla et al. (2017); Moktadir et al. (2018)
however, banks have a non-availability of loans or
offer significantly fewer funds for green projects
The industries have traditional supply chain opera- Govindan et al. (2014); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015);
tions, so it is difficult for them to implement green Mangla et al. (2017); Moktadir et al. (2018)
processes due to the inflated cost of eco-friendly
packaging. Thus, the industries lack interest in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127

adopting green practices because their financial

Market barriers (MB2)
High cost of hazardous material (MB15)
Lack of customer awareness (MB21)
Lack of trust in green products and benefits (MB22) This sub-barrier demonstrates that the customer has
Lack of market access and demand (MB23)
conditions are not as good as developed countries
This sub-barrier demonstrates that the industry Govindan et al. (2014); Wang et al. (2016); Mangla
faces high financial loss in maintaining waste dis- et al. (2017); Moktadir et al. (2018)
posal and hazardous material, which is very costly
due to these threats
This market sub-barrier indicates that the customers Govindan et al. (2014); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015);
are unaware of green products, so the low demand Agyemang et al. (2018); Moktadir et al. (2018)
identifies the lack of customer awareness about
the advantages of implementing GSCM practices
Govindan et al. (2014); Wang et al. (2016); Mangla
a lack of confidence in using sustainable products; et al. (2017); Moktadir et al. (2018)
it is because maybe the products are costly as well
as they are ignorant about their benefits. It is all
due to a lack of marketing of green products
The lack of market access to the global market is Govindan et al. (2014); Wang et al. (2016); Mangla
due to less information and facilities about green et al. (2017)
products for the customers. Thus, the customers
are not aware of GSCM, which results in low
demand for environmental-friendly products

13
58113
 Table 2  (continued)
Barrier Sub-barrier
13
Outsourcing barriers (MB3) Lack of government support to implement eco-
friendly policies (MB31)
Complexities in packaging materials (MB32)
Lack of monitoring in assessing the supplier’s
environmental performance (MB33)
Lack of reward system (MB34)
Technological barriers (MB4) Technology failure risk (MB41)
Lack of environmental training programs (MB42)
Lack of technology development (MB43)
Lack of ability to design a green product (MB44)
58114
Brief description Reference
This sub-barrier presents that the government Rostamzadeh et al. (2015); Luthra et al. (2016);
policies and supports are not enough to adopt Wang et al. (2016); Agyemang et al. (2018); Mok-
eco-friendly technologies or green manufacturing tadir et al. (2018)
practices
This outsourcing sub-barrier shows that industries Govindan et al. (2014); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015);
face complexities in packaging eco-friendly mate- Wang et al. (2016); Mangla et al. (2017)
rials due to the traditional mindset of suppliers in
supply chain practices
This sub-barrier refers to the supplier, which is Govindan et al. (2014); Luthra et al. (2016); Agyem-
incapable and efficient in implementing sustain- ang et al. (2018); Moktadir et al. (2018)
able practices in the supply chain operations of
the industry. It is because of the lack of a moni-
toring system in the industry to assess supplier
performance
This is a crucial sub-barrier, which shows that the Luthra et al. (2016); Wang et al. (2016); Mangla et al.
industry fails to provide rewards for the significant (2017); Moktadir et al. (2018)
performance of the supplier by adopting green
practices
This sub-barrier refers to the risk of technology Govindan et al. (2014); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015);
failure in implementing green practices, which Luthra et al. (2016); Wang et al. (2016)
could suffer failure of technology, competitive
advantage, and financial loss of the industry in
adopting GSCM practices
There is a lack of knowledge about adopting GSCM Govindan et al. (2014); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015);
operations. The industries and environmental Luthra et al. (2016); Wang et al. (2016); Moktadir
professionals failed to provide training programs et al. (2018)
to their suppliers to implement green practices
This sub-barrier shows that the industries cannot Govindan et al. (2014); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015);
design modern technology for reducing the usage Luthra et al. (2016); Moktadir et al. (2018)
of materials and transforming to green supply
chain practices
This technological sub-barrier shows that the indus- Govindan et al. (2014); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015);
try cannot design a sustainable product that can Wang et al. (2016); Mangla et al. (2017)
also be reused, recycled, and remanufactured. It
is due to a lack of right technology to process and
design the material
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127
 Table 2  (continued)
Barrier Sub-barrier Brief description Reference

Information and knowledge Lack of knowledge about environmental benefits
barriers (MB5) (MB51)
Lack of awareness and knowledge about reverse
logistics practices (MB52)
Complexity in recollecting used products (MB53)
Lack of green system exposure (MB54)
Managerial barriers (MB6) Lack of involvement of top management (MB61)
The industries do not have enough information
and knowledge to adopt green practices for
eco-sustainability because of less idea about the
environmental benefits of implementing a green
concept
This sub-barrier shows that the industries do not
know about reverse logistic practices, which
means the reuse or recycling of products for eco-
nomic benefits; thus, the industries are unaware of
this practice.
This sub-barrier shows that industries face com-
plexity in recollecting used products; thus, it
is not easy for industries to find third parties to
recollect used products
The industries lack green system exposure in both
quality and quantity to pursue sustainable goals
This is a very important sub-barrier that indicates
Mirhedayatian et al. (2014); Luthra et al. (2016);
Wang et al. (2016); Mangla et al. (2017)
Govindan et al. (2014); Luthra et al. (2016); Wang
et al. (2016); Mangla et al. (2017); Moktadir et al.
(2018)
Govindan et al. (2014); Luthra et al. (2016); Wang
et al. (2016); Mangla et al. (2017)
Luthra et al. (2016); Wang et al. (2016); Mangla et al.
(2017); Moktadir et al. (2018)
Rostamzadeh et al. (2015); Wang et al. (2016); Man-
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127

Lack of plans to adopt sustainable supply chain
initiatives (MB62)
Lack of commitment (MB63)
Insufficient management capacity (MB64)
the importance and involvement of top-level gla et al. (2017); Agyemang et al. (2018)
management in changing existing policies,
information systems, and investment procedures
to transform the GSCM system. However, moving
to green manufacturing practices is disregarded by
top management.
This managerial sub-barrier shows that the industry Luthra et al. (2016); Mangla et al. (2017); Agyemang
does not have well-set environmental goals and et al. (2018); Moktadir et al. (2018)
adequate plans to implement sustainable supply
chain operations
It indicates that the environmental management Govindan et al. (2014); Luthra et al. (2016); Wang
system endorses industries to comply according et al. (2016); Mangla et al. (2017)
to environmental regulations; however, industries
have a lack of commitment to implement GSCM
practices
This sub-barrier indicates that the industry’s Govindan et al. (2014); Luthra et al. (2016); Mangla
management capacity is insufficient to imple- et al. (2017); Moktadir et al. (2018)
ment GSCM as it lacks management facilities for
sustainable manufacturing practices

13
58115

13
Table 3  List of GSCM strategies and their brief description
Code Strategy
GS1 Coordination and collaboration among industries
and suppliers
GS2 Supplier commitment to reverse logistics
GS3 Sustainable resource management
GS4 Increasing the research and development capacity The government should increase the R&D capacity to design,
GS5 Developing green planning and policies
GS6 Green purchasing and packaging of the material
GS7 Financial incentives and subsidies
GS8 Organizing awareness and training programs
GS9 Realizing economic and social benefits
GS10 Developing an environmental management system This strategy shows that the environmental management system
58116
Brief description Reference
The active collaboration system would help industries to develop Luthra et al. (2013); Diabat et al. (2014); Sinaga et al. (2019)
a sustainable supply chain network through smart information
and communication system
The assurance from the suppliers to reverse the logistics of the Luthra et al. (2013); Diabat et al. (2014); Prakash and Barua
material helps in switching over to the green concept and (2015)
eliminating the existing traditional supply chain practices
This is an essential strategy for implementing a green concept in Luthra et al. (2013); Majumdar and Sinha (2018); Sinaga et al.
the industry’s supply chain network since sustainable resource (2019)
management shall support minimizing resource consumption
and achieving sustainability targets through GSCM
Luthra et al. (2013); Mathiyazhagan et al. (2014); Govindan et al.
process, and manufacture green products for sustainable supply (2016)
chain practices
This strategy is meant to design effective and efficient green Green et al. (2012); Luthra et al. 2013; Wang et al. (2016)
policies by the government for its industries to decrease envi-
ronmental degradation and adopt eco-friendly procedures for
developing GSCM practices
This strategy would help minimize the environmental damages Luthra et al. (2013); Uygun and Dede (2016); Wang et al. (2016)
created by industries through the traditional supply chain
network. However, the GSCM practices would help and ensure
the industry in developing green purchasing and packaging of
the material
This strategy describes that the government and financial insti- Luthra et al. (2013); Tseng and Chiu (2013); Wang et al. (2016);
tutes should provide financial incentives and subsidies with Chaofeng Li, Yasir Ahmed Solangi (2023)
low interest in adopting the green concept in the industry
This strategy is incredibly significant for industries and their Zhu et al. (2007); Luthra et al. (2013); Wang et al. (2016)
suppliers to organize training and workshop programs to
increase awareness regarding the environmental benefits of
implementing green practices
This strategy indicates that realizing economic and social Zhu et al. (2007); Luthra et al. (2013); Diabat et al. (2014);
benefits shall help in the successful and quick adoption of the Majumdar and Sinha (2018)
GSCM network
Luthra et al. (2013); Wang et al. (2016); Majumdar and Sinha
shall incorporate to achieve environmental requirements by (2018); Hong and Guo (2019)
managing and monitoring the entire supply chain network
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127 58117

g
(1)
( )
Xi = li , mi , ui 𝜆max − n
CI g = (5)
n−1
Following, the first TFM is determined with the middle
TFM: Step III: Establish the consistency ratio (CR) for each
matrix. For CR, the consistency index (CI) of each matrix
(2) is divided by its random index (RI).
[ ]
Xm = xijm

Now, the second TFM is established for the upper and CIm
CRm = (6)
lower bounds of the TFNs (based on the geometric mean RIm
approach):
�√ � CIg
Xg = xiju xijl (3) CRg = (7)
RIg
Step II: Establish the consistency index (CI) for each If the value of CRm and CRg is less than 0.10, then the
matrix: fuzzy matrices should be considered as consistent. The RI
𝜆m −n scale is presented in Table 5.
CI m = max
(4)
n−1

Fig. 1  An integrated decision

model Analyzing barriers and strategies to Adopt Green
Supply Chain Management Practices in textile
industry of Pakistan

Explore barriers and sub-barriers, and Stage-1

strategies
Literature review

Finalize barriers and sub-barriers, and

strategies

Calculate the weights of barriers and sub-

barriers using TFNs

Stage-2
Approve weights
Fuzzy AHP
method
No Yes

Establish fuzzy decision matrix

Normalize & weighted fuzzy decision

matrix

Stage-3
Using FAHP weights to compute distance
between positive & negative ideal solution Fuzzy TOPSIS
method
Obtain the closeness coefficient (CCi)

Rank the strategies to overcome barriers for

adoption of GSCM practices

13
58118 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127

i = 1, 2, 3, …, m and j = 1, 2, 3, …, n
The fuzzy TOPSIS method
where vij = dij × wj
Hwang and Yoon developed the TOPSIS method in 1981
(Hwang and Yoon 1981). The primary purpose of this Step III: Compute the distance between fuzzy positive
method is to determine the distance between the positive and and negative ideal solutions:
negative ideal solutions (Solangi et al. 2019b). This study
di+ = v+1 , v+2 , v+3 , … , v∗n (12)
( )
used the FTOPSIS method to obtain robust findings. The
analysis used triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) with linguis- where Vj+ = (1, 1, 1) and j = 1, 2, 3, …, n
tic variables to rank the alternatives. Table 6 shows the TFNs
scale based on linguistic variables (Han and Trimi 2018). di− = v−1 , v−2 , v−3 , … , v−n (13)
( )

The key steps of FTOPSIS are as follows (Cayir Ervural et al.

2018): where Vj− = (0, 0, 0) and j = 1, 2, 3, …, n
∼ ∼
Step I: Let Ri = ri1 , ri2 , ri3 and Si = s1 , s2 , s3 are ∼the Step IV: Compute the closeness coefficient (CCi):
( ) ( )

TFNs for i ∈ I. Then, normalized fuzzy number of each Ri is

di−
represented as: CCi = , (i = 1, 2, … ., n) (14)
di+ + di−
∼
(8)
[ ]
D = dij m×n
where i = 1, 2, 3, …, m; di+ and di− are the distances from
where i = 1, 2, 3, …, m and j = 1, 2, 3, …, n a fuzzy positive and negative ideal solution.
For benefit criteria: Step V: Rank the strategies (alternatives) based on (CCi).
( )
r1ij r2ij r3ij
dij = +
, +, + (9) Results and discussion
r3j r3j r3j

An integrated decision methodology, i.e., FAHP and FTOP-

+
where r3j = max r3ij SIS, was utilized to obtain the weight of 6 barriers, 24 sub-
barriers, and 10 strategies for GSCM practices. Figure 2
For cost criteria: displays the hierarchical decision structure of this research.
( s− s− s− ) Firstly, the FAHP method analyzes and ranks the barriers and
1j 1j 1j
dij = , , (10) sub-barriers. Secondly, the FTOPSIS method was employed
s3ij s2ij s1ij
to assess and rank the strategies for GSCM practices.

s−1j = min s1ij Case information

Step II: Create the weighted normalized fuzzy decision Over the past decade, the manufacturing industry in Pakistan
matrix: has experienced notable growth. However, it heavily relies
∼ on conventional supply chain practices, leading to a surge
(11)
[ ]
V = vij m×n in environmental pollution. Therefore, it is crucial to shift

Table 4  TFNs scale

Table 5  RI scale n RIm RIg
Fuzzy number Linguistic preference TFNs
1 0 1
1 Equally dominant (1, 1, 1)
2 0 2
2 Equally to the average dominant (1, 2, 3)
3 0.4890 0.1796
3 Averagely dominant (2, 3, 4)
4 0.7937 0.2627
4 Averagely to strongly dominant (3, 4, 5)
5 1.0720 0.3597
5 Strongly dominant (4, 5, 6)
6 1.1996 0.3818
6 Strongly to very strongly dominant (5, 6, 7)
7 1.2874 0.4090
7 Very strongly dominant (6, 7, 8)
8 1.3410 0.4164
8 Very strongly to extremely dominant (7, 8, 9)
9 1.3793 0.4348
9 Extremely dominant (8, 9, 10)
10 1.4095 0.4455

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127 58119

Table 6  TFNs scale Therefore, the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix is provided
No Linguistic variables TFNs in the supplementary file.
Figure 4 displays the weight and ranking of GSCM bar-
1 Very weak (VW) (1, 2, 3) riers with respect to MB1. The analysis shows that the non-
2 Weak (W) (2, 3, 4) availability of bank loans (MB13) is a priority sub-barrier with
3 Medium weak (MW) (3, 4, 5) a weight of 0.225 (22.5%). The high cost of hazardous material
4 Medium (M) (4, 5, 6) (MB15) sub-barrier received the second rank with a weight
5 Good (G) (5, 6, 7) of 0.224 (22.4%). Further, the eco-friendly packaging cost
6 Medium good (MG) (6, 7, 8) (MB14) is considered a third vital sub-barrier with a weight
7 Very good (VG) (7, 8, 9) of 0.203 (20.3%). Finally, the financial limitations (MB12)
sub-barrier has achieved the least weight of 0.154 (15.4%).
towards sustainable and eco-friendly supply chain opera-
Figure 5 shows the ranking of sub-barriers under MB2.
tions. This research proposes various core strategies for the
The outcome indicates that a lack of trust in the green prod-
textile manufacturing industry to transform the traditional
ucts and benefits (MB22) sub-barrier has the highest impor-
supply chain into GSCM practices. In this regard, six domes-
tance, with a weight of 0.477 (47.7%). The lack of market
tic textile manufacturing industries in Pakistan were under-
access and demand (MB23) has been identified as the second
taken as a case study.
important sub-barrier, with a weight of 0.289 (28.9%). The
lack of customer awareness (MB21) sub-barrier received the
Results of fuzzy AHP
lowest weight of 0.234 (23.4%).
Figure 6 depicts the prioritizing order of sub-barriers for
In this section, the results of 6 barriers and 24 sub-barriers
MB3. The findings present that the lack of monitoring in
were evaluated using the FAHP method. These identified
assessing the supplier environmental performance (MB33)
barriers and sub-barriers hinder the adoption of green supply
sub-barrier obtained the highest weight of 0.339 (33.9%). The
chain practices. Therefore, the detailed results of barriers
lack of a reward system and environmental training courses
and sub-barriers are provided in the following sub-sections.
(MB34) sub-barrier has achieved second rank with a weight
of 0.261 (26.1%). The lack of government supports to imple-
Results of barriers
ment eco-friendly policies (MB31) sub-barrier received the
third rank with a weight of 0.235 (23.5%). In contrast, the
The FAHP approach has been used to compute the weight of
complexities in packaging materials (MB32) achieved the
6 barriers, namely, financial barriers (MB1), market barriers
least importance with a weight of 0.164 (16.4%).
(MB2), outsourcing barriers (MB3), technological barriers
Figure 7 shows the ranking order of sub-barriers from the
(MB4), information and knowledge barriers (MB5), and
perspective of MB4. It can be seen that the lack of ability to
managerial barriers (MB6), respectively. The fuzzy pair-
design a green product (MB44) is a top-ranked sub-barrier
wise comparison matrix of GSCM barriers is presented in
with a weight of 0.403 (40.3%). The technology failure risk
Table 7. At the same time, the ranking of 6 GSCM barriers
(MB41) sub-barrier obtained the second rank with a weight
is shown in Fig. 3. The results indicate that the technologi-
of 0.243 (24.3%). The lack of technology development
cal barrier (MB4), with a weight of 0.202 (20.2%), is the
(MB43) was recognized as a third key sub-barrier with a
first-ranked barrier that obstructs the development of GSCM
weight of 0.185 (18.5%). The lack of environmental training
practices. The financial barrier (MB1) is recognized as the
programs (MB42) sub-barrier achieved the lowest weight of
second most crucial GSCM barrier, with a weight of 0.190
0.169 (16.9%).
(19%). The information and knowledge barriers (MB5)
Figure 8 displays the ranking of sub-barriers under MB5.
achieved third-ranked with a weight of 0.188 (18.8%). Fur-
The findings reveal that complexity in recollecting used prod-
ther, the managerial barriers (MB6) were reported as a fourth
ucts (MB53) is the most influential sub-barrier, with a weight
significant GSCM barrier with a weight of 0.161 (16.1%).
of 0.336 (33.6%). The lack of knowledge about environmen-
Finally, the outsourcing barriers (MB3) and market barriers
tal benefits (MB51) obtained the second-ranked sub-barrier
(MB2) ranked the least important GSCM barriers, with a
with a weight of 0.291 (29.1%). Further, the lack of awareness
weight of 0.150 (15%) and 0.109 (10.9%), respectively.
and knowledge about reverse logistics practices (MB52) is
recorded as a third significant sub-barrier with a weight of
Results of sub‑barriers
0.189 (18.9%). In contrast, the lack of green system exposure
(MB54) is considered the least vital sub-barrier.
This section analyzed the sub-barriers with each barrier
Figure 9 presents the ranking of sub-barriers with
using the FAHP method. The pairwise comparison matrix
respect to the MB6. The analysis indicates that insufficient
was constructed for each GSCM barrier to their sub-barriers.
management capacity (MB64) is the crucial sub-barrier,

13
58120 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127

Fig. 2  The hierarchal structured

decision problem

Table 7  The fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix of GSCM barriers

(MB1) (MB2) (MB3) (MB4) (MB5) (MB6)

(MB1) 1, 1, 1
(MB2) 0.415, 0.507, 0.671
(MB3) 0.79, 1.043, 1.386
(MB4) 0.881, 1.1, 1.42
(MB5) 0.813, 1.043, 1.333
(MB6) 0.776, 0.967, 1.253
Consistency: 0.0367
1.49, 1.972, 2.407 0.721, 0.958, 1.265 0.704, 0.909, 1.135 0.75, 0.958, 1.23 0.798, 1.034, 1.289
1, 1, 1 0.758, 0.982, 1.269 0.64, 0.874, 1.113 0.519, 0.659, 0.854 0.569, 0.761, 0.99
0.788, 1.019, 1.32 1, 1, 1 0.541, 0.756, 1.05 0.543, 0.739, 1.01 0.837, 1.102, 1.439
0.899, 1.144, 1.561 0.952, 1.323, 1.847 1, 1, 1 1.188, 1.475, 1.95 0.822, 1.171, 1.619
1.171, 1.518, 1.928 0.99, 1.353, 1.841 0.536, 0.698, 0.857 1, 1, 1 0.813, 1.14, 1.524
1.01, 1.315, 1.759 0.695, 0.908, 1.194 0.618, 0.854, 1.216 0.656, 0.877, 1.23 1, 1, 1

with a weight of 0.368 (36.8%). The lack of commitment
(MB63) sub-barrier has achieved the second-highest
importance with a weight of 0.222 (22.2%). Moreover, the
lack of plans to adopt sustainable supply chain initiatives
(MB62) was reported as a third important sub-barrier with
a weight of 0.208 (20.8%). Lastly, the lack of involvement
of top management (MB61) sub-barrier has achieved the
lowest weight of 0.202 (20.2%). It is identified from the
above research analysis is vital for the adoption of GSCM
practices.

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127
Fig. 3  Ranking of GSCM bar-
riers
Fig. 4  Ranking of sub-barriers
with respect to MB1
Fig. 5  Ranking of sub-barriers
with respect to MB2
Results of overall sub‑barriers
The weights of GSCM sub-barriers have been achieved by
multiplying the initial weights of sub-barriers with their
respective barriers. The findings of this section present that a
lack of ability to design a green product (MB44) sub-barrier
achieved the highest weight of 0.0814 (8.14%) among all
the sub-barriers. This sub-barrier belongs to the technologi-
cal barriers (MB4), which also received the highest weight
among the remaining GSCM barriers. The complexity in
58121
recollecting used products (MB53) sub-barrier obtained the
second rank with a final weight of 0.0632 (6.32%). Insuffi-
cient management capacity (MB64) was recorded as a third
important sub-barrier with a weight of 0.0592 (5.92%).
Table 8 shows the ranking of overall GSCM barriers. The
remaining GSCM sub-barriers ranked as follows: MB51 <
MB22 < MB33 < MB41 < MB13 < MB15 < MB34 <
MB14 < MB43 < MB11 < MB63 < MB52 < MB31 <
MB54 < MB42 < MB62 < MB61 < MB23 < MB12 <
MB21 < MB32.
13
58122 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127

Results of fuzzy TOPSIS
The FTOPSIS method has been used to analyze 10 strategies
for the adoption of GSCM practices in the manufacturing
industry in Pakistan. The experts were asked to examine
each strategy based on the 24 sub-barriers. A comprehen-
sive analysis is provided in the supplementary file. The final
step of this technique was to determine the closeness coef-
ficient (CCi) value; the highest value can be considered a
feasible strategy for developing GSCM practices. Table 9
indicates the final ranking of 10 GSCM strategies. The anal-
ysis reveals that increasing the research and development
capacity (GS4) with a weight of 0.622 has been recognized
as the most vital GSCM strategy. It can be seen that the
financial incentives and subsidies (GS7) strategy has been
reported as the second highest rank with a weight of 0.610.
The developing environmental management system (GS10)
was reported as a third important strategy. The order rank-
ing of the remaining GSCM strategies are as follows: GS5
< GS6 < GS1 < GS3 < GS9 < GS2 < GS8. The results
indicate that the analyzed strategies are crucial in overcom-
ing barriers and sub-barriers that impede the development
of GSCM in Pakistan.
Discussion
This study proposed an integrated decision model to examine
and prioritize the GSCM barriers, sub-barriers, and strategies

Fig. 6  Ranking of sub-barriers

with respect to MB3

Fig. 7  Ranking of sub-barriers

with respect to MB4

Fig 8  Ranking of sub-barriers

with respect to MB5

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127
Fig. 9  Ranking of sub-barriers
with respect to MB6
for developing GSCM practices in Pakistan. Therefore, the
findings of the FAHP indicate that technological barriers
(MB4), financial barriers (MB1), and information and knowl-
edge barriers (MB5) are ranked as the most significant barri-
ers that delay the development of GSCM practices. In com-
parison, the managerial barriers (MB6), outsourcing barriers
(MB3), and market barriers (MB2) are ranked as moderate
to least significant GSCM barriers. Furthermore, the lack of
ability to design a green product (MB44), lack of capacity
and fear of switching over to a green system (MB53), and
insufficient management capacity (MB64) are recorded as the
most vital GSCM sub-barriers. While the financial limita-
tions (MB12), lack of customer responsiveness (MB21), and
complexities in packaging materials (MB32) are the least
essential GSCM sub-barriers. The FTOPSIS findings show
that increasing the research and development capacity (GS4)
is the most crucial strategy in reducing the GSCM barriers.
The financial incentives and subsidies (GS7) are recognized
as the second important strategy. The developing environmen-
tal management system (GS10) is determined as a third vital
strategy for adopting GSCM practices in the industry.
In past studies, it is determined that various researchers
have analyzed the decision problem relating to introducing
the green concept in a supply chain system. The researchers
adopted different MCDM methods to evaluate the critical
barriers, criteria, dimensions, and strategies for adopting a
green supply chain network. Every study proposed numerous
barriers based on the country’s economic, environmental,
and social conditions. In past research, the authors employed
the Grey-DEMATEL method to assess barriers to GSCM
practices in the cashew industry (Agyemang et al. 2018);
their findings reveal that improving collaboration among
industries and suppliers is very important for redesigning
the green concept. In another study, the authors used the
AHP method to analyze the strategies for sustainable imple-
mentation of supply chain operations (Luthra et al. 2013);
their results indicate that the environmental management
system is an important strategy in adopting GSCM practices.
Thus, the third critical strategy identified in this study is
58123
the development of an environmental management system.
In a separate study, researchers employed the AHP method
to assess the obstacles in implementing green supply chain
management (GSCM) (Govindan et al. 2014); the analy-
sis presents that the technological barrier is a top-ranked
barrier that hampers the development of GSCM practices.
The outcome of these studies (Wang et al. 2016; Kaur et al.
2018; Moktadir et al. 2018; Narayanan et al. 2019) shows
the lack of adequate training programs, and the top-level
management commitment is the main barrier that hampers
the development of GSCM practices. Similarly, the analysis
of this study reveals that identified barriers are crucial in
developing GSCM practices.
It is determined from the earlier studies that various
barriers impede the implementation of GSCM practices;
however, the nature of the barriers varies from industry to
industry. This research analyzed and prioritized the key bar-
riers and sub-barriers; moreover, none of the researchers has
proposed strategies for developing GSCM practices in the
context of the textile manufacturing industry in Pakistan.
Thus, an integrated decision model was used to analyze the
barriers, sub-barriers, and strategies to adopt green prac-
tices. The findings are consistent with previous research
on the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in devel-
oping countries. The study proposes several strategies for
overcoming these barriers and evaluates the effectiveness
of these strategies and prioritizes efforts toward address-
ing the most critical barriers. The results can also inform
the development of theoretical frameworks on GSCM and
provide insights into the challenges and opportunities for
implementing sustainable supply chain practices in develop-
ing countries. The results provide a comprehensive analysis
and interpretation of the findings, highlighting the critical
barriers to implementing GSCM practices in Pakistan, the
effectiveness of the proposed strategies for overcoming these
barriers, and the implications for theory and practice. These
study findings shall help industry managers, stakeholders,
and governments to shift their industrial activities into sus-
tainable supply chain operations.
13
58124 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127

Table 8  The final ranking of sub-barriers

Barrier Barrier Sub-barrier Code The initial The final Rank
weight weight of weight of
sub-barrier sub-barrier

Financial barriers (MB1) 0.190 High investment cost MB11 0.193 0.0367 13
Financial limitations MB12 0.154 0.0293 22
Non-availability of bank loans MB13 0.225 0.0428 8
Eco-friendly packaging cost MB14 0.203 0.0386 11
High cost of hazardous material MB15 0.224 0.0426 9
Market barriers (MB2) 0.109 Lack of customer awareness MB21 0.234 0.0255 23
Lack of trust in green products and benefits MB22 0.477 0.0520 5
Lack of market access and demand MB23 0.289 0.0315 21
Outsourcing barriers (MB3) 0.150 Lack of government support to implement MB31 0.235 0.0353 16
eco-friendly policies
Complexities in packaging materials MB32 0.164 0.0246 24
Lack of monitoring in assessing the supplier’s MB33 0.339 0.0509 6
environmental performance
Lack of reward system MB34 0.261 0.0392 10
Technological barriers (MB4) 0.202 Technology failure risk MB41 0.243 0.0491 7
Lack of environmental training programs MB42 0.169 0.0341 18
Lack of technology development MB43 0.185 0.0374 12
Lack of ability to design a green product MB44 0.403 0.0814 1
Information and knowledge 0.188 Lack of knowledge about environmental MB51 0.291 0.0547 4
barriers (MB5) benefits
Lack of awareness and knowledge about MB52 0.189 0.0355 15
reverse logistics practices
Complexity in recollecting used products MB53 0.336 0.0632 2
Lack of green system exposure MB54 0.184 0.0346 17
Managerial barriers (MB6) 0.161 Lack of involvement of top management MB61 0.202 0.0325 20
Lack of plans to adopt sustainable supply MB62 0.208 0.0335 19
chain initiatives
Lack of commitment MB63 0.222 0.0357 14
Insufficient management capacity MB64 0.368 0.0592 3

Conclusion and implications
This research was mainly undertaken to raise awareness
among textile practitioners to develop and transform their
existing supply chain into GSCM practices. By adopting
GSCM practices, industries can significantly reduce their
environmental footprint across all processes and opera-
tions. Despite the numerous benefits, the practitioners
of textile industries are unwilling to adopt green supply
chain processes due to the presence of various barriers,

Table 9  The final ranking of Code GSCM strategy d+ d− (CCi) Final ranking
GSCM strategies
GS1 Coordination and collaboration among industries 2.885 3.205 0.526 6
and suppliers
GS2 Supplier commitment to reverse logistics 3.571 2.486 0.410 9
GS3 Sustainable resource management 2.968 3.113 0.511 7
GS4 Increasing the research and development capacity 2.294 3.786 0.622 1
GS5 Developing green planning and policies 2.644 3.448 0.566 4
GS6 Green purchasing and packaging of the material 2.725 3.335 0.550 5
GS7 Financial incentives and subsidies 2.365 3.712 0.610 2
GS8 Organizing awareness and training programs 3.960 2.112 0.347 10
GS9 Realizing economics and social benefits 3.183 2.842 0.471 8
GS10 Developing an environmental management system 2.495 3.526 0.585 3

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127
which discourage them from adopting GSCM. Therefore,
this study determined the barriers that impede the devel-
opment of GSCM practices. Moreover, several strategies
were proposed to overcome those barriers to the adoption
of green supply chain concepts in the textile industry of
Pakistan.
Thus, in this research, an integrated decision model
based on FAHP and FTOPSIS was employed to evaluate
six barriers, 24 sub-barriers, and ten strategies for sustain-
able supply chain processes. The FAHP results reveal that
MB4, MB1, and MB5 are the most significant barriers that
hamper the development of GSCM practices. Further, the
FTOPSIS results indicate that GS4, GS7, and GS10 are
the most important strategies to overcome those barriers to
adopting GSCM practices. It is vital to mention that this is
the very first research that has investigated and evaluated
barriers and strategies in adopting GSCM for the textile
manufacturing industry of Pakistan. The results indicate
that assessing critical barriers to green supply chain man-
agement (GSCM) is essential for promoting sustainable
development. Technological obstacles emerge as a sig-
nificant concern during GSCM implementation; hence,
organizations must prioritize technological advancements
to overcome them. This research can be very significant
and helpful for industries that need to transform their
existing conventional supply chain operations into green
supply chains.
Policy implications
It is a need of the hour to collaborate between government,
industry, and civil society for implementing GSCM practices
in Pakistan. This collaboration should focus on promoting
GSCM adoption through the provision of resources for train-
ing and education, developing regulations and policies, and
supporting initiatives that promote sustainable practices.
• The government should provide resources for training
and education on green supply chain practices to firms
and organizations. This can help to increase awareness
and understanding of the benefits of GSCM practices and
improve the capacity of firms to implement them.
• The government should provide regulatory support and
incentives for the adoption of green supply chain man-
agement practices. This can include tax incentives, sub-
sidies, and penalties for non-compliance.
• Organizations and firms should be encouraged to conduct
environmental assessments to identify areas for improve-
ment and implement sustainable procurement policies.
This can help to reduce their environmental footprint and
improve their social responsibility.
58125
• Training and education programs should be provided to
build capacity and increase awareness among stakehold-
ers, including industry, government, and civil society.
• Collaboration and partnerships should be encouraged
between industry, government, and society to promote
sustainable development and ensure an environmen-
tally responsible supply chain.
The study highlights the importance of overcoming bar-
riers to implementing GSCM practices in Pakistan. The
policy implications of the study suggest that concerted
efforts by all stakeholders are required to promote sustain-
able development and ensure an environmentally respon-
sible supply chain.
Limitations and future research
The study has several limitations that suggest avenues
for future research. One limitation of the study is that it
focuses on the barriers to implementing GSCM practices
in Pakistan only. Future research can expand the scope
of the study to include other developing countries and
compare the barriers and approaches to overcome them
across different countries. The study focuses on the bar-
riers to implementing GSCM practices without exam-
ining the factors that facilitate their implementation.
Future research can explore the factors that enable the
successful implementation of GSCM practices, such as
the role of leadership, organizational culture, and stake-
holder engagement. Another limitation is that the study
does not examine the impact of implementing GSCM
practices on firm performance. Future research can
investigate the relationship between the implementation
of GSCM practices and firm performance, such as finan-
cial, environmental, and social performance. The study’s
limitations suggest that future research can explore the
barriers and enablers to implementing GSCM prac-
tices in different contexts, validate the results obtained
through different methods, and investigate the impact
of GSCM practices on firm performance and the role of
external factors in their implementation.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 11356-0​ 23-2​ 6687-x.
Availability of data and material All data generated or analyzed during
this study are included in the supplementary file.
Authors’ contributions Conceptualization, Yasir Ahmed Solangi;
methodology, Yasir Ahmed Solangi; validation, Du Jiangou; formal
analysis, Yasir Ahmed Solangi; investigation, Du Jiangou; data cura-
tion, Yasir Ahmed Solangi; writing—original draft preparation, Yasir
Ahmed Solangi; writing—review and editing, Du Jiangou; supervision,
Du Jiangou. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
13
58126
Declarations
Ethical approval It is certified that all the authors have complied with
ethical requirements.
Consent to participate All the authors participated equally in writing
of the manuscript.
Consent for publication This manuscript is neither submitted anywhere
nor under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Agarwal A, Giraud-Carrier FC, Li Y (2018) A mediation model of
green supply chain management adoption: the role of internal
impetus. Int J Prod Econ 205:342–358. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
ijpe.​2018.​09.​011
Agyemang M, Zhu Q, Adzanyo M et al (2018) Evaluating barriers to
green supply chain redesign and implementation of related prac-
tices in the West Africa cashew industry. Resour Conserv Recycl
136:209–222. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2018.​04.​011
Ahmed W, Ashraf MS, Khan SA et al (2020a) Analyzing the impact
of environmental collaboration among supply chain stakeholders
on a firm’s sustainable performance. Oper Manag Res. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s12063-​020-​00152-1
Ahmed W, Tan Q, Shaikh GM et al (2020b) Assessing and prioritizing
the climate change policy objectives for sustainable development
in Pakistan. Symmetry (Basel) 12:1203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
sym12​081203
Alay E, Duran K, Korlu A (2016) A sample work on green manufactur-
ing in textile industry. Sustain Chem Pharm 3:39–46. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​scp.​2016.​03.​001
Beton A, Dias D, Farrant L et al (2014) Environmental improvement
potential of textiles (IMPRO Textiles). Rep EUR 26316 EN.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2791/​52624
Bocken N, Boons F, Baldassarre B (2019) Sustainable business model
experimentation by understanding ecologies of business models.
J Cleaner Prod 208:1498–1512. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​
2018.​10.​159
Cayir Ervural B, Zaim S, Demirel OF et al (2018) An ANP and fuzzy
TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 82:1538–1550. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​rser.​2017.​06.​095
Chen PK, Ye Y (2022) Influence of creating an oligopoly through
government intervention to improve partner collaboration inten-
tions in the context of green supply chains. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 29:6433–6448. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​021-​16064-x
Chen Z, Ming X, Zhou T, Chang Y (2020) Sustainable supplier selec-
tion for smart supply chain considering internal and external
uncertainty: an integrated rough-fuzzy approach. Appl Soft Com-
put J 87. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asoc.​2019.​106004
Cristini G, Zerbini C, Salvietti G (2021) Sustainable supply chain man-
agement: a literature review. Micro Macro Mark 30:19–42
de Oliveira UR, Espindola LS, da Silva IR et al (2018) A systematic
literature review on green supply chain management: research
implications and future perspectives. J Cleaner Prod 187:537–561
Diabat A, Kannan D, Mathiyazhagan K (2014) Analysis of enablers
for implementation of sustainable supply chain management - a
textile case. J Cleaner Prod 83:391–403. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
jclep​ro.​2014.​06.​081
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127
Fahimnia B, Sarkis J, Davarzani H (2015) Green supply chain man-
agement: a review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ
162:101–114
Gogus O, Boucher TO (1998) Strong transitivity, rationality and weak mono-
tonicity in fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets Syst 94:133–144.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0165-​0114(96)​00184-4
Govindan K, Kaliyan M, Kannan D, Haq AN (2014) Barriers analy-
sis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian
industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ
147:555–568. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijpe.​2013.​08.​018
Govindan K, Muduli K, Devika K, Barve A (2016) Investigation of
the influential strength of factors on adoption of green supply
chain management practices: an Indian mining scenario. Resour
Conserv Recycl 107:185–194. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.r​ escon​ rec.​
2015.​05.​022
Green KW, Zelbst PJ, Meacham J, Bhadauria VS (2012) Green sup-
ply chain management practices: Impact on performance. Supply
Chain Manag 17:290–305. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​13598​54121​
12271​26
Han H, Trimi S (2018) A fuzzy TOPSIS method for performance evalu-
ation of reverse logistics in social commerce platforms. Expert Syst
Appl 103:133–145. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eswa.​2018.​03.​003
Hong Z, Guo X (2019) Green product supply chain contracts consid-
ering environmental responsibilities. Omega (United Kingdom)
83:155–166. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​omega.​2018.​02.​010
Huo B, Gu M, Wang Z (2019) Green or lean? A supply chain approach
to sustainable performance. J Cleaner Prod 216:152–166. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​01.​141
Hussain D (2017) Pakistan could become 16th largest economy by
2050: PwC - Pakistan - DAWN.COM. In: Dawn. https://​www.​
dawn.​com/​news/​13136​36. Accessed 16 Apr 2020
Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision
making. In: Multiple attribute decision making: methods and
applications a state-of-the-art survey. pp 58–191
Kaur J, Sidhu R, Awasthi A et al (2018) A DEMATEL based approach
for investigating barriers in green supply chain management in
Canadian manufacturing firms. Int J Prod Res 56:312–332. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​543.​2017.​13955​22
Kilic HS, Yalcin AS (2020) Modified two-phase fuzzy goal program-
ming integrated with IF-TOPSIS for green supplier selection.
Appl Soft Comput J 93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asoc.​2020.​
106371
Koberg E, Longoni A (2019) A systematic review of sustainable sup-
ply chain management in global supply chains. J Cleaner Prod
207:1084–1098
Kul C, Zhang L, Solangi YA (2020) Assessing the renewable energy
investment risk factors for sustainable development in Turkey. J
Cleaner Prod 276. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​124164
Kumar A, Dixit G (2018) An analysis of barriers affecting the imple-
mentation of e-waste management practices in India: a novel ISM-
DEMATEL approach. Sustain Prod Consum 14:36–52. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​spc.​2018.​01.​002
Lahane S, Kant R (2022) Investigating the sustainable development
goals derived due to adoption of circular economy practices.
Waste Manag 143:1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2022.​
02.​016
Li C, Solangi YA, Ali S (2023) Evaluating the factors of green finance to
achieve carbon peak and carbon neutrality targets in China: a Delphi
and fuzzy AHP approach. Sustainability 15
Li Y, Mathiyazhagan K (2016) Application of DEMATEL approach
to identify the influential indicators towards sustainable supply
chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing sector. J
Cleaner Prod 172:2931–2941. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​
2017.​11.​120
Luthra S, Garg D, Haleem A (2013) Identifying and ranking of strat-
egies to implement green supply chain management in Indian
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:58109–58127
manufacturing industry using analytical hierarchy process. J Ind
Eng Manag 6:930–962. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3926/​jiem.​693
Luthra S, Mangla SK, Xu L, Diabat A (2016) Using AHP to evalu-
ate barriers in adopting sustainable consumption and produc-
tion initiatives in a supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 181:342–349.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijpe.​2016.​04.​001
Majumdar A, Sinha S (2018) Modeling the barriers of green sup-
ply chain management in small and medium enterprises: a
case of Indian clothing industry. Manag Environ Qual An Int
J 29:1110–1122
Majumdar A, Sinha SK (2019) Analyzing the barriers of green textile
supply chain management in Southeast Asia using interpretive
structural modeling. Sustain Prod Consum 17:176–187. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​spc.​2018.​10.​005
Mangla SK, Govindan K, Luthra S (2017) Prioritizing the barri-
ers to achieve sustainable consumption and production trends
in supply chains using fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. J
Cleaner Prod 151:509–525. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​
2017.​02.​099
Mathiyazhagan K, Govindan K, Noorul Haq A (2014) Pressure
analysis for green supply chain management implementation in
Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Res
52:188–202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​543.​2013.​831190
Mirhedayatian SM, Azadi M, Farzipoor Saen R (2014) A novel net-
work data envelopment analysis model for evaluating green sup-
ply chain management. Int J Prod Econ 147:544–554. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​ijpe.​2013.​02.​009
Moktadir MA, Ali SM, Rajesh R, Paul SK (2018) Modeling the inter-
relationships among barriers to sustainable supply chain manage-
ment in leather industry. J Cleaner Prod 181:631–651. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2018.​01.​245
Narayanan AE, Sridharan R, Ram Kumar PN (2019) Analyzing the
interactions among barriers of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment practices: a case study. J Manuf Technol Manag 30:937–971.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​JMTM-​06-​2017-​0114
Pieroni MPP, McAloone TC, Pigosso DCA (2019) Business model
innovation for circular economy and sustainability: a review of
approaches. J Cleaner Prod 215:198–216
Prakash C, Barua MK (2015) Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for
prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome
its barriers under fuzzy environment. J Manuf Syst 37:599–615.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jmsy.​2015.​03.​001
Rostamzadeh R, Govindan K, Esmaeili A, Sabaghi M (2015) Applica-
tion of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of green supply chain man-
agement practices. Ecol Indic 49:188–203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​ecoli​nd.​2014.​09.​045
Saaty TL (1990) The analytic hierarchy process
58127
Sinaga O, Mulyati Y, Darrini A et al (2019) Green supply chain man-
agement organizational performance. Int J Supply Chain Manag
8:76–85
Solangi YA, Shah SAA, Zameer H et al (2019a) Assessing the solar PV
power project site selection in Pakistan: based on AHP-fuzzy VIKOR
approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:30286–30302. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11356-​019-​06172-0
Solangi YA, Tan Q, Mirjat NH et al (2019b) An integrated Delphi-
AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach toward ranking and selection
of renewable energy resources in Pakistan. Processes 7. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​pr702​0118
Su Z, Zhang M, Wu W (2021) Visualizing sustainable supply chain
management: a systematic scientometric review. Sustain 13
Tseng ML, Chiu ASF (2013) Evaluating firm’s green supply chain
management in linguistic preferences. J Cleaner Prod 40:22–31.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2010.​08.​007
Uygun Ö, Dede A (2016) Performance evaluation of green supply chain
management using integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision mak-
ing techniques. Comput Ind Eng 102:502–511. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​cie.​2016.​02.​020
Vafadarnikjoo A, Badri Ahmadi H, Liou JJH et al (2021) Analyzing
blockchain adoption barriers in manufacturing supply chains
by the neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process. Ann Oper Res.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10479-​021-​04048-6
Wang Z, Mathiyazhagan K, Xu L, Diabat A (2016) A decision making
trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers
to green supply chain management adoption in a food packaging
company. J Cleaner Prod 117:19–28. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jclep​ro.​2015.​09.​142
Xu L, Shah SAA, Zameer H, Solangi YA (2019) Evaluating renewable
energy sources for implementing the hydrogen economy in Paki-
stan: a two-stage fuzzy MCDM approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res
26:33202–33215. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​019-​06431-0
Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Hung LK (2007) Green supply chain management:
pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese auto-
mobile industry. J Cleaner Prod 15:1041–1052. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2006.​05.​021
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
13