Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

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

Full length article

Barriers in the adoption of buyback schemes for used plastic packaging

material – a contextual relationship analysis
K.E.K. Vimal a, Vernika Agarwal b, K. Mathiyazhagan c, *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Patna, Bihar, 800005 India
b
Amity International Business School, Amity University, Sector 125, Noida, Uttar Pradesh,201313 India
c
Thiagarajar School of Management, Madurai , Tamilnadu,625005 India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The prescribed buyback schemes as a part of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) of companies are
Buyback scheme believed to be an effective practice to eliminate the landfill of packaging materials. The coercive measures
Total interpretive modeling include the reuse and recycling of plastic packaging material. The lack of awareness, motivation, concern and
Plastic packaging material
enforcement of rules are major concerns of the government in implementing the buyback schemes of plastic
Developing economies
wastes in developing economies. In the present study, 11 barriers are identified and defined through an extensive
India
literature review. The total interpretive structural modeling method (TISM) and MICMAC analysis are used for
examining the interrelationship between the barriers by utilizing experts’ opinions. A contextual relationship-
based structural model is developed by considering the direct relationships and transitivity links. The contex­
tual model helps in identifying the influential barriers. Further, the MICMAC analysis segregates the barriers into
four based on their dependence and driving influence. The result of this study indicates that the unclear and
unstable policy is the most influential barrier which prevents the adoption of a buyback scheme for used plastic
packaging material. The study further reveals that consumer motivation is the least influential and most
dependent barrier which could be improved by establishing the infrastructure and minimizing the difficulty in
availing the scheme.

1. Introduction
Plastics have become ubiquitous in the ecosystem, and immediate
action is needed to reduce this trend of use and throw of plastic products
(Xanthos and Walker, 2017). Single-use plastics (SUPs), or disposable
plastics, are the worst pollutants as they are used only once before they
are thrown away (Moretti et al., 2021). The report by the Central
Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (2019) estimates that 3.3 million metric
tonnes of waste plastic were produced in India during 2018–19, this
roughly translates to 9200 tonnes a day (TPD), which makes India
among the top four producers of SUP wastes globally Tomar et al.
(2021). The primary reason for this large production is that a great part
of plastic products is discarded after a single use without any proper
buyback scheme (Jyothsna and Chakradhar, 2020), thereby, increasing
the dependence on virgin plastic products. In 2016, the Central Gov­
ernment of India reviewed the existing rules towards the management of
plastic waste and introduced the Plastic Waste Management Rules
(2016), which bans consumption of SUP bags below the thickness of 50
µm in most Indian urban landscapes. It also makes the producers and
generators responsible for introducing a collection back system of SUP
waste, based on the extended producer responsibility (EPR) of the
companies (Bura 2019). Keeping with the national policy, majority of
the state governments have imposed bans in most of the urban cities in
India, however, execution of these rules has been rather dismal (Aryan
et al., 2019). The success of these bans is not much due to the lack of
collection drives by the producers/ brands of the SUP packaging mate­
rial in India but rather due to the unawareness and unwillingness of the
consumers to adopt eco-friendly alternatives (Pathak and Nichter 2021).
It can be seen that the imposing of a plastic ban, specifically for used
packaging material in India is a part of its legislation, however, the
clarity in implementation of the same is not provided (Tomar et al., 2021
& Dhir et al., 2020). In addition to the ban, the government has also put
the onus on the manufacturers for recycling, reuse, or disposal of SUP
packaging material after a consumer has used and disposed of them. The
coercive measures include buyback of the SUP packaging material,
bottles, or pouches by the producer. The unavailability of alternative

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: madii1984@yahoo.com (K. Mathiyazhagan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106084
Received 1 May 2021; Received in revised form 2 November 2021; Accepted 19 November 2021
Available online 2 December 2021
0921-3449/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
K.E.K. Vimal et al.
packaging options is the major cause of the vast amount of SUP waste.
The management of SUP packaging waste in India is the purview of
municipalities, the lack of buyback options and penalties are the reason
for the widespread use of SUP packaging materials.
Despite numerous changes in the Plastic Waste Management Act of
2016 to the upcoming draft of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2021,
by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
(MoEFCC), there is a lack of systematic efforts to reduce the SUP waste
collection and buyback in the majority of Indian cities. The lack of a
buyback depository system in India is the biggest issue that affects the
principle of EPR. The new legislatives will make it mandatory for the
manufacturers to take responsibility for their packaging by setting up
collection and recycling infrastructure. The implementation of the same
can only be done by building proper buyback depository, a fixed deposit
is paid to the shopkeeper, which will be refunded on returning the
bottles or packaging pouches to the store. This will be an initial step as
the consumers will be nudged to recycle due to the cost associated with
the packaging material. In the Indian context, the barriers related to
policymaking are the key issue in the elimination of SUP. The overuse
and littering of plastic bags are extensively observed in urban cities
(Koushal et al., 2014). Percival et al. (2017) cite the need for strict
legislation to curb littering. This incessant emphasis on the recycling and
reuse issues is pressuring the economies to acknowledge the need for
proper waste management (Akram et al., 2019). It can be seen from the
above discussion, that a number of barriers hinder the implementation
of Plastic waste policies in India. The major being the lack of buy back
schemes and the ground level administration of these policies.
Analysing the literature on SUP elimination, it can be seen that
majority of the researchers have delved into the elimination of SUP
waste by proposing either bans or imposing taxes. The implementation
of proper buy back policies is missing in the literature. The SUP waste
management is further highlighted by emphasizing issues among the
general public and the need for awareness (Balwada et al., 2021), still
the emphases on buy back policies was missing in the research
perspective. In the context of the aforementioned literature gaps, the
present study focuses on ascertaining the barriers accountable for the
SUP buyback policies and developing a model for analyzing the inter­
action among the barriers. Considering this need, the present paper fo­
cuses to answer: (RQ 1) What are the important barriers to the adoption
of buyback schemes for used plastic packaging material? (RQ 2) How
could the contextual relationship between the barriers and the structural
model be studied? The paper focuses on analyzing the following
research objectives:
• To understand the reason for the lack of success in the adoption of
the buyback scheme.
• To recognize the barriers hindering the adoption of buyback schemes
• To develop a framework to model the barriers and develop a
contextual relationship to promote the buyback schemes for used
plastic packaging material.
It can be observed that the contextual relationship among the bar­
riers for mitigation of SUP packaging material is missing from the
literature, moreover, the buyback of the waste SUP is also not addressed
in the literature. The literature mostly on the elimination of SUP (Vimal
et al., 2020), barriers in the elimination of packaging materials of SUP,
and lack of buyback policies need much attention. The present paper
focuses on understanding the barriers to the buyback of SUP packing
material in the emerging economy of India. An extant literature review
and interactions with various stakeholders are carried out to shortlist the
critical barriers. Total Interpretive Structural Modeling (TISM) and
MICMAC analysis method have been adopted to analyze the relation­
ships among barriers and to develop the contextual relationship for the
barriers hindering the successful adoption.
The paper is divided into six sections. Section 1 elaborates the
background and discusses the research questions. Section 2 elaborates
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084
the status of buyback or take-back schemes for SUP in India and barriers
to implementing buyback schemes. It also reviews contextual relation­
ship analysis methods and research gaps. The solution methodology is
presented in Section 3. Case application has been discussed in Section 4.
Section 5 presents the insights arrived at from the calculations. In
conclusion, various policy recommendations, and limitations of the
study are given in Section 6.
2. Literature review
The extant literature has been reviewed to review the various
buyback schemes undertaken to control SUP packaging materials, and
the impediments faced by the governing bodies in the reduction of SUP
packaging waste. In this context, the literature review section has been
divided into three subsections- buyback schemes for plastic waste, bar­
riers in implementing buyback schemes, and a review of contextual
relationship analysis methods.
2.1. Buyback schemes
The growth of plastic is exponential everywhere in societies due to its
low economic impact and lightweight feature. These features make it
useful in varieties of packing services (Andrady, 2015). Due to its
durability, lightweight, inexpensive nature, plastic has become the
choice of material for packaging the majority of the products across the
globe. The rising growth of SUP packaging material is a concern for
environmental agencies and the sustainability of the ecosystem. Ma­
jority of the global SUP packaging waste is sent to landfill or disposed of
in the ecosystem due to the lack of infrastructure and poor design of
packaging material. A paper by Nielsen et al. (2020) concluded that the
gap between the alignment of benefits of SUP recycling and waste
management policies is the major hindrance in unhealthy and inefficient
SUP waste management. The need for efficient buyback and waste
management policies of the national and international bodies is required
to curb the growing disruption of the plastic waste in ecology. The
government is curbing the use of SUP packaging material by introducing
the extended producer responsibility which makes it mandatory for the
producers/ brands to take back/ buy back the used packaging bottles
waste and SUP. The paper by Garlapati (2016) demonstrated the role of
extended producer responsibility in achieving effective e-waste man­
agement. The government of India has launched the buyback depository
system in the urban landscape, however, its enforcement is at a nascent
stage.
Lack of enforcement regulation is the biggest challenge that is faced
by government policymakers. The majority of the research in the Indian
context for waste management focused on challenges, ecological impact,
and buyback strategies. A paper by Dwivedy et al. (2015) concluded that
the overall profitability of the buyback scheme is essential for the suc­
cess of any recycling mandate. The negligent behavior of the Indian
consumer in throwing the packaging material in landfills is another
reason for the growing waste in urban landscape firms (Borthakur and
Govind 2017). Furthermore, in India, a very low percentage of the
accumulated waste is recycled because of a lack of good infrastructure
(Kumar and Dixit 2018). A paper by Dumbili and Henderson (2020)
highlighted the need to change the political and social situation by
application of taxes as a measure to curb SUP and the waste packaging
material.
A paper by Wagner (2017) suggested the need for the state author­
ities to reduce SUP shopping bags by imposing charges. Shahnawaz
et al. (2019) suggested the packaging material shall be printed with
manufacturer’s details, type of plastic with code number, and buyback
price to aid in collection of packaging material and ERP implementation.
The reuse of SUP packaging material will benefit from such ideas,
however, the implementation is a difficult task due to the lack of
infrastructure in many emerging economies. Bartolotta and Hardy
(2018) analyzed the barriers to reducing inefficient disposal of SUP
K.E.K. Vimal et al.
packaging materials. They concluded that monetary incentives are the
predominant factor to influence change in consumer behavior. Dumbili
and Henderson (2020) emphasized the need for the policymakers to
introduce interventions to encourage plastic packing buyback from
users. The above discussion emphases on the fact that the economies are
moving towards reduction of the SUP packaging materials, but there are
infrastructure and policy making challenges which are hindering the
administration of the same. It can be observed that the Indian Govern­
ment is actively administrating rules related to the reduction of SUP; the
effective implementation is, however, still a challenge. Given the
severity of the situation and the need to focus on waste management
specifically for plastic waste, the Indian economy must take immediate
action for effective management of the SUP packaging material.
Considering these challenges, it becomes necessary to understand the
reason for the lack of success in the adoption of the buyback scheme
which was the motivation behind the current study.
2.2. Barriers in implementing buyback schemes
The majority of SUP is used for one-time disposable applications
(Satapathy 2017). In recent years, awareness of the accumulation and
environmental effects of SUP has increased manifold, forcing policy­
makers to concentrate on this issue. Another key challenge is the
segregation of plastic waste streams from each other (Shahnawaz et al.,
2019). A paper by Beber and Pagano (2013) discusses that imposing a
ban without identifying suitable alternatives is another major barrier to
the elimination of plastic. A study by Chandrashekar (2018) cites that
the major ban on plastic in India was in the western Indian state of
Maharashtra. Previously, the ban on SUP bags in India was very little
effective. However, after the initial few days, the government relaxed
the rules due to the unavailability of proper alternatives. The manage­
ment of waste management is defined on the principle of 4Rs – Reduce,
Reuse, Recycle and Recover. Prata et al. (2019) state that the focus must
be to reduce and reuse SUP, however, the recyclable waste can be used
in energy recovery, thereby reducing the waste which goes into landfills.
It can be observed that most of the Indian cities do not have the proper
infrastructure of landfills, which poses a major hindrance to waste
management (Vimal et al., 2020). The major barriers identified from the
literature include:
Lack of awareness among consumers (B1): Lack of awareness
about the benefit of using a buyback scheme does not help in the
implementation of the scheme (Dhir et al., 2021 & Nielsen et al. (2020)).
The research by Xanthos and Walker (2017) discussed plastic waste in
the marine ecosystem. The paper discusses the various policies adopted
globally to reduce SUP and their waste in the marine ecosystem. They
concluded that the lack of awareness among consumers is the major
barrier that is hindering the elimination of SUP.
Lack of advertisement (B2): Lack of publicity about the buyback
scheme does not help in creating awareness among the public (Xanthos
and Walker 2017). The paper by Vimal et al. (2020) discusses the major
impediments for SUP in India. The paper discussed the lack of support
for media, as a major hindrance. The media is not projecting the nega­
tive impact of plastics on the urban and rural population. This lack of
support causes the population to use the SUP without thinking of the
consequences.
Lack of interest for new service providers (B3): Implementation
of a buyback scheme looks less profitable because of lack of interest from
consumers and lack of financial support from the government. Adam
et al. (2020) discussed the ban imposed on using SUP pollution. The
paper discusses the lack of implementation of these bans due to the lack
of manufacturer involvement. Thus, the new service providers are not
showing interest in establishing the business based on a buyback scheme
which causes a major hindrance in the buyback of SUP packaging
materials.
Lack of infrastructure (B4): Lack of proper infrastructure compli­
cates the implementation of the buyback scheme. The study by
3
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084
Bhattacharya et al. (2018) concluded that the major barrier for SUP
elimination is the lack of a systematic mechanism to deal with plastic
waste generated per day in India because the implementation of
buyback scheme requires manual and automatic collection centers,
transportation facility and recycling centers (Xanthos and Walker 2017).
Uncertainty and Unstable Policy (B5): The paper by Satapathy
(2017) discusses the barriers to SUP recycling in India. The paper con­
siders the various processes that are undertaken for the recycling of
plastic in India. They aimed to understand the key challenges hindering
the implementation of effective recycling. On analyzing the responses
they concluded that the low landfill cost and government policy were
major barriers that hinder the effective recycling of SUP. It can be
concluded that the government policies related to buyback schemes and
disposal costs are very unstable (Satapathy 2017 & Sahu et al., 2020).
Lack of financial aid (B6): Charter and Tischner (2017), in their
edited book, discussed the lack of financial aid as the major hindrance in
the buyback scheme of SUP. These challenges are discussed by different
researchers in their respective studies (Khanra et al., 2021). The chal­
lenges have never been discussed altogether in any past research. This
gives motivation to the authors to include all these challenges for SUP
buyback schemes in India. It will aid the policymakers to develop more
sustainable strategies for the recent future.
Difficulty in availing of the buyback scheme (B7): Unavailability
of enough collection centers complicates the process of availing buyback
scheme. Development is needed in building infrastructure models
should be the building of identifies the location of buyback depositaries
so that maximum consumers have access to the same. Building collec­
tion centers or vending machines for the collection of SUP bottles or
pouches is another step, that can be carried out by the government.
Low Buyback price (B8): The minimal price does not encourage the
consumers to avail the scheme. The consumers and producers are not
motivated to return the SUP packaging waste due to a lack of incentives.
Incentives or fixed deposits must be associated to make sure that the
consumers bring back their packaging bottles and pouches (Talwar
et al., 2020a & Seth et al., 2020).
No solid waste disposal cost (B9): As solid waste disposal does not
incur any cost, the public intends to go towards direct disposal rather
than utilizing the buyback scheme (Chauhan et al., 2021 & Satapathy
2017). Stringent laws are needed for motivating the producers and
consumers to properly dispose of the waste SUP packaging products
instead of dumpling in landfills.
Poor product labeling practice (B10): The missing details of the
buyback scheme on packaging materials and containers complicates the
implementation of the buyback scheme.
Lack of motivation among consumers (B11): The paper by Wag­
ner (2017) discusses the reduction of SUP bags. The low recycling rate
for plastic bags is a function of multiple factors. The study concluded
that the primary step to increase the collection of SUP bags is by having
dedicated collection sites. Low motivation affects the collection rate of
plastic waste in most countries, which is the major barrier in this
direction.
2.3. Research gaps
The rate of growth of plastic in India is increasing at a very fast pace
due to urbanization. It can be seen that although the increase in pro­
duction of plastic is an advantage for the Indian economy, the problem
exists due to the unsystematic management of plastic waste, specifically,
the packaging bottles and pouches which are made of SUP (Bhatta­
charya et al., 2018). The transaction of the plastic industry actors, pol­
icymakers, and society is moving away from the notion of
“take-make-consume-discard” to an environmentally concision decision
in which the products and materials are recycled and reused (Moham­
madi et al., 2021; TM et al., 2021). The literature has delved into the
elimination of SUP waste by proposing either bans or imposing taxes.
Shahnawaz et al. (2019) discuss the management of SUP management
K.E.K. Vimal et al.
rules framed by various government organizations across the world.
Nwafor and Walker (2020), in their paper, discussed the plastic ban bills
in western Africa and their legislative implications. Henderson and
Green (2020) discussed the public behavior of microplastics in the
United Kingdom. The paper by Chen et al. (2021) highlights the neds for
biodegradable alternatives and analyses plastic management based on a
circular economy approach. Heidbreder et al. (2020) analyzed the
reduction in SUP by promoting awareness in the consumers. This was
further highlighted by Cristi et al. (2020) by emphasizing issues among
the general public, which pressured the government into adopting SUP
legislative in Chile.
It can be seen from the extant literature analysis that most of the
studies highlight the steps to curb the waste due to SUP (Balwada et al.,
2021). Pollution caused due to SUP packaging material is still missing
from the literature. Liu et al. (2021) discuss the inconsistency in the
implementation of policies, taxes, and bans to address SUP issues. In the
context of the aforementioned literature gaps, the present study focuses
on ascertaining the barriers accountable for the SUP buyback policies
and developing a model for analyzing the interaction among the bar­
riers. Thus, the major contribution of the present study are:
• Identification of key challenges in adoption of buyback scheme for
used packaging material in an emerging economy like India.
• The shortlisted barriers are evaluated for contextual relationships.
3. Method
Many state governments in India have banned plastic packaging
material in one form or the other in an attempt towards sustainability
initiatives. The government of Maharashtra is the first in India to
implement a buyback depository system in 2018. On the other hand,
Flipkart India initiated a pilot project in 2019 to collect SUP packaging
back from customers at select hubs across Pune, Dehradun, Delhi,
Mumbai, Bengaluru, Kolkata, and Ahmedabad. However, the adoption
of the buyback or buyback depository system is not very successful. In
this study, an attempt has been made to understand the reason for the
lack of success in the adoption of the buyback scheme by utilizing the
knowledge of Expert members.
Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and
ISM approaches have been extensively used in literature to understand
the interrelationship between factors. The study by Bhatia and Srivas­
tava (2018) evaluated the challenge for electrical and electronics
products remanufacturing using the DEMATEL approach. A paper by
Sharma et al. (2020) utilized the DEMATEL method to understand
e-waste management in India. Vimal et al. (2020) utilized DEMATEL to
understand the interplay between challenges responsible for eliminating
SUPs in India. The paper by Ayçin and Kayapinar Kaya (2021) discussed
the key barrier to zero waste management practices in Turkey. ISM
approach has been employed to evaluate the challenges for the devel­
opment and improvement of landfills (Chandramowli et al., 2011). Ravi
(2015) evaluated the interrelationship among the challenges of
eco-efficiency in the packaging of electronic products by using the ISM
approach. However, the major drawback of the ISM method is its
inability to capture experts’/ respondents’ opinions on the way the el­
ements are related and explanation for various relationships. It leads to
poor interpretation of contextual relationships of both transitive and
direct links. To overcome this pitfall, the ISM method is augmented with
an interpretive matrix to develop total interpretive structural modeling
(TISM) model. The other advantage is that the transitive relations can be
retraced back with critical reasoning (Deepak et al. 2021). In this regard,
the TISM method has been adopted to analyze develop the contextual
relationship-based model for the successful adoption of buyback
schemes.
4
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084
3.1. TISM
The basic steps of the TISM method are shown in Fig. 1. In this sub-
section, the TISM method is explained by outlining the basic steps.
Step I. Expert team formulation
The expert team is formulated to utilize their knowledge in various
stages of the study like developing an initial reachability matrix,
establishing the transitivity links, and validating the developed struc­
tural model.
Step II. Identifying and defining the elements
Through the extensive literature review, the barriers that impede the
adoption of buyback schemes for used plastic packaging material will be
identified and defined in this step. These barriers are the elements of
TISM.
Step III Developing an interpretive logic knowledge base
Through the pairwise comparison, an interpretive logic knowledge
base is developed which consists of yes/no answers for the relationships
of the elements along with the logical reason for the answers ‘yes’. In this
step, the pairwise contextual relationship between the barriers is defined
with the support of the resource team.
Step IV Development of pair-wise comparisons
With the support of an interpretive logic knowledge base, the binary
comparison of pairwise comparisons is carried out. The answer of ‘yes′ in
the interpretive logic knowledge base is considered as ‘1′ and ‘no′ as ‘0′ .
The binary interpretation of ‘1′ represents the presence of a contextual
relationship whereas ‘0′ denotes the absence of a relationship. With the
logical interpretations, the pairwise comparison matrix of a ‘m x m′
matrix is developed where ‘m′ is the number of barriers. The pairwise
comparison matrix developed in this step is called the initial reachability
matrix.
Step V Transitivity links and Final reachability matrix
The presence of contextual relationships shown in the initial reach­
ability matrix indicated the direct relationships. However, there could
be several indirect relations that are identified by a transitivity check.
The rule for transitivity checks is: if ‘X′ influences ‘Y′ and ‘Y′ influences
‘Z′ , then ‘X′ influences ‘Z′ . Each identified transitive link is updated in
the interpretive knowledge base and represented as a ‘transitive link′
Also, the elements providing the links are identified. With the support of
the expert team, the transitive links having a significant interpretation
alone are identified and considered for further analysis. The matrix with
direct relationships and effective transitive links is called the final
reachability matrix.
Step VI Level partitions
Level partition is an iterative method is followed to determine the
levels of the barriers from the final reachability matrix. The driving el­
ements of a barrier form reachability set and the dependence elements of
a barrier form the antecedent set. With the reachability set and ante­
cedent set, the intersection set is determined. The barrier for which the
reachability set and intersection set are the same in the 1st iteration is
designated the topmost level (Level I). For the subsequent iteration, the
Level I barriers are removed from all sets and the level 2 barriers are
identified. This process is continued until the levels are assigned for each
barrier.
Step VII Digraph model
Development of hierarchical model by arranging the barriers based
on the levels identified in the previous step and representing the links as
identified with the final reachability matrix using allow is called a
digraph.
Step VIII Developing an interpretive matrix
In the interpretive matrix, for all the entries of ‘1′ in the final
reachability matrix the interpretation is denoted.
Step IX TISM model
The final step is the development of the TISM model. The interpre­
tation developed in the previous step is incorporated in the Digraph
developed in Step 7 to develop the TISM model.
Step X Validation of TISM
K.E.K. Vimal et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084

Fig. 1. TISM Method.

The expert team is used to assess the developed TISM model. The
Table 1
interpretations developed in step 8 are presented to experts and asked to
Expert member details.
provide a score in the Likert scale of ‘1 – strongly disagree’ to ‘5 –
strongly agree’. If the average score of an interpretation is 3 or above, Expet Members Designation

then it is accepted else it is rejected. Expert 1 End Consumer

Expert 2 End Consumer
Expert 3 End Consumer
3.2. MICMAC analysis Expert 4 End Consumer
Expert 5 Retail shop owner
Expert 6 Retail shop owner
MICMAC is applied to identify the key barriers that hinder the Expert 7 Manager – Packing Solutions
adoption of buyback schemes for used plastic packaging material. In Expert 8 Manager – Packing Solutions
MICMAC analysis, the barriers are plotted in a graph, which is divided Expert 9 Policy Maker
into four quadrants namely: driving, dependence, autonomous, and Expert 10 Policy Maker

linkage. The driving power, which is row sum, and dependence power,
which is column sum, is used to plot the barriers in the four-quadrant
plot. The barriers in the first quadrant represent autonomous barriers,
which generally have low driving and dependence power. The barriers
with low driving power and strong dependence power are found in the
second quadrant. On the other hand, the barriers with high driving
power and low dependence power are plotted in the fourth quadrant.
The linkage barrier which has high driving and dependent power is
plotted in the fourth quadrant.
expert individually. In the third meeting, the identified transitive links
were presented with the experts and are validated. In the final meeting,
the results obtained from the study were summarized to the expert team
and experts knowledge is utilized to assess validate the developed TISM
model
4.2. Development of the total interpretive structural model

4. Analysis & results
4.1. Data collection method
A team of 10 expert members (Table 1) was created which comprised
multi-stakeholders such as industry experts, manufacturers, policy­
makers, and general consumers. During the study, four meetings were
arranged with the experts through video conferencing. In the first
meetings, the author/s of the present study presented the idea of the
research and shared the objectives of the study with the expert members.
At the first meeting, the authors presented the barriers list to the experts,
and also, general awareness of these barriers was given to these experts.
In the second meeting which was scheduled 15 days after the first
meeting, the interpretive knowledge database was developed for each
The TISM method outlined in Section 3 is used for developing
contextual relationships among the barriers that impede the adoption of
buyback schemes for used plastic packaging materials. To effectively
study the influential barriers, the structural model has been developed
using the TISM methodology outlined in Section 3.1. With the support of
the knowledge team, an interpretive knowledge database is developed.
The interpretive knowledge database contains yes/no responses for 110
paired relationship-based questions. As suggested by Deepak e al (2021),
a pairwise relationship question with less than 50% positive responses is
considered as ‘no’. In this way, the responses obtained from all the
members (collected in the 2nd meeting) of the knowledge team are
combined for obtaining the interpretive knowledge base (Table 2).
The initial reachability matrix is an 11 × 11 matrix with the binary
interpretation of a total pairwise comparison of 110. With the support of

5
K.E.K. Vimal et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084

Table 2 awareness among consumers (B1) has a transitivity relationship with

Interpretive logic knowledge base. Lack of motivation/unwillingness for new manufacturers (B3). In the
S. Pairwise Comparison Any Remarks if initial reachability matrix, B1 does not confer any relation with B3,
No contextual relationship any. however, a lack of awareness among consumers (B1) hinders the
relationship exists collection rate/motivation among consumers. Lower collection impacts
1 B1-B2 Lack of awareness No – the motivation for new investors which results in a transitivity rela­
among consumers tionship among B1 to B3. Similarly, the transitivity for each relationship
will influence Lack is checked and elements providing transitivity are identified as shown in
of advertisement
2 B1-B3 Lack of awareness No –
Table 4.
among consumers However, in reality, all the transitivity links may not be effective,
will influence Lack thus the experts’ opinion is taken to decide the effectiveness/ ineffec­
of motivation / tiveness of the transitivity link. The final reachability matrix is obtained
unwillingness for
by replacing the effective binary interpretation of ‘0′ with ‘1′ which is
new manufacturers
3 B1-B4 Lack of awareness No – shown in Table 5. Out of 16 transitivity links, four transitivity links were
among consumers found to be effective which were highlighted with yellow color and the
will influence Lack insignificant transtive links are highlighted with red color (Table 5).
of infrastructure The reachability, antecedent, and intersection sets were obtained for
each barrier from the final reachability matrix. A barrier that has the
– – – – –
10 B1-B11 Lack of awareness Yes Lack of
among consumers awareness same reachability set an intersection set is designated as level 1. In our
will influence Low minimizes the case, B3, B7 and B11 were the level 1 (topmost) barriers. The level 1
motivation and collection rate barriers were removed from the reachability, antecedent, and intersec­
Collection Rate
tion sets, and iteration is continued until designating all the barriers. In
under buyback
scheme this study, the barriers are categorized into five levels as shown in
– – – – – Table 6. Finally, the digraph is developed by arranging the barriers as
110 B11 – B10 Poor product No – per their levels and connecting them with the arcs for regular and
labeling practice will transitivity links (Fig. 2).
influence Low
The interaction matrix (Table 7) is developed by converting the arc
motivation and
Collection Rate in the diagraph into 1 and other cells as voids. The interpretation for the
under buyback interaction matrix is presented in Table 8. The total interpretive struc­
scheme tural model is developed by mentioning the interpretation in the digraph
presented in Fig. 3. A total of 28 interpretations (IR1 – IR28) are iden­
tified as shown in Fig. 3. The interpretation is validated by utilizing
the interpretive logic knowledge base, the intimal reachability matrix is
expert knowledge. The scores obtained for each interpretation (IR1 –
developed by binary interpretation of ‘yesas ‘1′ and ‘no′ as ‘0′ . For
IR28) from the 10 experts are presented in Table 9. The interpretation
example, the pairwise contextual relationship of Lack of awareness
with an average score of 3 and above is considered for further analysis.
among consumers (B1) against Low Collection Rate under the buyback
Out of 28 interpretations, 27 interpretations’ average score is above 3
scheme (B11) has the relationship of ‘yes ′ in the interpretive logic
(except IR8). With these 27 interpretations, the validated TISM is
knowledge base. It is replaced by a binary interpretation of ‘1′ in the
developed which is shown in Fig. 4.
initial reachability matrix. The diagonal of the initial reachability matrix
is provided with ‘1′ (Girubha et al. 2016). The initial reachability matrix
is presented in Table 3. 4.3. MICMAC analysis
The initial reachability matrix is checked for transitivity to obtain the
final reachability matrix. One example of transitivity is that Lack of The dependence power and driving power are calculated using the

Table 3
Initial Reachability Matrix.

6
K.E.K. Vimal et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084

Table 4
Interpretive matric representing the elements providing transitivity links.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11

Lack of awareness among consumers B1 B11

Lack of advertisement B2 B1,B7
Lack of interest for new service providers B3 B4,B7
Lack of infrastructure B4
Uncertainty and Unstable Policy B5 B10 B10 B3,B4 B4,B8,B9,B10
Lack of financial aid B6 B3,B4 B4
Difficulty in availing the buyback scheme B7 B11
Low Buyback price B8 B11
No solid waste disposal cost B9 B3 B3
Poor product labeling practice B10 B11 B2
Lack of motivation among consumers B11 B3 B3

Table 5
Final Reachability matrix representing all transitivity li>nks.

Driving
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11
Power
Lack of awareness among
B1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
consumers
Lack of advertisement B2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Lack of interest for new
B3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
service providers
Lack of infrastructure B4 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Uncertainty and Unstable
B5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Policy
Lack of financial aid B6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
Difficulty in availing the
B7 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
buyback scheme
Low Buyback price B8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
No solid waste disposal
B9 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 5
cost
Poor product labelling
B10 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 6
practice
Lack of motivation among
B11 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
consumers

Dependence Power 4 3 10 6 1 2 9 2 2 2 11

final reachability matrix which is presented in Table 6. Using the driving

Table 6
power and dependence power, the barriers are plotted in the driving and
Level partition of the barriers.
dependence power diagram in which the x-axis represents driving power
Barriers Reachability set Antecedent set Interaction Level and the y axis represents dependence power. The diagram is divided into
set
4 quadrants namely linkage, driver, dependent, and autonomous as
B1 B1,B3,B11 B1, B2, B5, B10 B1 2 shown in Fig. 5. Uncertainty and Unstable Policy (B5) is the only driving
B2 B1, B2, B7, B11 B2, B5, B10 B2 3
barrier with the driver and dependence scores of 11 and 3 respectively.
B3 B3, B4, B7, B11 B1, B3, B4, B5, B6, B3, B4, B7, 1
B7, B8, B9, B11 B11 From the driver and dependence power diagram, it is clear that four
B4 B3, B4, B7, B11 B3, B4, B5, B6, B9, B3, B4, B11 2 barriers do not fall in the linkage quadrant, that is Lack of motivation/
B11 unwillingness for new manufacturers (B3), Lack of infrastructure (B4),
B5 B1,B2,B3, B4, B5, B5 B5 5 Difficulty in availing of the buyback scheme (B7), and Low Collection
B6, B7, B8, B9, B10,
B11
Rate under the buyback scheme (B11). Generally, the barriers that fall in
B6 B3, B4, B6, B7, B11 B5, B6 B6 3 the linkage quadrant are unstable as the action on these barriers will
B7 B3, B7, B11 B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B11 1 have an impact on other barriers. Finally, 5 barriers lie in the autono­
B7, B9, B10, B11 mous quadrant which indicates that these barriers generally disconnect
B8 B3, B8, B11 B5, B8 B8 2
from the model.
B9 B3, B4, B7, B9, B11 B5, B9 B9 3
B10 B1, B2, B7, B10, B11 B5, B10 B10 4
B11 B3, B4, B7, B11 B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B3, B4, B7, 1 5. Discussion
B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11
B11 The validated total interpretive structural model consists of five
levels with the least influential barriers, namely Lack of motivation
among consumers (B11), Difficulty in availing the buyback scheme (B7)

7
K.E.K. Vimal et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084

Fig. 2. Digraph showing direct and effective transitivity links.

Table 7
Interaction Matrix.

8
K.E.K. Vimal et al.
Table 8
Interpretive relationship matrix.
and Lack of interest among new service providers (B3) at the topmost
level, i.e. level 1. The presence of Lack of motivation among consumers
(B11), Difficulty in availing the buyback scheme (B7) and Lack of in­
terest among new service providers (B3) at the topmost level indicates
that these barriers are the least influential on other barriers; on the other
hand, they are generally influenced by other barriers. The lack of a
conducive market environment and support from the government is not
encouraging the new service providers to enter into the business
(Appolloni et al., 2021 & Talwar et al., 2020b). On the other hand, lack
of financial benefit and difficulty in availing the service demotivate the
consumer. This shows that the barriers of Lack of motivation among
consumers (B11), Difficulty in availing the buyback scheme (B7) and
Lack of interest among new service providers (B3) are not the pivotal
barriers of the model, whereas these there barriers are mostly influenced
by other barriers. The barrier, Lack of interest among new service pro­
viders (B3) is influenced by five barriers namely, Lack of infrastructure
(B4), Uncertainty and Unstable Policy (B5), Lack of financial aid (B6),
No landfill cost (B9), and Lack of motivation among consumers (B11).
The interpretation for the influence of Lack of infrastructure (B4) over
Lack of interest among new service providers (B3) is the infrastructure
limitation hinders the interest of new service providers. The
9
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084
interpretation for the influence of Uncertainty and Unstable Policy (B5)
over Lack of interest among new service providers (B3) is policy un­
certainty hinders the interest among new service providers. The inter­
pretation for the influence of Lack of financial aid (B6) over Lack of
interest among new service providers (B3) is lack of financial aid hinders
the interest among new service providers. The interpretation for the
influence of No landfill cost (B9) over Lack of interest among new ser­
vice providers (B3) is that landfill cost does not motivate the consumer
to use the buying scheme, thus, the new service providers are not
showing interest. The interpretation for the influence of Lack of moti­
vation among consumers (B11) over Lack of interest among new service
providers (B3) shows lack of motivation is not encouraging the new
service providers
Level 2 consists of barriers namely Lack of awareness among con­
sumers (B1), Lack of Infrastructure (B4), and Low Buyback price (B8).
The barriers at the second level highlight the reason for the lack of
motivation among consumers to avail buyback scheme (Cao et al.,
2021). The barriers present at level 3 include Lack of advertisement
(B2), Lack of financial aid (B6) and No solid waste disposal cost (B9).
These barriers predominantly influence consumer awareness and moti­
vation for new service Poor product labeling practice (B10) is the barrier
K.E.K. Vimal et al.
Fig. 3. Total Interpretive structural model.
present at level 4 which is primarily influenced by unstable policy. Level
5 consists of barrier Unstable policy (B5). From the validated TISM
(Fig. 4), it is clear that the Unstable policy (B5) has five contextual re­
lationships with the barriers namely: Low buyback price (B8), Lack of
financial aid (B6), Lack of interest from new service providers (B3), Now
solid waste disposal cost (9), and Poor product labeling practice (B10).
The unstable and unclear policy is responsible for the poor imple­
mentation and lack of financial support for infrastructure development
which leads to a lack of motivation for the consumers to utilize buyback
schemes. The concept of buyback schemes for used packaging material is
evolving globally and the evidence from the other developed countries
could be utilized to develop a clear policy in the future.
The MICMAC analysis supports drawing driver and dependence di­
agram which indicates the categorization of barriers into four groups
namely linkage, driver, dependence, and autonomous barriers. B1, B2,
B6, B8, B9, and B10 are barriers that fall in the autonomous barriers
category. Generally, these barriers have less driving and dependence
power. The initiative taken on the barriers of other categories does not
have any impact on these barriers and they support maintaining the
stability of the model. For instance, the action on other barriers will not
affect the Consumer awareness (B1) or other barriers in this group.
However, in some cases, these barriers are positively influenced by the
action on other barriers of this group. These barriers can also be
considered as driving barriers with higher importance (Deepak et al.
2021). The second quadrant consists of barriers namely Lack of interest
from new service providers (B3), Lack of infrastructure (B4), Difficulty
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084
in availing of the buyback scheme (B7), and Lack of motivation from
consumers (B11) which are highly dependent on other barriers. These
four barriers falling in this category indicate that they are not the pri­
mary barriers that impede the adoption of buyback schemes whereas
they are influenced by other barriers. For instance, from the validated
TISM, it is clear that the barriers B3, B4, B7, and B11 are influenced by
B5, B3, B4, and B9 barriers respectively. The development of infra­
structure and financial aid from the government can motivate the new
service providers. The barriers in the third quadrant are called linkage
barriers which make the system unstable as any changes to these make
the system unstable. In our model, we do not have any linkage barriers.
The barrier Unstable policy (B5) has higher driving power and lower
dependence power. This barrier falls in the fourth quadrant and is called
the driving barrier. The driving barrier is the root cause barrier for the
other barriers. The driving barrier needs to be eradicated to eliminate
other barriers. Similarly, in this study, B5 is the most influential barrier
which influences the other 10 barriers. The unstable policy is respon­
sible for lack of financial support, poor product labeling practice,
disposal of solid waste free of cost, and lack of interest from new service
providers.
The study proposed in this work was conducted from a developing
economy perspective with the focus on a buyback scheme for used
plastic packaging material. However, the results obtained in the study
could be extended for other types of recyclable waste products which are
dominant in the solid waste generation of a country. For instance,
eradication of barriers in the collection of electronic wastes and paper
K.E.K. Vimal et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084

Table 9
Interpretive relationship statement and its validation.
Derived interpretive relationship Expert Score Average Decision
Link 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IR1 Lack of awareness restricts the people from utilizing the scheme 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3.2 Accept
IR2 Lack of advertisement minimizes the awareness among common consumers 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4.6 Accept
IR3 Lack of advertisement creates the uncertainty about the collection location which leads to 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3.6 Accept
difficulty in availing the scheme
IR4 Lack of advertisement prevents the motivation and utilization of buy back scheme 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 Accept
IR5 Lack of new service providers limits the infrastructure development 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4.5 Accept
IR6 Lack of new service providers limits infrastructure development leads to consumer difficulty 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.7 Accept
in availing the facility
IR7 Lack of new service providers limits the infrastructure development which leads to minimal 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3.4 Accept
motivation among customers
IR8 The infrastructure limitation hinders the interest of new service providers 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2.5 Reject
IR9 Minimal collection centres (Manual and Automatic) increase the difficulty of customers 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3.3 Accept
IR10 Lack of collection centres decreases the customer motivation 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3.6 Accept
IR11 Policy uncertainty hinders the interest among new service providers 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 4.5 Accept
IR12 Policy uncertainty hinders the infrastructure development 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4.2 Accept
IR13 Unstable policy minimizes the funding opportunity 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3.6 Accept
IR14 Policy uncertainty does not help in fixing nominal buyback price 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.4 Accept
IR15 Policy uncertainty does not support in fixing the landfill cost 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3.3 Accept
IR16 Policy uncertainty does not support in implementing effective labeling practice 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 4.6 Accept
IR17 Unstable policy demotivates the consumers 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4.5 Accept
IR18 Lack of financial aid hinders the interest among new service providers 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 Accept
IR19 Lack of financial aid hinders the motivation for infrastructure development 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3.6 Accept
IR20 Difficulty in availing the scheme demotivates the consumers 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4.4 Accept
IR21 Low buyback price demotivates the consumers 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4.5 Accept
IR22 No landfill cost does not motivate the consumer to use buy scheme, thus, the new service 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3.5 Accept
providers are not showing interest
IR23 No landfill cost contributes to low collection rate 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3.5 Accept
IR24 Poor labeling practice does not create motivation among consumer to increase collection 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3.7 Accept
rate
IR25 Poor product labeling practice fails to create awareness among consumers 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3.4 Accept
IR26 Poor product labeling practice fails to capitalize the opportunity to make advertisement 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3.4 Accept
IR27 Poor labeling practice reduces ease of availing buy back scheme 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4.6 Accept
IR28 Lack of motivation is not encouraging the new service providers 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4.6 Accept

wastes can be done with the support of the findings of this study.
5.1. Theoretical contributions
The present study offers theoretical contributions for enriching the
literature by providing accumulated insights and laying the foundation
for further research. Based on the results and discussion with the ex­
perts, it is first concluded that contrary to the view that the elimination
of SUP packaging material is producers’ responsibility, consumers
should also be equally responsible. Thus, the study contributes to
expanding the area of research in the buyback behavior of consumers for
SUP packaging materials. Secondly, the study examined the buyback of
SUP packaging waste; it was observed that the lack of a buyback de­
pository system in India leaves the onus of the scheme on producer citing
the principle of “extended producer responsibility”. Despite the research
in public-private partnerships in the supply chain, there still exist gaps in
the literature in understanding the significance of public-private part­
nerships in the reverse supply chain of packaging materials. Thirdly, the
major barrier for SUP packaging buyback is the lack of infrastructure.
Development is needed in building infrastructure models and identifi­
cation of the location of buyback depositaries so that maximum con­
sumers have access to the same. Building collection centers or vending
machines for the collection of SUP bottles or pouches is another step that
can be carried out by the government. Incentives or fixed deposits must
be associated to make sure that the consumers bring back their pack­
aging bottles and pouches. Fourthly, the present literature has examined
the policies, bans, and taxes from an empirical point of view. The ma­
jority of the literature has delved upon the comparative study of the
existing policies with emphasis on existing legislation for SUP waste.
The literature has also tried to understand the consumer perspective
towards strict legislation and bans on SUP. However, the interaction
among the barriers for SUP packaging waste and their interrelationship
using the MCDM approach is seldom approached by the researchers,
which was the motivation behind the present work. These types of in­
teractions and interrelationships will aid the policymakers to under­
stand the prominent barrier and carve out future policies in the same
direction.
Further, the main theoretical contribution of this study is the
development of the roadmap for successful implementation of the
buyback scheme (Fig. 6) with the support of the developed TISM model.
From Fig. 6, it is clear that the development of a clear policy is the first
step to the successful implementation of the buyback scheme. The strong
policy helps in minimizing the landfill, creating funds for infrastructure
development, and making product labeling as producer responsibility.
These initiatives can help in developing infrastructure, bringing
awareness among consumers, and fixing optimal buyback prices.
Finally, this leads to an increase in demand and motivation for new
service providers. The successful implementation of these practices
helps to eliminate the identified barriers and to effectively implement
the buyback scheme. This will help in building awareness among young
children in bringing the consumers to the buyback depositaries.
5.2. Policy recommendations
The validated TISM model indicates that the unclear policy is the
most influential barrier and the MICMAC analysis categorizes the un­
clear policy as the only driving barrier This indicates that the develop­
ment of a clear policy is the first step in the adoption of an effective
buyback scheme in the Indian economy. The government has launched
the buyback depository system in the urban landscape (TOI Report,
2018), however, its enforcement is at a nascent stage. Lack of enforce­
ment regulation is the biggest challenge that is faced by government
policymakers. The negligent behavior of Indian consumers in throwing
the packaging material in landfills is another reason for growing waste

11
K.E.K. Vimal et al.
Fig. 4. Validated Total Interpretive structural model.
in urban landscape firms. The government of India should increase the
responsibility from producer to consumer by imposing fines and pen­
alties for improper or no disposal of SUP packaging material at collec­
tion/ recycling centers. The unavailability of alternative packaging
options is the major cause of the vast amount of SUP waste. The gov­
ernment should encourage funding for research and the development of
alternative materials. The Indian manufacturers are mostly small-scale
manufactures that do not have resources for using alternative pack­
aging material. Due to the low cost of SUP, it is the most favourable
choice. Thus, government financial support can help these small-scale
manufacturers to shift to an alternative option. Cost should be associ­
ated with non-biodegradable disposal of SUP packaging materials, to
make consumers more inclined towards returning the packaging prod­
ucts. A refundable cost should be associated with SUP bottles, to make
sure that the consumer returns the bottles at the collection centers.
Infrastructure should be built to promote buyback of this packaging
material; the rag pickers can also be trained to segregate SUP bottles and
pouches from other materials.
6. Conclusion
The present paper aims in building a framework to understand the
inter-relationships between the barriers for SUP packaging material in
India. A ten-member expert team was identified and their domain
knowledge was utilized for the evaluation. Eleven barriers are short­
listed for the study after various sessions with the expert team. TISM
12
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084
based approach has been utilized for the analysis of these barriers in the
Indian context. The results demonstrate that Uncertainty and Unstable
Policy (B5) over Lack of interest among new service providers (B3) is
policy uncertainty that hinders the interest among new service pro­
viders. The other prominent barriers include No landfill cost (B9), which
does not motivate the consumer to use the buying scheme, thus, the new
service providers are not showing interest, and Lack of motivation
among consumers (B11) which is not encouraging the new service
providers. Essential recommendations are given to redraft the waste
management rules to emphasize the role of the producer/ brand to take
back their packaging products and focus on the usage of more alterna­
tive materials.
The study aids in determining the role of the consumers and the
manufacturers in the elimination of SUP packing material in the Indian
context. The recommendation of the study focuses on the applicability of
the research that can be used for future initiatives. Thus, the conducted
study can help the government agencies and policymakers reframe the
plastic waste rules to focus more on the buyback of the packaging
material.
6.1. Limitations and future scope
The limitation of the present study is conducted by interaction with a
few experts across India. Further, the validity can be improvised by
expanding the resource team and covering more geographical regions.
The paper can be improved by analyzing the results of this study with
K.E.K. Vimal et al.
Fig. 5. Driving and dependence power diagram.
Fig. 6. Roadmap for successful implementation of buyback scheme developed through this study.
other MCDM techniques. The results of this paper are from a generic
perspective, and the paper can be extended by taking individual orga­
nizations. The shortlisted barriers can be tested for sensitivity and
modelled with advanced analytical tools. The varying culture and ge­
ography of India make it difficult for the findings to be applied on a
larger scale. A detailed area-by-area case validation is required if the
results found are to be incorporated countrywide. Further, in the road­
map developed through the TISM model, it has been highlighted that
fixing optimal buyback price is crucial in promoting the buyback
scheme. In the future, a study on cost analysis based on different sce­
narios could be conducted.
Credit author statement
Vimal: Conceptualization, Methodology, Original draft preparation.
Vernika Agarwal: Analysis, Writing K. Mathiyazhagan: Supervision,
Reviewing and Editing, Proofreading & Review & Editing
13
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084
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.
References
Adam, I., Walker, T.R., Bezerra, J.C., Clayton, A., 2020. Policies to reduce single-use
plastic marine pollution in West Africa. Mar. Policy 116, 103928.
Akram, R., Fahad, S., Hashmi, M.Z., Wahid, A., Adnan, M., Mubeen, M., Nasim, W., 2019.
Trends of electronic waste pollution and its impact on the global environment and
ecosystem. Environ. Sci.Pollution Res. 26 (17), 16923–16938.
Andrady, A.L., 2015. Plastics and Environmental Sustainability. Wiley, Hoboken (p.
324).
Appolloni, A., D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., Santibanez-Gonzalez, E.D., Settembre-
Blundo, D, 2021. Growing e-waste management risk awareness points toward new
recycling scenarios: the view of the Big Four’s youngest consultants. Environ.
Technol. Innovation, 101716.
Aryan, Y., Yadav, P., Samadder, S.R., 2019. Life Cycle Assessment of the existing and
proposed plastic waste management options in India: a case study. J. Clean. Prod.
211, 1268–1283.
K.E.K. Vimal et al.
Ayçin, E., Kayapinar Kaya, S., 2021. Towards the circular economy: analysis of barriers
to implementation of Turkey’s zero waste management using the fuzzy DEMATEL
method. Waste Manag. Res. 0734242X20988781.
Balwada, J., Samaiya, S., Mishra, R.P., 2021. Packaging plastic waste management for a
circular economy and identifying a better waste collection system using analytical
hierarchy process (AHP). Procedia CIRP 98, 270–275.
Bartolotta, J.F., Hardy, S.D., 2018. Barriers and benefits to desired behaviors for single
use plastic items in northeast Ohio’s Lake Erie basin. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127, 576–585.
Beber, A., Pagano, M., 2013. Short-selling bans around the world: evidence from the
2007–09 crisis. J. Finance 68 (1), 343–381.
Bhatia, M.S., Srivastava, R.K., 2018. Analysis of external barriers to remanufacturing
using grey-DEMATEL approach: an Indian perspective. Resour., Conserv. Recycl.
136, 79–87.
Bhattacharya, R.R.N., Chandrasekhar, K., Roy, P., & Khan, A. (2018). Challenges and
opportunities: plastic waste management in India.
Borthakur, A., Govind, M., 2017. How well are we managing E-waste in India: evidences
from the city of Bangalore. Energy, Ecol. Environ. 2 (4), 225–235.
Bura, N., 2019. An overview of plastic waste management in India. Waste manag.
resource efficiency 935–943.
Cao, D., Gupta, S., Lim, M.K., Dhir, A., Li, Z., Schiavone, F., 2021. Consumers’ role in
addressing plastic pollution. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Repot 2019 https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/plastic
waste/Annual_Report_2018-19_PWM.pdf [Accessed on 13 April 2021].
Chandramowli, S., Transue, M., Felder, F.A., 2011. Analysis of barriers to development in
landfill communities using interpretive structural modeling. Habitat Int. 35 (2),
246–253.
Chandrashekar, V., 2018. In India’s largest city, a ban on plastics faces big obstacles. Yale
Environ. 360.
Charter, M., Tischner, U., 2017. Sustainable solutions: developing products and services
for the future. Routledge.
Chauhan, C., Dhir, A., Akram, M.U., Salo, J., 2021. Food loss and waste in food supply
chains. A systematic literature review and framework development approach.
J. Clean. Prod., 126438
Chen, H.L., Nath, T.K., Chong, S., Foo, V., Gibbins, C., Lechner, A.M., 2021. The plastic
waste problem in Malaysia: management, recycling and disposal of local and global
plastic waste. SN Appl. Sci. 3 (4), 1–15.
Cristi, M.A., Holzapfel, C., Nehls, M., De Veer, D., Gonzalez, C., Holtmann, G., Thiel, M.,
2020. The rise and demise of plastic shopping bags in Chile–Broad and informal
coalition supporting ban as a first step to reduce single-use plastics. Ocean Coast
Manag. 187, 105079.
Dhir, A., Koshta, N., Goyal, R.K., Sakashita, M., Almotairi, M., 2021. Behavioral
reasoning theory (BRT) perspectives on E-waste recycling and management. J. Clean.
Prod. 280, 124269.
Dhir, A., Talwar, S., Kaur, P., Malibari, A., 2020. Food waste in hospitality and food
services: a systematic literature review and framework development approach.
J. Clean. Prod. 270, 122861.
Dumbili, E., Henderson, L., 2020. The challenge of plastic pollution in Nigeria. In Plastic
Waste and Recycling (pp. 569-583). Academic Press.
Dwivedy, M., Suchde, P., Mittal, R.K., 2015. Modeling and assessment of e-waste take-
back strategies in India. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 96, 11–18.
Deepak, Mathivathanan, Mathiyazhagan, K., Rana, Nripendra P., Khorana, Sangeeta,
Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2015. Barriers to the adoption of blockchain technology in
business supply chains: a total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) approach.
International Journal of Production Research 59 (11), 3338–3359. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00207543.2020.1868597.
Garlapati, V.K., 2016. E-waste in India and developed countries: management, recycling,
business and biotechnological initiatives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Rev.
54, 874–881.
Heidbreder, L.M., Steinhorst, J., Schmitt, M., 2020. Plastic-Free July: an experimental
study of limiting and promoting factors in encouraging a reduction of single-use
plastic consumption. Sustainability 12 (11), 4698.
Henderson, L., Green, C., 2020. Making sense of microplastics? Public understandings of
plastic pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 152, 110908.
Jyothsna, T.S.S., Chakradhar, B., 2020. Current scenario of plastic waste management in
india: way forward in turning vision to reality. Urban Mining and Sustainable Waste
Management. Springer, Singapore, pp. 203–218.
14
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 178 (2022) 106084
Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Joseph, R.P., 2021. Factors influencing the adoption
postponement of mobile payment services in the hospitality sector during a
pandemic. J. Hospitality and Tourism Manag. 46, 26–39.
Koushal, V., Sharma, R., Sharma, M., Sharma, R., Sharma, V., 2014. Plastics: issues
challenges and remediation. Int. J. Waste Resour.
Kumar, A., Dixit, G., 2018. An analysis of barriers affecting the implementation of e-
waste management practices in India: a novel ISM-DEMATEL approach. Sustainable
Prod. Consumption 14, 36–52.
Liu, C., Nguyen, T.T., Ishimura, Y., 2021. Current situation and key challenges on the use
of single-use plastic in Hanoi. Waste Management 121, 422–431.
Mohammadi, E., Singh, S.J., Habib, K., 2021. Electronic waste in the Caribbean: an
impending environmental disaster or an opportunity for a circular economy? Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 164, 105106.
Moretti, C., Hamelin, L., Jakobsen, L.G., Junginger, M.H., Steingrimsdottir, M.M.,
Høibye, L., Shen, L., 2021. Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of single-use cups
made from PLA, PP and PET. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 169, 105508.
Nwafor, N., Walker, T.R., 2020. Plastic Bags Prohibition Bill: a developing story of crass
legalism aiming to reduce plastic marine pollution in Nigeria. Mar. Policy 120,
104160.
Nielsen, T.D., Hasselbalch, J., Holmberg, K., Stripple, J., 2020. Politics and the plastic
crisis: A review throughout the plastic life cycle. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Energy and Environment 9 (1), e360.
Pathak, G., Nichter, M., 2021. Ecocommunicability, citizenship, and discourses on plastic
control in India. Geoforum 125, 132–139.
Percival, R.V., Schroeder, C.H., Miller, A.S., Leape, J.P., 2017. Environmental regulation:
law, science, and policy. Wolters Kluwer Law & Bus.
Plastic Waste Management Rules. (2016) http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/20
20/06/Final-Uniform-Framework-on-EPR-June2020-for-comments.pdf [Accessed on
13 April 2021].
Prata, J.C., Silva, A.L.P., Da Costa, J.P., Mouneyrac, C., Walker, T.R., Duarte, A.C.,
Rocha-Santos, T., 2019. Solutions and integrated strategies for the control and
mitigation of plastic and microplastic pollution. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
16 (13), 2411.
Ravi, V., 2015. Analysis of interactions among barriers of eco-efficiency in electronics
packaging industry. J. Clean. Prod. 101, 16–25.
Sahu, A.K., Padhy, R.K., Dhir, A., 2020. Determinants and barriers of implementing lean
manufacturing practices in MSMEs: a behavioural reasoning theory perspective.
Prod. Plann. Control 1–16.
Satapathy, S., 2017. An analysis of barriers for plastic recycling in the Indian plastic
industry. Benchmarking: An Int. J.
Seth, H., Talwar, S., Bhatia, A., Saxena, A., Dhir, A., 2020. Consumer resistance and
inertia of retail investors: development of the resistance adoption inertia
continuance (RAIC) framework. J. Retailing Consumer Services 55, 102071.
Shahnawaz, M., Sangale, M.K., Ade, A.B., 2019. Policy and Legislation/Regulations of
Plastic Waste Around the Globe. In Bioremediation Technol. Plastic Waste (pp. 113-
126). Springer, Singapore.
Sharma, M., Joshi, S., Kumar, A., 2020. Assessing enablers of e-waste management in
circular economy using DEMATEL method: an Indian perspective. Environ. Sci.
Pollution Res. 1–14.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Mäntymäki, M., 2020a. Barriers toward purchasing from
online travel agencies. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 89, 102593.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Khalil, A., Mohan, G., Islam, A.N., 2020b. Point of adoption and
beyond. Initial trust and mobile-payment continuation intention. J. Retailing
Consumer Services 55, 102086.
Tomar, N., Srivastava, R., Mittal, V., 2021. Mining public opinion on plastic ban in India.
Advances in Computational Intelligence and Communication Technology. Springer,
Singapore, pp. 109–121.
TM, A., Kaur, P., Bresciani, S., Dhir, A, 2021. What drives the adoption of green hotel
products and services? A systematic review and future research agenda. Business
Strategy and the Environment – In Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2755.
Vimal, K.E.K., Mathiyazhagan, K., Agarwal, V., Luthra, S., Sivakumar, K., 2020. Analysis
of barriers that impede the elimination of single-use plastic in developing economy
context. J. Clean. Prod. 272, 122629.
Wagner, T.P., 2017. Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA. Waste Manag.
70, 3–12.
Xanthos, D., Walker, T.R., 2017. International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution
from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
118 (1–2), 17–26.