Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

What is stopping the automotive industry from going green? A

systematic review of barriers to green innovation in the automotive
industry
Paulin Gohoungodji*, Amoin Bernadine N'Dri, Jean-Michel Latulippe,
Adriana Leiria Barreto Matos
Department of Management, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Pavillon Palasis-Prince, Universit

e Laval, 2325 Rue de L'Universit

e, Qu

ebec, QC G1V 0A6,
Canada

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

Article history: The implementation of green innovation in the automotive industry (IGIAI) has attracted attention of
Received 17 October 2019 both decision-makers and researchers over the last few years. However, research has demonstrated that
Received in revised form IGIAI faces several barriers. This paper aims to synthesize the existing literature that pertains on barriers
14 July 2020
to IGIAI. Using a systematic review method, this article seeks to advance knowledge by grouping all
Accepted 28 July 2020
barriers into six blocks: barriers related to resources, to behaviors, to information, to technology, to laws
Available online 1 August 2020
and regulations and to organizational barriers. The article reveals the existence of some causal links
Handling editor. Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes between the groups of barriers and emphasizes that the dominant barriers are related to behaviors and
resources. Moreover, some research gaps in the literature have been identified and presented.
Keywords: © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Green innovation
Automotive industry
Barriers
Implementation
Systematic review

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Protocol and method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Aim and research question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Localization strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Results and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Distribution per database and review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Trend of publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Distribution of the number of publications by countries studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Distribution of publication by methodology used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Analytical trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Barriers to IGIAI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Barriers related to resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.2. Barriers related to behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.3. Barriers related to information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.4. Barriers related to technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Paulin.gohoungodji.1@ulaval.ca (P. Gohoungodji), amoin-
bernadine.ndri.1@ulaval.ca (A.B. N'Dri), jean-michel.latulippe.1@ulaval.ca
(J.-M. Latulippe), leiria.adriana@gmail.com (A.L.B. Matos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123524
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524

4.1.5. Organizational barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.1.6. Barriers related to laws and regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Links between barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Evolution and dominance of barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1. Introduction the involvement of many stakeholders (Silva et al., 2018). This

complexity creates many barriers to the implementation of green
Air pollution has been a global problem caused by different innovation in industry (Silva et al., 2018; Govindan et al., 2014;
sectors of the economy in recent decades and is at the root of Kushwaha and Sharma, 2016; Luthra et al., 2011; Stringham et al.,
climate change (Larr and Neidell, 2016). Aware of this reality, the 2015; Walker et al., 2008). In view of these findings in the litera-
leaders of the States under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) at ture, this study assumes that there are a variety of barriers to IGIAI.
the Kyoto Summit (1995) and more recently at the COP21 in Paris in Furthermore, according to Jabbour and Souza (2015), barriers to
2015, called for the fight against climate change by urging the world green innovation can be seen as factors that prevent improvement
to develop green policies in all sectors of the economy. The auto- to environmental performance in organizations. Within the auto-
motive industry is not on the fringes of this policy. Indeed, ac- motive industry, these barriers can be either internal or external
cording to the 2016 Carbon Project Disclosure report,1 the total (Silva et al., 2018).
pollution generated during vehicle production processes repre- While a systematic synthesis effort has already been made on
sents 17% of the global pollution of the automotive industry. In the adoption of green innovations and their impacts on business
addition, it is also one of the major producers of industrial waste performance (Kushwaha and Sharma, 2016), to date, no study has
(Zailani et al., 2015). In response to pressure from both the inter- carried out such a synthesis approach on barriers, despite the fact
nationalcommunity and consumers (Zhgulev et al., 2018; Zhu et al., that the literature is mature. In addition, the studies offer different
2007) the automotive industry has been encouraged to reduce avenues and there is a diversity of researchers' opinions regarding
pollution and implement healthier environmental management the nature of the barriers. While for some the barriers are of an
(Walker et al., 2008). By facing this challenge, it has not only been informational, financial or political nature (Silva et al., 2018; Luthra
forced to produce “green” vehicles and thus less polluting (Lin et al., et al., 2015), for others they may be of a technological, cultural or
2014), but also to reduce waste production during the vehicle human resource quality nature (Balon, Sharma & Barua, 2016;
manufacturing processes (Kushwaha and Sharma, 2016). Gonza
lez-Torre et al., 2010; Luthra et al., 2011). Thus moreover, the
In this context, automobile companies have had to review their number of barriers identified within the automotive industry
production strategies and have started developing various pro- therefore varies between authors as well as between countries. In
cesses based on green innovation (Lin et al., 2014). These de- Brazil, for example, Silva et al. (2018) identified and validated
velopments involve taking into account environmental protection thirteen barriers. In India, different authors disagree about how
objectives within the various departments of automotive com- many barriers there are in the automotive industries.
panies in order to comply with regulations and improve the envi- Mathiyazhagan, Govindan, NoorulHaq & Geng (2013) identified
ronmental performance while using innovative environmental twenty-six barriers, while Luthra et al. (2011) identified eleven and
management or green technologies (Greeno and Robinson, 1992). Balon et al. (2016) fourteen. Therefore, the conclusions of existing
More specifically, green innovation can be seen as a hardware or studies on the subject diverge and, taken individually, they provide
software innovation and can be linked to green products (Chen only a partial knowledge on the subject. However, despite these
et al., 2006). These include the innovation of technologies that many disparities in the literature on the barriers to IGIAI, no article
are involved in energy conservation management, pollution pre- has attempted to identify the research corpus examining this field.
vention, waste recycling, green product “design” and lastly corpo- In this context, given the interest of several researchers in IGIAI,
rate environmental management (Lin et al., 2014). Thus, Chen et al. the knowledge resulting from a global and integrated synthesis of
(2006) classify green innovation into three categories: green the literature on the barriers to this innovation will certainly
product innovation, green process innovation and finally green contribute to fill this gap in the literature. In order to achieve this, a
management innovation. They define green product innovation as systematic literature review on the subject would be most
the development of new or significantly improved products in adequate, since it is currently considered the most valid and reli-
response to environmental concerns. Green process innovation able method for identifying and synthesizing existing knowledge
involves modifying manufacturing processes and systems to pro- (Tranfield et al., 2003). For this reason, this study will perform a
duce environmental-friendly products. Finally, at the management systematic literature review on the subject and present an over-
level, it can be defined as the system that influences the content view of the barriers on IGIAI in the end. In so doing, it will generate
and nature of the technologies adopted by a company with respect both academic and practical contributions to the various actors
to green initiatives (Harrington et al., 2014). involved in the automotive industry.
However, the implementation of green innovation in the auto- The rest of this article will be organized around three main
motive industry (IGIAI) is a complex and difficult task that requires points. First, the method used to locate, select, analyze and syn-
thesize the relevant articles will be described. Then, we will present
the descriptive and analytical trends of the selected articles. Finally,
1
See the 2016 report by Carbon Disclosure Project, available here: https://www. we will present both the results in the form of an integrative
cdp.net/en/reports/downloads/623. framework and research perspectives on IGIAI.
 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524
2. Protocol and method
The systematic literature review is defined as a method for
identifying, evaluating and analyzing published primary studies in
order to answer a specific research question (Staples and Niazi,
2006). For Cooper et al. (2018), the aim of such a research
approach is to provide a transparent report on the identification of
the study, thus informing readers of what has been done to identify
the studies and how the results of the review fit into the relevant
evidence.
In view of the growing importance of environmental issues in
broader society, several studies have focused on examining barriers
to green innovation in the automotive industry in recent years (e.g.
Luthra et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2018; Balon et al., 2016; Luthra et al.,
2011). However, their research presents different and sometimes
disparate results. No studies to date have specifically conducted a
systematic synthesis on the barriers to IGIAI. The study by Oliveira,
Espindola, da Silva, da Silva and Rocha (2018), despite their syn-
thesis effort, did not specifically address barriers to IGIAI. Therefore,
this current study is especially interested in the aspects of barriers
to green innovation, since this aspect has not yet been covered in
the latest systematic reviews (Kushwaha and Sharma, 2016).
According to Kitchenham (2004), after having demonstrated the
need for a systematic review, the development of a review protocol
must be the second step. For this author, the protocol specifies the
methods that will be used to undertake a specific systematic review
and reduces the risk of researcher bias. Thus, following Tranfield
et al. (2003), our research is based on 5 steps: (1) formulating
explicit research questions; (2) developing inclusion and exclusion
criteria; (3) locating and identifying studies that meet the inclusion
and exclusion criteria; (4); data extraction, coding and monitoring
progress; and (5) data synthesis/analysis and reporting results. In
addition, following Snilstveit et al. (2012), this research employs a
qualitative narrative method.
2.1. Aim and research question
This paper aims to synthesize the existing literature concerning
barriers to IGIAI in order to provide an integrative conceptual
framework. In other words, based on the existing literature, this
study proposes to identify, map and synthesize the barriers that
hinder the IGIAI. To achieve this objective, we have formulated the
following research questions:
 What are the barriers to IGIAI?
 Are there links between those barriers?
 Are there any dominant barriers?
2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
In this systematic review, the articles to be selected are those
that have studied the barriers to green innovation in the automo-
tive industry. However, we also used additional, complementary
inclusion and exclusion criteria. Regarding the time frame, only
empirical articles published between 1995 and 2018 are included.
The choice of 1995 as the lower bound of our study is justified by
the fact that it was after the Kyoto summit in 1995 that the
enthusiasm for the implementation of green policies in organiza-
tions was born (COP 21, 2014). In addition, since this study began in
early 2019, the literature review was limited to articles published
up until late 2018. Finally, only published peer-reviewed articles
were considered e books were excluded due to time and resource
constraints, following the recommendations of Thu et al. (2018).
3
2.3. Localization strategy
The strategy localization or data extraction defines how the
information required for each primary study is obtained. In this
article, the strategy used for locating the articles is divided into
three steps:
1 Following the advice of an expert librarian, we chose to carry out
systematic computer searches of academic articles in five
multidisciplinary databases: ABI/Inform Global, Business Source


Premier, Web of science, Cairn info and Erudit. Those searches
were performed using the following keyword string:
{(“automobile industry” OR “auto* industry” OR “car in-
dustry” OR “vehicle industry” OR “electric automobile”) AND
(“green innovation” OR “sustainable innovation” OR “eco
innovation” OR “eco-innovation” OR “environmental inno-
vation”) AND (“obstacles” or “barriers” or “challenges” OR
“impediments” or “barriers” OR “brakes” OR “limits” OR
“constraints”).}
The first results of this research yielded 1744 articles in ABI/
Inform Global, 29 in Business Source Premier, 112 in Web of science,


31 in Cairn info, 446 in Erudit and 40 in Transport. Thus, a total of
2402 potentially relevant articles were identified. Then, the 41
duplicates found across the various databases were removed.
2 All articles yielded are submitted to two rounds of sorting.
During the first sorting, the selection was made considering only
the title and summary of each article. This sorting led to the
exclusion of 2209 items that did not meet the inclusion criteria.
During this review, we read the title and summary of each
article seeking to identify the words auto*industry and its
homonyms, green innovation and homonyms and barriers and
homonyms. Next, the articles from the first sorting underwent a
second sorting. This second sorting went beyond the parts of the
title and summary and reviewed all parts of the articles. In the
end, 118 articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were
excluded and 36 articles were selected.
3 A manual search was conducted in the journals that published
the most articles among the articles selected at the end of the
second sorting (International Journal of Automotive Technology
and Management, Revista Produça ~o Online, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Business strategy and the environment, Measuring
Business Excellence), identifying 2 additional articles that were
not identified during the electronic search.
4 Finally, a search in the references of references, following Yuriev
et al. (2018), revealed 4 articles that met the inclusion criteria.
In the end, following the process selection process outlined in
Fig. 1, we selected 40 articles that we considered sufficiently rele-
vant for the purposes of the present article. The next step was to
carefully read these forty articles and extract data that corre-
sponded to our research questions, code and understand the data,
synthesize and group the barriers to the IGIAI and analyze their
recurrence and predominance.
3. Results and analysis
3.1. Distribution per database and review
The distribution of the chosen articles per database shows that
the majority of articles (56%) were published in the ABI database,
with the rest being divided between Web of Science database
(20%), Business Source Premier (12%), Transport (9%) and Cairn.info


(3%) while Erudit did not return any articles that met the inclusion
4 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524
criteria.
Furthermore, in terms of the distribution of articles by journal, it
is worth noting that five journals e namely, the International
Journal of Automotive Technology and Management (5 articles),
Revista Produça~o Online (3 articles) and the Journal of Cleaner
Production, Business Strategy and the Environment and Measuring
Business Excellence (2 articles each) e generated 35% of the articles
we ended up selecting. We selected only one article each from the
remaining 26 journals.
3.2. Trend of publication
The graph below (Fig. 2) shows the trend of the publication of
articles on barriers to IGIAI between 1995 and 2018. The publication
curve over time shows that interest in barriers in the automotive
industry started timidly in the early 2000s - with one publication
per year until 2007. Then, the number of publications increased
slightly between 2008 and 2010 before falling to 3 publications in
2011 and 2 in 2013. Subsequently, the number of publications
increased to 7 in 2018. This increase may be a result of greater
awareness of the importance of policies promoting sustainable
development, especially the agreement signed by several heads of
state at the COP 21 climate conference in Paris in 2015.
3.3. Distribution of the number of publications by countries studied
The analysis of the trends in the countries studied (see Fig. 3)
revealed that, in the majority of the articles selected (92%), the
studies were conducted in a single country. Furthermore, the trend
has shown that the most studied countries are, in order: Brazil (20%
see e.g. Arkader, 1999; Silva, Gayubas, dos Santos, Shibao & Barbieri,
2017; de Almeida Copetti, Saurin & Soliman, 2016); India (15% see
e.g. Govindan et al., 2014; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Mudgal et al.,
2010); United Kingdom (13%, see e.g. (Luthra et al., 2011; Smith and
Crotty, 2008; Stone et al., 2008); Germany (10% see e.g. Hunke and
Prause, 2014; Thun and Müller, 2010; Wiedmann et al., 2011) and
the United States (5% see e.g. Ii and Paolucci, 2001; Wells, 2010;
Williander, 2006). The increased interest in IGIAI in Brazil may be
justified by the fact that Brazil had already developed environ-
mental policies in 1981, most notably the vote on the National
Environmental Policy (Política Nacional para o Meio Ambiente -
PNMA). Thus, the 1990s in Brazil were marked by the appropriation
of environmental issues by companies: green approach strategies
then appeared, and the environment became an integral part of
companies' development strategies, including those of the auto-
mobile industry (Blanc and Carneiro, 2018). In addition, Brazil
provides an example of how environmental issues can be taken into
account by hosting the Rio Summit in 1992 (Tollefson and Gilbert,
2012; Wheeler and Beatley, 2014).
In contrast, some studies have been carried out in several
countries. This is the case with the study carried out by Williander
(2006), between Sweden and the USA. Another example is found in
the study conducted by Silva et al. (2017), between Brazil, Colombia
and Argentina. These studies analyzed and compared barriers
within the automotive industries in different countries in order to
give transnational validity to their results.
3.4. Distribution of publication by methodology used
With respect to the typology of methodologies used to identify
barriers to IGIAI Table 1 below shows that 15% of the selected pa-
pers use a conceptual or theoretical methodology (e.g., Ceschin and
Vezzoli, 2010; Elmquist and Segrestin, 2009). Furthermore, 42.5% of
the selected articles used qualitative methodology (e.g.,
Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Mesquita et al., 2018; Williander, 2006).
As to the rest of the articles, 35% favored quantitative methodology
(e.g. Oliveira, 2018; Peiro
-Signes and Segarra-On ~ a, 2018; Sharma
and Singh, 2018) while the mixed methodology is used in 7,5% of
the articles (e.g. Silva et al., 2017; Silva et al., 2018).
For the articles that used the qualitative methodology presented
in Table 1 below, the analysis revealed that 32.5% of the articles
used the case study strategy (e.g. Almeida Copetti, Saurin &
Soliman, 2016; Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa and Pinheiro de
Lima, 2014; Jabbour and Souza, 2015). Also, 17.5% of the articles
are conceptual or theoretical (e.g. Ceschin and Vezzoli, 2010;
Govindan et al., 2014; Ii and Paolucci, 2001).
The analysis of the quantitative articles has shown that the
authors who studied the barriers to the IGIAI used several methods,
which included descriptive statistics (e.g. Lopes et al., 2015; Luiz,
Andrade, Jugend, da Silva et al., 2017), structural equation models
(e.g. Balon et al., 2016; Wiedmann et al., 2011), factor analysis (e.g.
Sharma and Singh, 2018; Thun and Müller, 2010), among others
(see Table 1).
Overall, it appears from the trends in the methods that the
qualitative method has been used more than the quantitative
method. This dominance of qualitative methods can be justified by
the recency of the theme. Indeed, it is only in 2009 that interest in
this theme has increased from 2 to 6 articles in 2010. Thus, the
literature on the subject initially required more qualitative explo-
rations than quantitative validations. Moreover, the majority of
quantitative studies were carried out later, between 2015 and 2018.
4. Analytical trends
Following the synthesis of 40 articles, and the subsequent
analysis of the barriers to IGIAI, this section seeks to provide an-
swers to the research questions. An integrated conceptual model
for barriers to IGIAI will be proposed and investigated.
4.1. Barriers to IGIAI
To identify the barriers to IGIAI, we coded and categorized the
data from the chosen articles, which we categorized into different
functional groups. The groupings and re-groupings are based on the
embodied meanings we identified as well as the combination of
similarities or the fusion of embodied meanings. The results of the
coding and regrouping identified six major groups of barriers to
IGIAI: (1) Barriers related to resources; (2) Barriers related to be-
haviors; (3) Barriers related to information; (4) Barriers related to
Technology; (5) Organizational barriers, (6) Barriers related to laws
and regulations. Fig. 4 is our proposed integrated conceptual model,
that illustrates the relation of these barriers and IGIAI from an
input-output approach.
4.1.1. Barriers related to resources
In the studies reviewed in this research, resource-related bar-
riers are those concerning the unavailability of human capital,
material and immaterial means (Giunipero et al., 2012), financial
weaknesses and time constraints (Perron, 2005) or difficulties in
accessing finance (Silva et al., 2018; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013).
The barriers to financial barriers have been studied by many au-
thors (e.g., Arkader, 1999; de Almeida Copetti, Saurin & Soliman,
2016; Williander, 2006). For example, some of these authors have
highlighted the high cost of implementing green innovation in the
lu and Koca,
automotive industries (e.g. Pinkse et al., 2014; Behdiog
2017; Drohomeretski et al., 2014). More precisely, other authors
consider these to include technological investment costs (Ajanovic,
2015; Menzel et al., 2010), production costs (Ajanovic, 2015) and
high investment costs to modify all supply chain networks
(Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013).
 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524
Fig. 1. Organization chart of the systematic review.
Fig. 2. Evolution of the number of publications between 1995 and 2018.
Then, Arkader (1999) identified barriers such as the lack of
transport infrastructure within the automotive industries, the
burden of taxes, duties and exchange rate volatility that discourage
the acquisition of eco-innovative technologies and the difficulties
of access to finance for companies that supply the automotive in-
dustries. In the same vein, Silva et al. (2018) identified the negative
influence of economic instability and the unavailability of cash
flows within the automotive industries. In addition, the lack of
human resource skills can also be barriers to the implementation of
green innovation in the automotive industries (Govindan et al.,
5
2014; Luthra et al., 2011). For some authors, the low return on in-
vestment or the low level of profits generated by the imple-
mentation of green innovation are obstacles to its adoption in the
industry.
4.1.2. Barriers related to behaviors
The behavioral barriers are manifested through the attitudes of
individuals in the automotive industries. According to Silva et al.
(2018), behavioral barriers are related to the attitudes of man-
agers, employees or other stakeholders in the automotive industry
that inhibit the IGIAI. They refer to their postures of resistance,
passivity, reactivity or inactivity towards the environment or their
skepticism about the benefits of green practices in the automotive
industries. Thus, several studies have identified resistance to
innovation and technology (see Silva et al., 2018; Luthra et al., 2011;
Zahraee et al., 2018), organizational or procedural resistance to
changing traditional behaviors to adopt new eco-innovative prac-
tices (e.g., Silva et al., 2018; Ii and Paolucci, 2001; Mudgal et al.,
2010). Also, the implementation of eco-responsible innovation
can be blocked by internal resistance, such as resistance to the
social responsibilities of managers (Gonz
alez-Torre et al., 2010), or
lack of acceptance of innovation within industries (Hunke and
Prause, 2014).
Finally, the lack of corporate social responsibility is identified as
one of the major barriers by some authors (e.g., Govindan et al.,
6 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524
Fig. 3. Distribution of the number of publications by studied countries.
Table 1
Distribution of the selected articles by methodologies.
Technical analysis
Conceptual and theoretical (15% or 6 articles out of 40)
Qualitative methodology (42,5% or 17 articles out of 40)
Case study
Others
Quantitative methodology (35% or 14 articles out of 40)
Structural equation
Descriptive statistics
Correlation tests
Partial least square
Pairwise comparison matrix
Black and Scholes
Exploratory factor analysis
Regression
Mixed methodology (7,5% or 3 articles out of 40)
Interviews and quantitative methods
Total
2014; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). For them, most Indian industries
are not motivated by social responsibility. These researchers have
shown that their low motivation is caused by the absence of
external pressure due to the lack of binding government policies.
4.1.3. Barriers related to information
Information-related barriers have received some attention in
the specialized literature on barriers to the implementation of
IGIAI. These barriers refer to limited access to information or dif-
ficulties in interpreting and understanding procedural, technolog-
ical or organizational data on eco-responsible practices (Daily and
Huang, 2001). From the point of view of the implementation of
green innovation, authors have highlighted the difficulties
Number of articles Percentage (%)
6 15
13 32,5
4 10
0
3 7,5
3 7,5
1 2,5
2 5
1 2.5
1 2,5
2 5
1 2,5
0
3 7,5
40 100
associated with low ownership (Ii and Paolucci, 2001) and the level
of absorption capacity of each industry (Sharma et al., 2018;
Williander, 2006). Also, the lack of knowledge or techniques con-
stitutes barriers to green innovation in these industries (Ceschin
and Vezzoli, 2010; Silva et al., 2018). Barriers such as difficulties
in developing or designing green technology (Elmquist and
Segrestin, 2009) and those related to managing the implementa-
tion of eco-responsible hinder the IGIAI (Almeida Copetti et al.,
2016).
4.1.4. Barriers related to technology
In the literature on barriers to green innovation in the auto-
motive industries, technological-related barriers have significantly
 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524
Fig. 4. Integrated conceptual model of barriers to IGIAI.
impeded the implementation of sustainable innovation. According
to Muduli et al. (2013), technological barriers are a commitment to
the processes owing to a lack of method or procedure. Several
authors (e.g. Da Silva, 2017; Da Silva et al., 2018; Wiedmann et al.,
2011) have identified barriers of a technical nature, including the
lack of technical knowledge to implement and effectively exploit
green innovative measures. Moreover, Williander (2006) reveals
that a low level of technological absorption capacity can be a barrier
to the implementation of green innovation. Furthermore, at the
technological level, the inadequacy of environmentally-innovative
technologies (see Peiro
-Signes and Segarra-On ~ a, 2018), which is
expressed by the incapacity to adopt technologies necessary for
sustainability (seen ow Wells, 2010), is a barrier to the imple-
mentation of green innovation. Similarly, the inappropriateness of
green technologies with traditional automotive performance
(Elmquist and Segrestin, 2009) is also a barrier to the imple-
mentation of sustainability. Along the same lines, Elmquist and
Segrestin (2009) and Ii and Paolucci (2001) both mention that
barriers to the implementation of green innovation are linked to
difficulties in changing the existing technology within the auto-
motive industries. Research (e.g. Basavaraj et al., 2018; Wells, 2010)
has shown that cultural distance is also a barrier to the imple-
mentation and adoption of green technology. Furthermore, ac-
cording to Wells (2010), an incapacity of organization staff to adopt
the technologies necessary for sustainability hinders green
7
innovations in the automotive industry. Lastly, the adoption of
environmentally-innovative technologies may be notably hindered
by, among other factors, leaders’ attitudes towards innovation, their
perceived control over the innovation process or the degree of so-
cial pressures (Dijk and Montalvo, 2009).
4.1.5. Organizational barriers
The organizational barriers refer to the culture and management
of organizations in the automotive industries. Therefore, several
barriers have been identified in the relationship management be-
tween the automotive industries and their partners such as sup-
pliers, stakeholders, customers, governments, etc (see e.g., Zhu
et al., 2007). From this perspective, Silva et al. (2018) has
concluded that there is a lack of integration with stakeholders. In
addition, economic and political interdependence between the
automotive industry and other industries makes it difficult to move
towards green innovation because of its complexity. For Thun &
Müller (2010), dependence on supply chain partners could create
barriers to the implementation of green innovation in the auto-
motive industries. For example, on the supply side, several authors
have noted the lack of suppliers or their low engagement as a
barrier to the implementation of green innovation which the
automotive industry cannot directly control (Silva et al., 2018;
Almeida Copetti et al., 2016; Govindan et al., 2014; Luthra et al.,
2011; K. Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). Finally, the lack of
8 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524
Fig. 5. Distribution of barriers according to their recurrence among empirical articles.
government support systems for the automotive industries can
inhibit the implementation of green innovation within them
(Luthra et al., 2011).
Furthermore, the automotive industries have several difficulties
in managing the process of implementing improvements for green
innovation (Almeida Copeti et al., 2016). These difficulties are
justified by the lack of commitment from company management
(e,g, Mudgal et al., 2010). Bureaucracy is another barrier to IGIAI.
Arkader (1999) states that excessive bureaucracy occurs due to a
lack of communication between the automotive industry and its
suppliers. This bureaucracy is often the main source of adminis-
trative burdens that slow down green innovation within industries.
Also, barriers to IGIAI can also stem from organizational culture
inadequacy (Almeida Copetti et al. (2016). Gesta ~o de barreiras na
implantaça ~o da produç~ao enxuta: Um estudo no setor automobi-
lístico. Revista Produç~
ao Online, 16(1), 313e341.et al., 2016; Sharma
et al., 2018; Williander, 2006). Indeed, organizational culture in
certain industries can be incompatible with the introduction of
green innovation policies within organizations. According to
Sharma et al. (2018), for instance, organizational cultures in certain
industries do not correspond to a win-win situation culture for
organizations. In addition, the organizational culture of some in-
dustries is incompatible with the practice in reverse logistics. They
have an absence of practices or lack of appropriate practice or
weakness of practice in reverse logistics (Silva et al. 2017, 2018;
Balon et al., 2016).
Moreover, IGIAI can also be affected by insufficient engagement
(Cordeiro and Drohomeretski, 2013) or the low encouragement in
industries (Luthra et al., 2011) e such as a lack of motivation from
the management side of organizations and/or suppliers.
4.1.6. Barriers related to laws and regulations
According to Wells (2010), the differences in legislation between
technology markets in different countries create obstacles for the
introduction of green technology in the automotive industries. In
turn, Ceschin and Vezzoli (2010) show that the barriers to IGIAI may
be related to the inappropriateness of legislation regarding tech-
nologies. The barriers can also be related to the diversity and
complexity of legislation (Li et al., 2014; Hunke and Prause, 2014;
Thun and Müller, 2010) or the divergence of laws between coun-
tries (Stone et al., 2008). Moreover, gaps in government policies and
regulations can also constitute barriers to green innovation in the
lu and Koca,
automotive industries (Williams et al., 2011; Behdiog
2017).
4.2. Links between barriers
The above analysis reveals that there is a relationship between
those barriers and more specifically that each group of barriers has
at least one direct or indirect cause-and-effect relationship to each
of the other groups (see Fig. 4). In fact, the lack of management
commitment and technical expertise in automotive industries can
lead to a lack of environmental and technical knowledge among
employees (see Da Silva et al., 2018; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013).
Moreover, according to Ceschin and Vezzoli (2010) and Luthra et al.
(2011), resistance to changing traditional behaviors in order to
adopt new green procedures can also translate into resistance to
technological advances. Sometimes, barriers to the implementation
of green innovation may be linked to the lack of control over
reverse logistics (Balon, Sharma & Barua, 2016), the inappropri-
ateness of the green technology paradigm (Williander, 2006) or the
poor performance of green technologies (Wiedmann et al., 2011).
Furthermore, Mudgal et al. (2010) show that there is a lack of
preparedness due to the low level of adoption of environmental
management systems as a result of ignorance and a lack of
awareness of the associated benefits, which in turn become a sig-
nificant barrier. In addition, according to them, the low absorption
capacity, caused by the lack of training in green technologies in
industries, is at the root of the low appropriation or use of these
technologies. Moreover, a lack of green technology is linked to their
lack of resources in these industries. The lack of technologies may
be related to the high cost of these technologies and the raw ma-
terials that go into the production of green technologies (Ajanovic,
2015). The existence of low economic performance may also be at
the root of the lack of management commitment to IGIAI, which
may also be at the root of resistance to the implementation of green
technologies. Furthermore, resistance to change may be linked to
the lack of employee motivation on the part of automotive industry
executives. Lastly, lack of awareness of the importance of envi-
ronmental protection may be at the root of resistance to IGIAI.
In conclusion, the diversity of existing laws on green technology
among countries that have legislated in this direction is thought to
be in the center of the complexity behind green technology legis-
lation. For example, in some countries, legislation provides tax
 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524
credits or subsidies to the automotive industry for the acquisition of
green technology (Oliveira, 2018), while in other countries the
legislation does not provide such benefits. This disparity may
therefore affect the competition between these industries on an
international level.
4.3. Evolution and dominance of barriers
The analysis of the articles shows the disappearance of some
barriers and the appearance of others over the years. For example,
barriers such as bureaucracy, tax-taxes and communication diffi-
culties between different departments present in the 1990s dis-
appeared after the 2000s. This disappearance can be justified by the
advent of communication technologies, which has since simplified
administrative procedures and facilitated communication between
stakeholders. Also, the disappearance of tax-taxes can be justified
by the implementation of different policies to encourage ecological
practices throughout the world. Moreover, some barriers have only
appeared at the end of the 2010s. This is the case of barriers related
to lack of interest on the part of management, resistance to tech-
nological innovation in products and processes within industries,
the complexity of product design or the absence of reverse logistics
practices. The lack of interest in innovation may be linked, for
example, to the low economic returns of green innovation, while
the complexity of design is justified by the fact that consumers are
becoming increasingly demanding.
However, some barriers have remained constant over time.
These include problems of absorptive capacity for green technol-
ogies, lack of financial resources in industries or the high cost of
inputs to green technology, difficulties in working with industries
and their suppliers, and the lack of social and environmental re-
sponsibility within the automotive industries. Thus, barriers that
persist over time mostly include those related to resources and
behavior. Furthermore, the analysis of the selected articles has also
revealed that not all the barriers revealed in the literature have
been empirically tested. Apart from conceptual and theoretical ar-
ticles, some empirical studies simply referred to barriers without
actually testing them. Despite this, a large number of barriers have
been tested by the empirical articles. With regard to these barriers,
several observations can be made (see Fig. 5). First, it is suggested
that the barriers most frequently identified with IGIAI are behav-
ioral barriers. Indeed, this is reflected in several behaviors within
the automotive industry, such as the lack of commitment of leaders
to green innovation and the resistance of employees or suppliers to
go green. Next, the second most commonly listed group of barriers
are those related to resources. Of these barriers, those related to
high investment costs and lack of resources were the most signif-
icant. The third group of barriers is those related to the organization
of industries. These barriers are mainly those related to the man-
agement of relations between partners and difficulties encountered
in managing the IIG implementation process. Barriers related to
laws and regulations come in fourth place. This is mainly due to the
divergence of laws and the diversity of regulations that vary from
one country to another. Finally, technology-related and
information-related barriers complete the ranking.
In conclusion, there are several barriers preventing the auto-
motive industry from going green. However, the most important
are those related to behavior, followed by those related to re-
sources. The importance of behavioral barriers can be explained by
the fact that individuals within the automotive industries develop
behaviors that hinder the implementation of green innovation
because of their disbelief in the benefits of environmental initia-
tives. These behaviors may also be related to the presence of
climate-skeptic ideas within industries. In turn, resource-related
barriers are those that include the high costs of inputs to the
9
production of green cars. These are also related to the high in-
vestment costs involved in the production of green cars.
5. Contributions
The contribution of this systematic review is twofold. First, there
are the academic contributions. This study is the first systematic
review on the barriers to IGIAI, which contributes to reduce this
research gap. Consequently, the results obtained in this research
shed light on the scientific community's knowledge of the current
state of research on the barriers to IGIAI. These results also provide
information on research trends in this topic and identify avenues
for future research.
Second, there are the practical contributions. In this aspect,
practitioners may find this article useful because it provides them
with an overview of the various barriers to IGIAI, the potential links
between them, identifying the most recurring and also the most
dominant ones. This knowledge will allow them to anticipate the
barriers and adjust their actions accordingly in order to better avoid
them. From this knowledge, leaders may be able to better define or
formulate their green innovation strategy or policies. Finally, policy
makers may find in this article information that will enable them to
better formulate various government policies, such as laws and
regulations that may further stimulate IGIAI.
6. Discussion and conclusion
The aim of this paper was to synthesize the existing knowledge
concerning barriers to IGIAI by providing a conceptual model on
the barriers to IGIAI which have been identified across academic
literature. The findings show that there is a significant number of
barriers to the IGIAI, which can be grouped into six categories,
namely: (1) Barriers related to resources; (2) Barriers related to
behaviors; (3) Barriers related to information; (4) Barriers related to
Technology; (5) Organizational barriers, (6) Barriers related to laws
and regulations. In addition, this study has identified the existence
of a cause and effect relationship between these different barriers,
as some barriers can directly or indirectly lead to others. The
analysis of these relationships revealed that the dominant barriers
were those related to behaviors, followed by those related to re-
sources. These results therefore confirm our hypothesis that there
is a diversity of barriers at the IGIAI.
At the same time, our review has also identified significant gaps
in the literature. While some of the barriers have been more
studied, such as those related to production costs and absorption
capacity, other barriers have not yet been properly investigated and
thus deserve further attention. This is the case, for example, of the
limitations related to the adoption of social responsibility by
companies operating in the automotive industry (Basavaraj et al.,
2018) and the barriers faced by suppliers such as insufficient sup-
plier training. In parallel, it would be important to further investi-
gate the relationships between suppliers and automotive
companies, since the commitment of these actors is fundamental to
the implementation of innovation in green practices. Also, few
studies have focused on analyzing the influence of the social and
political environment of automotive industry leaders on the
implementation of green innovation. Future studies could investi-
gate the causes of the lack of commitment of managers to eco-
innovation, as well as research how leaders make pro-
environmental decisions and the origin of their ideas for environ-
mental improvement (Nunes and Bennett, 2010). Finally, it is sug-
gested that more studies need to further analyze and propose
models of green operations to guide the decision-making process
related to the implementation of eco-innovations (Nunes and
Bennett, 2010).
10 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524
In the literature on barriers to IGIAI, it has been found that the
majority of studies have been conducted on large automotive
companies. It is therefore advisable for future research to study
these barriers in small and medium-sized companies in the sector
as they are sometimes suppliers of spare parts to large manufac-
turers (Jabbour and Souza, 2015).
In addition, Elmquist and Segrestin (2009) proposed future
research on barriers to IGIAI to further test the Knowledge, Concept,
Proposal (KCP) method within other companies. Indeed, this
method makes it possible to explain how cars could be both durable
and economical e a current challenge for the entire automotive
industry. However, it has only been tested in one case study in
Europe. Future research will benefit from testing it in other coun-
tries in order to allow generalization.
This study has revealed that little research on barriers to green
innovation has been conducted within the automotive sector in
China. Yet, China is the world's leading vehicle manufacturer ac-
cording to the 2017 report of the International Organization of
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers.2 Future research must therefore
focus more on barriers to green innovation in the Chinese auto-
motive sector. The same is true for countries such as the USA,
Germany, Japan and India, which remain under study.
It also appears in the literature that the study of behaviors with
regard to green innovation in automotive industry still needs to be
further investigated for better understanding. It is in this regard
that Peiro
-Signes and Segarra-On ~ a (2018) invite future research to
study the dynamics of environmental orientation to understand the
behavioral evolution of companies in order to expand knowledge
on these dynamics. In addition, as Peiro
-Signes and Segarra-On ~a
(2018) point out, since automotive industries are subject to spe-
cific environmental legislation, and common regulations have
relatively different impacts on each industry, it would be inter-
esting to conduct comparative studies between several countries to
analyze the obstacles to environmental practices in the automotive
industries. In addition, more in-depth networking research within
the automotive industries could enhance understanding of the
critical factors that affect the need for sustainable innovation efforts
in the automotive industries to go green (Williander, 2006). Finally,
in the current literature, studies conducted in international con-
texts have not taken into account all the possible factors that may
influence the implementation of green innovation. These studies
are important to provide information on the characteristics, simi-
larities and dissimilarities of the automotive sector in different
countries. Further research on barriers in such contexts should
therefore involve economic, ecological, political, socio-cultural and
technological factors, as pointed out by Wiedmann et al. (2011).
Lastly, it is important to notice that the method of systematic
review also has some disadvantages. This method is a lengthy
process that is resource-intensive in terms of time, cost and
workload. In addition, the application of the inclusion and exclu-
sion criteria creates a selection filter that can suppress other works
that could otherwise be potentially relevant for analysis. In the case
of this study, not only it is limited to include articles published in
English and Portuguese in peer-reviewed journals, but we also did
not take into account other types of research reports (conference
proceedings, books, newspapers articles, etc.), which may have
excluded part of the knowledge being produced on innovation.
There are therefore some exhaustivity limits. For these reasons,
although we are aware of the specificity of each company, we
suggest that our results be considered as suggestions in order not to
fall into abusive generalizations.
2
See http://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/2017-statistics/,
retrieved on June 30th, 2019.
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.
Acknowledgements
This article was written with the support and guidance of Norrin

Laval in the Department of
Halilem, a full professor at Universite
Management. We would like to thank him for his helpful academic
expertise and his willingness to engage with us on the topics dis-
cussed herein.
References
Ajanovic, A., 2015. The future of electric vehicles : prospects and impediments.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy Environ. 4 (6), 521e536.
Almeida Copetti, F., Saurin, T.A., Soliman, M., 2016. Gesta ~o de barreiras na
implantaç~ ao da produça ~o enxuta : um estudo no setor automobilístico. Rev.
Produç~ ao Online 16 (1), 313e341.
Arkader, R., 1999. Avanços e barreiras ao fornecimento enxuto da indústria auto-
mobilística brasileira : a perspectiva dos fornecedores. Revista de Administraç~ ao
Contempora ^nea 3 (1), 7e21.
Balon, V., Sharma, A.K., Barua, M.K., 2016. Assessment of barriers in green supply
chain management using ISM : a case study of the automobile industry in India.
Global Bus. Rev. 17 (1), 116e135.
Basavaraj, S., Ravi, A., Cranenburgh, K.V., Vikkraman, P., 2018. CSR activities of a
Japanese company operating in India-strong or weak sustainability : a theory
testing of a Cybernetic model. Int. J. Manag. Pract. 11 (3), 284e317.
Behdiog lu, S., Koca, G., 2017. Green supply chain initiatives in Turkish automotive
main industry. Journal of Strategic Research in Social Science 3 (3).
Ceschin, F., Vezzoli, C., 2010. The role of public policy in stimulating radical envi-
ronmental impact reduction in the automotive sector : the need to focus on
product-service system innovation. Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 10 (2/3),
321. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJATM.2010.032631.
Cordeiro, G.D.O., Drohomeretski, E., 2013. Gest~ ao enxuta e ambiental da cadeia de
suprimentos : ana
lise das pr
aticas na indústria automotiva. In: XX SIMPEP e
Simpo
sio de Engenharia de Produç~ ao : A Engenharia de Produça ~o & Objetivos
de desenvolvimento do Mile ^nio, vol. 14. Bauru, S~ao Paulo.
Dijk, M., Montalvo, C., 2009. Ultra low emission vehicle development : a study on
the drivers for car firms and the implications for sustainable development
policy. Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 9 (2), 191.
Drohomeretski, E., Gouvea da Costa, S., Pinheiro de Lima, E., 2014. Green supply
chain management : drivers, barriers and practices within the Brazilian auto-
motive industry. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 25 (8), 1105e1134. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JMTM-06-2014-0084.
Elmquist, M., Segrestin, B., 2009. Sustainable development through innovative
design : lessons from the KCP method experimented with an automotive firm.
Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 9 (2), 229. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJATM.2009.026399.
Gonz


alez-Torre, P., Alvarez, M., Sarkis, J., Adenso-Díaz, B., 2010. Barriers to the
implementation of environmentally oriented reverse Logistics : evidence from
the automotive industry sector: barriers to implementation of reverse logistics.
Br. J. Manag. 21 (4), 889e904. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00655.x.
Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., Haq, A.N., 2014. Barriers analysis for green
supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic
hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 555e568. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijpe.2013.08.018.
Hunke, K., Prause, G., 2014. Sustainable supply chain management in German
automotive industry : experiences and success factors. Journal of Security and
Sustainability Issues 3 (3), 15e22.
Ii, W.W.C., Paolucci, E., 2001. Commercial development of environmental technol-
ogies for the automotive industry towards a new model of technological
innovation. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 1 (4), 363. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJETM.2001.000770.
Jabbour, A.B.L.S., de Souza, C.L., 2015. Oportunidades e desafios para lidar com as
barreiras  a adoç~ao de pr
aticas de green supply chain management : guidelines a 
luz de um estudo de múltiplos casos no Brasil. Gest~ ao Produça ~o 22 (2),
295e310.
Li, J., Yu, K., Gao, P., 2014. Recycling and pollution control of the end of life vehicles
in China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 16 (1), 31e38. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10163-013-0226-6.
Lopes, L.J., Neto Sacomano, M., Argoud, A.R.T.T., de Camargo Junior, J.B., Pires, S.R.I.,
2015. Uma ana
lise das pr
aticas de Green Supply Chain Management e certifi-
caç~ ao ISO 14001 no setor automobilístico brasileiro. Revista de Administraç~ ao
Unimep 13 (1), 165e188.
Luiz, J.V.R., Andrade, J.L., Jugend, D., da Silva, S.L., Luiz, O.R., Souza, F.B., 2017. Adoç~ao
do ecodesign em empresas inovadoras no Brasil : levantamento e an
alise dos
principais estímulos. Rev. Produça ~o Online 17 (2), 692e710.
 P. Gohoungodji et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 123524
Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S., Haleem, A., 2011. Barriers to implement green
supply chain management in automobile industry using interpretive structural
modeling technique-An Indian perspective. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 4 (2), 231e257.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A., Geng, Y., 2013. An ISM approach for
the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Clean.
Prod. 47, 283e297.
Menzel, V., Smagin, J., David, F., 2010. Can companies profit from greener
manufacturing? Measuring Business Excellence 14 (2), 22e31.
Mesquita, D.L., de Souza, D.L., Barbosa, D.M.S., 2018. Pra
ticas de green supply chain
na indústria automobilística : estudo de caso em uma montadora brasileira.
Revista da Universidade Vale do Rio Verde 16 (1).
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P., Raj, T., 2010. Modelling the barriers of green
supply chain practices : an Indian perspective. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 7 (1),
81. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLSM.2010.033891.
Nunes, B., Bennett, D., 2010. Green operations initiatives in the automotive in-
dustry : an environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study. Bench-
mark Int. J. 17 (3), 396e420.
Oliveira, F.A., 2018. Aplicaç~ ao da teoria das opço ~es reais para avaliaça ~o de política
pública : a política inovar-auto no setor automotivo brasileiro. Rev. Produça ~o
Online 18 (1), 63e92.

-Signes, A.,
Peiro
Segarra-On ~ a, M., 2018. How past decisions affect future behavior
on eco-innovation : an empirical study. Bus. Strat. Environ. 27 (8), 1233e1244.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2071.
Pinkse, J., Bohnsack, R., Kolk, A., 2014. The role of public and private protection in
disruptive innovation : the automotive industry and the emergence of low-
emission vehicles. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 31 (1), 43e60.
Sharma, S.K., Singh, R., Matai, R., 2018. Force field analysis of Indian automotive
strategic sourcing risk management enablers and barriers. Measuring Business
Excellence 22 (3), 258e275.
Silva, F.C., Gayubas, M., dos Santos, M.R., Shibao, F.Y., Barbieri, J.C., 2017. Gesta ~o da
Cadeia de Suprimentos Verde : percepço ~es dos Gestores a s Barreiras para
Implementaça ~o na Indústria Automotiva Brasileira, Argentina e Colombiana.
Teoria e Pra
tica em Administraça ~o (TPA) 7 (2), 183e213.
Silva, F.C., Shibao, F.Y., Barbieri, J.C., Librantz, A.F.H., Santos, M. R. dos, 2018. Barreiras

a gesta ~o da cadeia de suprimentos verde na indústria automotiva. RAE-Revista
de Administraça ~o de Empresas 58 (2), 149e162. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-
759020180204.
Smith, M., Crotty, J., 2008. Environmental regulation and innovation driving
ecological design in the UK automotive industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 17 (6).
Stone, G., Howard, M., Miemczyk, J., Graves, A., 2008. Collaborative ICT ventures and
the implementation of responsive automotive supply networks. Int. J. Automot.
Technol. Manag. 8 (3).
Thun, J.-H., Müller, A., 2010. An empirical analysis of green supply chain manage-
ment in the German automotive industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 19 (2).
Wells, P., 2010. Sustainability and diversity in the global automotive industry. Int. J.
Automot. Technol. Manag. 10 (2e3), 305e320.
Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., Pankalla, L., Kassubek, M., Seegebarth, B., 2011.
Adoption barriers and resistance to sustainable solutions in the automotive
sector. J. Bus. Res. 64 (11), 1201e1206.
Williams, C.C., Fuenmayor, A., Dasí, S., 2011. Innovation and creativity in the auto-
mobile industry : environmental proposals and initiatives. Serv. Ind. J. 31 (12),
1931e1942.
Williander, M., 2006. Fading eco-benign networks : the causes found at volvo car
corporation and ford motor company. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 9 (1), 92e107.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060610640041.
Zahraee, S.M., Mamizadeh, F., Vafaei, S.A., 2018. Greening assessment of suppliers in
automotive supply Chain : an empirical survey of the automotive industry in
Iran. Global J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 19 (3), 225e238. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40171-018-0189-5.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K., 2007. Green supply chain management : pressures, prac-
tices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod.
15 (11), 1041e1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.021.
References
Blanc, J., Carneiro, M.S., 2018. Le Bre
sil et l’environnement au XXIe sie cle : De

ficit

mocratique, carences environnementales. In: Bre
de
sil(s). Sciences humaines et
sociales. https://doi.org/10.4000/bresils.2551, 13.
Chen, Y.-S., Lai, S.-B., Wen, C.-T., 2006. The influence of green innovation perfor-
mance on corporate advantage in taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 67 (4), 331e339. https://
11
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9025-5.
Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., Garside, R., 2018. Defining the
process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of
guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18 (1), 85.
Daily, B.F., Huang, S., 2001. Achieving sustainability through attention to human
resource factors in environmental management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21
(12), 1539e1552. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110410892.
Giunipero, L.C., Hooker, R.E., Denslow, D., 2012. Purchasing and supply management
sustainability: drivers and barriers. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 18 (4), 258e269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2012.06.003.
Greeno, J.L., Robinson, S.N., 1992. Rethinking corporate environmental manage-
ment. Columbia J. World Bus. 27 (3/4), 222e232. Consulte
a  l’adresse. https://
acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=buh&AN=9605306810&lang=fr&site=ehost-live.
Harrington, D.R., Deltas, G., Khanna, M., 2014. Does pollution prevention reduce
toxic releases? A dynamic panel data model. Land Econ. 90 (2), 199e221.
https://doi.org/10.3368/le.90.2.199.
Kitchenham, B., 2004. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews, vol. 33.
Kushwaha, G.S., Sharma, N.K., 2016. Green initiatives: a step towards sustainable
development and firm's performance in the automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod.
121, 116e129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.072.
Larr, A.S., Neidell, M., 2016. Pollution and climate change. Future Child. 26 (1),
93e113. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0005.
Lin, R.-J., Chen, R.-H., Huang, F.-H., 2014. Green innovation in the automobile in-
dustry. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 114 (6), 886e903. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-
11-2013-0482.
Luthra, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., 2015. Critical success factors of green supply chain
management for achieving sustainability in Indian automobile industry. Prod.
Plann. Contr. 26 (5), 339e362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2014.904532.
Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A., Geng, Y., 2013. Barriers to green supply chain
management in Indian mining industries: a graph theoretic approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 47, 335e344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.030.
Oliveira, U.R., Espindola, L.S., da Silva, I.R., da Silva, I.N., Rocha, H.M., 2018.
A systematic literature review on green supply chain management: research
implications and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 537e561. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.083.
Perron, G.M., 2005. Barriers to Environmental Performance Improvements in Ca-
nadian SMEs. Dalhousie University, Canada.
Snilstveit, B., Oliver, S., Vojtkova, M., 2012. Narrative approaches to systematic re-
view and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and
practice. J. Dev. Effect. 4 (3), 409e429.
Staples, M., Niazi, M., 2006. Experiences using systematic review guidelines. J. Syst.
Software 80, 1425e1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.046.
Stringham, E.P., Miller, J.K., Clark, J.R., 2015. Overcoming barriers to entry in an
established industry: tesla motors. Calif. Manag. Rev. 57 (4), 85e103. https://
doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.4.85.
Thu, P.D.D., Paille
, P., Halilem, N., 2018. Systematic review on environmental inno-
vativeness: a knowledge-based resource view. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 1088e1099.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.221.
Tollefson, J., Gilbert, N., 2012. Earth summit: Rio report card. Nature News 486
(7401), 20. https://doi.org/10.1038/486020a.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 14 (3), 207e222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental
supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sec-
tors. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14 (1), 69e85. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pursup.2008.01.007.
Wheeler, S.M., Beatley, T., 2014. Sustainable Urban Development Reader. Routledge.
Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., Francoeur, V., Paille, P., 2018. Overcoming the barriers to pro-
environmental behaviors in the workplace: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod.
182, 379e394.
Zailani, S., Govindan, K., Iranmanesh, M., Shaharudin, M.R., Sia Chong, Y., 2015.
Green innovation adoption in automotive supply chain: the Malaysian case.
J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1115e1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.039.
Zhgulev, E., Bozhuk, S., Evdokimov, K., Pletneva, N., 2018, mai 23. Analysis of bar-
riers to promotion of electric cars on Russian market. In: 17th International
Scientific Conference Engineering For Rural Development. https://doi.org/
10.22616/ERDev2018.17.N377.