Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain

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

Evaluating the circular supply chain implementation barriers using

Pythagorean fuzzy AHP-DEMATEL approach
Swapnil Lahane ⇑, Ravi Kant
Mechanical Engineering Department, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichchhanath, Surat 395007, Gujarat, India

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

Handling Editor: Yutao Wang In recent times, the notion of Circular Supply Chain (CSC) has gained considerable attention from the commu-
nity of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers across the globe. It is due to the issues of enormous waste
Keywords: generation, deteriorating environmental conditions, and increased consumption of natural resources. Thus, the
Circular economy Circular Economy (CE) adoption in supply chain becomes critical. However, CSC implementation is a challeng-
Circular supply chain ing task due to several barriers. In current literature, very few of the literature analyze the barriers to CSC adop-
Sustainable development tion in emerging economies, especially in India. Therefore, to fill the literature gap, this study’s purpose is to
Barriers
identify and analyze the inter‐relationships among the CSC barriers and their impact on CSC implementation.
Pythagorean fuzzy AHP
The integrated Pythagorean fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (PF‐AHP) and Pythagorean fuzzy decision making
Pythagorean fuzzy DEMATEL
trial and evaluation laboratory (PF‐DEMATEL) approaches are used to achieve the set objective of this research.
PF‐AHP is utilized to calculate the weights of criteria as CSC barriers. PF‐DEMATEL is used to determine the
causal dependency among selected CSC barriers. The results show that “Lack of top management support
and commitment to adopt circular practices” is the most crucial barrier, and “Low acceptability for adopting
remanufactured, recycled and refurbished products” is the least significant barrier. The findings of this research
will assist the managers, practitioners, and policymakers in preparing business strategies for effective adoption
of CSC management.

1. Introduction reduce, repair, redesign, and remanufacturing) principles (Caldera

et al., 2019; Batista et al., 2018).
Due to globalization, every manufacturing supply chains come CSC focuses on the value gain aspects of CE and minimizes the
under a severe threat of unsustainability (Goyal et al., 2018). It is resource input required, reduces waste, pollution, and carbon foot-
caused by several issues such as colossal waste generation, overcon- prints (Nascimento et al., 2019). Therefore, adoption of CSC in manu-
sumption of natural resources, climatic shift, global warming, and facturing organizations results in several benefits such as reducing the
scarcity of renewable resources (Sarja et al., 2021). Thus, researchers negative environmental impact on the ecosystem, improves the
worldwide try to deals with the above issues by implementing sustain- resource efficiency, reduces the energy usage, improves the product
able development strategies such as design for circularity, green design design, improves competitiveness, improves social and economic ben-
and innovation, industrial symbiosis, industrial ecology, product life efits, generates employment opportunities etc. (Lahane and Kant,
cycle management, and the application of reuse and recycling princi- 2021a; Kumar et al., 2019). The developed countries such as United
ples (Grafström and Aasma, 2021). Therefore, in recent times, the States, UK had already initiated these practices into their supply chains
notion of circular supply chain (CSC) has received much attention to enhance sustainable goals (Goyal et al., 2018). In contrast to this,
among research communities across the globe (Lahane et al., 2020). developing economies, especially India, still lag in adopting such inno-
The concept of CSC integrates the circular economy (CE) aspects into vative and sustainable strategies into their business processes (Mangla
the supply chain of business organization. CSC acts as a sustainable et al., 2018). Also, India is the second most populated country in the
solution approach to linear supply chain model where tremendous world and producing enormous amount of waste, pollution, and car-
amount of wastes are produced across the various operations of supply bon emission daily (Lahane et al., 2020). Hence, waste management
chain. CSC emphasizes the application of CE 6R’s (i.e., reuse, recycle, is an essential aspect that most nations in Asian continents are cur-

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Lahane).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100014
Received 17 May 2021; Revised 30 September 2021; Accepted 15 November 2021

2772-3909/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

rently facing. In addition, the practices adopted by developing econo- 1.2. Research objectives
mies like India for waste management are not sufficient enough to
deals with the issues (Khandelwal and Barua, 2020). The nation India This research contributes to the CSC domain by addressing the fol-
could able to manage 40–45 lakh crores annual benefits up to 2050 if lowing research questions:
they effectively adopt CSC into their production system. Furthermore, RQ1: What are the prominent barriers relevant to CSC implemen-
the products made by circular pattern save up to 40% and 30% energy tation in context of Indian manufacturing organization?
and raw materials respectively compare to the products made based on RQ2: How can the selected barriers are analyzed to understand
linear supply chain model (Lahane and Kant, 2021b). their priority in adopting CSC?
Therefore, implementation of CSC business model in actual prac- RQ3: What are cause and effect relationships between the CSC
tice is very much needed. However, keeping the issues mentioned barriers?
above in mind, adopting CSC practices is challenging for manufactur- The following research objectives are formulated to address the
ing organizations because of numerous barriers hindering CSC imple- above mentioned questions:
mentation. Thus, a deep understanding of the CSC barriers and RO1: To identify and rank most prominent barriers to CSC
causal interrelationships among the barriers helps practitioners for- implementation.
mulate the innovative strategy and examine their impact on CSC RO2: To determined the casual dependency among selected CSC
adoption. barriers.
This research utilized the integrated approach of PF‐AHP and PF‐
DEMATEL technique. PF‐AHP is used to calculate the weight of CSC
1.1. Research motives barriers. PF‐DEMATEL is used to evaluate the cause and effect relation-
ship among selected CSC barriers. An AHP and DEMATEL technique
Now a day’s manufacturing industries across the emerging nations does not fulfill the uncertainty and imprecision associated with
are facing the problems of waste generation, environmental degrada- experts' input. Therefore, the extension of Pythagorean fuzzy sets
tion, pollution and resource scarceness (Bai et al., 2021). Hence, to (PFS) is applied to these methods. PFS allows large freedom to the
tackle such issues of unsustainable development CSC acts as a domi- experts to express their views on multi‐criteria decision‐making
nant solution approach to earlier take, make and dispose model. CSC (MCDM) problems (Lahane and Kant, 2021b). The Indian case organi-
focuses on the triple bottom line aspects of sustainability (Moktadir zation is selected to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed
et al., 2018b). CSC works on the principles of CE. Thus, manufactur- framework.
ing industries that desire to redesign their supply chain model with Following the introduction, Section 2 explores the literature rele-
CE can attain several key benefits. Reverse logistics is an important vant to this study. Section 3 describes the research methodology
component of CSC where second hand products are return back to adopted for this study. The proposed research framework is presented
supply chain for value extraction. It has considerable financial in Section 4. The empirical case example is presented in Section 5.
impact, as it generates near about 2.20 billion euro’s returns by effec- Results and discussion is presented in Section 6. Section 7 provides
tive adoption of e‐waste recycling (Lahane and Kant, 2021b). the managerial implications of this research. Section 8 highlights the
Atmayudha et al. (2021) developed the multi‐objective optimization conclusions, limitations, and future scope of research.
model to reduce the carbon emission percentage in crude oil trans-
portation by using green logistic approach. Pasha et al. (2021)
2. Literature review
improves sustainability of rail transport by reducing traffic delays
at level crossings. Sharma et al. (2021) evaluated the sustainable
The literature reviews on CE/CSC, barriers to CSC implementation,
reverse logistics practices and performance evaluation in perspective
and research gaps exist in CSC domain is presented in the following
of Indian retailers. Marcos et al. (2021) identified the source of
sub‐sections.
uncertaininty in the closed loop supply chain of lithium‐ion batteries
for electric vehicles. Yi et al. (2021) developed the Bi‐level program-
ming subsidy design for promoting the sustainable prefabricated pro- 2.1. CE and CSC
duct logistics. The various subjects of CSC such as circularity design,
process integration, product service system, end of life management, The traditional supply chain model is worked on the “take‐make‐
sharing economy, reverse logistics, reverse supply chain, industrial dispose” philosophy. This model cannot manage the balance between
symbiosis, etc. have been examined (Lahane et al., 2020; Lahane supply and demand network in consuming natural resources such as
and Kant, 2021b). raw materials, energy, fuels, etc. (Goyal et al., 2018; Lahane et al.,
The most of the earlier literatures have investigated the drivers / 2020). Such an imbalance pattern of production and consumption
enablers / critical success factors / practices to CSC implementation affects the ecosystem's sustainability to a large extent (Caldera et al.,
(Moktadir et al., 2018b; Shayganmehr et al., 2021; Moktadir et al., 2019). Hence; realizing resource scarcity's future challenge; industries
2020a,b; Moktadir et al., 2018a). In spite of having numerous benefits, need to transform their supply chain model from a linear to CSC
the implementation of CE in supply chain operations is a challenging model. In 1966, Kenneth Boulding (Boulding, 2018) creates the aware-
task (Bai et al., 2021). There are several factors that hinder their imple- ness of open economy and focuses on resources and sinks are unlim-
mentation is known as barriers. Hence, there is need to analyze signif- ited and they will remain as long as possible form an integral part of
icant barriers to CSC adoption. Most of the previous studies have economy (Tura et al., 2019). The CE’s first expression came from
recognized the barriers of CE in supply chain perspectives, but does Boulding's essay “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth”
not measure their impacts on CSC adoption using any decision making (Tura et al., 2019). Understanding CE and its practical applications
techniques in view of emerging economies (Kumar et al., 2019; evolved through different concept of ecology. Several manufacturing
Kirchherr et al., 2018; Masi et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019). Only fewer organizations are facing issues of environmental degradation and
numbers of articles has been published on evaluation of CSC barriers resource scarceness; hence now a day’s industrial practitioners are
(Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020). Therefore, it has looking to implement CSC as a sustainable development initiative
been seen that there is sufficient research gap is exists in assessment (Masi et al., 2018).
of CSC barriers. Thus, for successful adoption of CSC, a set of suitable CSC promotes various subjects of industrial ecology such as indus-
solutions measure need to be identified and ranked using decision trial symbiosis, eco‐industrial parks, life cycle assessment, process inte-
making process. gration, industrial ecosystem, end‐of‐life management, and green

2
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

supply chain management (Lahane et al., 2020; Mangla et al., 2018; analysis of enablers and barriers in perspectives of Italian automotive
Lahane and Kant, 2021b). CSC adoption helps to improve the sustain- industry. Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) analyzed the socio‐
able performance of the business organizations (Kirchherr et al., technical, organizational, and market level barriers to CE implementa-
2018). Previous literature on CSC suggested that there are several tion using multiple case study approach. Ratner et al. (2021) per-
challenges and difficulties associated with CSC adoption. Hence there formed the empirical analysis of barriers of consumer behavior for
is a need to scaling up their prominent solution ideas from the business the development of the CE in Russian manufacturing industries
organization viewpoint. The following sub‐section discusses the vari- context.
ous barriers to CSC implementation. Vermunt et al. (2019) identified the internal and external barriers
to different circular business models adopted in Dutch manufacturing
2.2. Barriers to CSC implementation sectors. After that, they analyzed the identified barriers based on 43
case studies and in depth interview with 31 Dutch manufacturing
The substantial upfront investment is required to adopt CSC con- firms. Kazancoglu et al. (2020) investigated the barriers to CSC in
cepts in manufacturing firms and also this investment is depend on the textile industry from stakeholder’s perspective. Their findings
their stakeholders (i.e., suppliers, retailers, consumers, and value chain shows that, the lack of collecting, sorting and recycling, reluctance
partners) to collaborate (Rizos et al., 2015). Additionally, the concept for acceptance of CE model, and problems related to uniformity and
of CSC deals with the product life cycle management, which reduced standardization are the most crucial barriers to CE adoption. Gupta
revenues at constant consumer volumes. At the same time, consumers, and Barua (2018) analyzed the 36 barriers and 20 solutions to over-
manufacturers, and suppliers also face difficulty in adopting the CSC come these barriers of CE adoption using integrated decision making
model (Tura et al., 2019). Some factors or variables keep the manufac- methods. Saroha et al. (2020) identified and examined the 31 pres-
turing organizations away from adopting circularity practices (Mangla sures in implementation of CSC management using fuzzy AHP method.
et al., 2018). These factors are known as barriers or obstacles, as they The financial pressures is identified the most critical pressure to CSCM
hinder the CSC implementation in business organizations. Grafström adoption for sustainability. For instance, the most influencing barriers
and Aasma (2021) reviewed the barriers of CE implementation based to CSC adoption with reference to emerging economies, especially
on theoretical economics perspective. In their study, they focused India are namely, lack of support and commitment from top manage-
more on technological, market, institutional and cultural barriers of ment (Mangla et al., 2018; Urbinati et al., 2021; Guldmann and
CE adoption. Malek and Desai (2021) developed the framework to pri- Huulgaard, 2020; Ratner et al., 2021), lack of knowledge and aware-
oritize the solutions to overcome the sustainable manufacturing barri- ness about the CSC management (Caldera et al., 2019; Mangla et al.,
ers in context of Indian manufacturing industries. Caldera et al. (2019) 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018; Masi et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019),
evaluates the enablers, barriers for successful implementation of sus- absence of stringent laws and regulations towards ecological aspects
tainable business practices using institutional theory approach. 4 key (Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Lahane and
enablers and 6 crucial barriers to sustainable business practices are Kant, 2021b; Moktadir et al., 2018a), non‐existence of favored tax
identified based on sustainable manufacturing in context of small‐ plans for encouragement of CSC adoption (Mangla et al., 2018;
medium size enterprises (SME’s) of Australia. Tura et al. (2019) devel- Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Saroha et al., 2020), etc.
oped the conceptual framework of drivers and barriers of CE imple-
mentation. They categorized the drivers and barriers into 7 main 2.3. Research gaps
categories: environmental, economic, social, political and institutional,
technological and informational, supply chain, and organizational After conducting the analysis of previous literature review the fol-
level. Masi et al. (2018) explored the awareness of CE through the lowing research gaps are identified:
CE practices and barriers. In their study, emphasis is given more on
descriptive and theoretical aspect of CE rather than quantitative i. The developed nations have effectively adopted CSC since long.
aspects. However, developing economies like India, still facing chal-
Sarja et al. (2021) reviewed the obstacles, catalysts and ambiva- lenges for CSC adoption due to the presence of poor policy stan-
lences for transition to CE in business organizations. Kumar et al. dards, laws, regulations, and strategies (Lahane et al., 2020;
(2019) identifies the benefits, opportunities and barriers to CE imple- Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Lahane and
mentation from a socio‐political, economic, legal and environmental Kant, 2021b; Saroha et al., 2020).
perspective. Mangla et al. (2018) identifies and evaluates the 16 most ii. India is one of the second most populated nations in the world.
significant barriers to CSC implementation in developing economies The numerous risks aligned with rising populations, rapid eco-
context using decision making techniques. Khandelwal and Barua nomic growth, fast urbanization has led to the increase in
(2020) developed the framework and prioritize the 24 barriers to demand for natural assets, and customary financial model has
CSC adoption using fuzzy AHP approach. Their study result reveals prompted an interest in the CSC implementation (Lahane
that, the lack of tax relaxation policies and poor enforcement of rules et al., 2020; Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020).
and regulations to protect the environment are the most prominent iii. Previous literature explains the necessity of research to recog-
barriers to CSC implementation. Kirchherr et al. (2018) explored the nize and analyze the barriers in the domain of CSC management
barriers to CE implementation in European Union (EU) context. They for optimal resources usage and sustainable development
identify the lack of consumer interest / awareness, and hesitant com- (Moktadir et al., 2018a; Kirchherr et al., 2018; Masi et al.,
pany culture is the most important barriers to CE adoption. Rizos et al. 2018; Tura et al., 2019).
(2015) discussed the barriers and opportunities of CE implementation iv. The previous studies lack the extensive analysis of barriers to
in SME’s of developed nations. The identified barriers are classified CSC adoption using decision making techniques (Rizos et al.,
into 3 main categories such as environmental, social and economic 2015; Zhang et al., 2019; Agyemang et al., 2019). Therefore,
barriers. Zhang et al. (2019) identified the barriers to smart waste understanding interactive relations among the CSC barriers
management based on CE in manufacturing sectors of china. may help decision‐makers effectively implement CSC in an
Agyemang et al. (2019) explored the conceptual study of drivers and industry.
barriers to CE adoption in Pakistan’s automobile industry. Their study v. From the previous literature, it has been seen that, several stud-
highlights that the lack of awareness, expertise, and financial con- ies has either identified the CSC barriers or developed the con-
straint are the top 3 barriers to CE implementation in automobile sec- ceptual model based on case study (Kumar et al., 2019;
tors of Pakistan. Urbinati et al. (2021) performed the empirical Kirchherr et al., 2018; Guldmann and Huulgaard, 2020; Nasir

3
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

et al., 2017; Jaeger and Upadhyay, 2020). Fewer numbers of lit- 3.2. Pythagorean fuzzy analytical hierarchy process
eratures focused on decision making techniques for analysis of
CSC barriers (Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, AHP is widely used MCDM technique to solve complex group deci-
2020). sion making problems (Lahane and Kant, 2021a). It assesses and orga-
vi. Several MCDM techniques have been used in previous studies nizes the all criteria of decision making in hierarchical order. AHP
(Lahane and Kant, 2021a; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; method has several advantages compared to the other MCDM methods
Gupta and Barua, 2018; Saroha et al., 2020). To the best of such as ANP, SWARA, ENTROPY, CRITICS etc. to determine the
our knowledge, there is no studies have analyzed the CSC bar- weights of criteria (Khandelwal and Barua, 2020). According to
riers using the application of PFS in MCDM technique. Khandelwal and Barua (2020) AHP has the following advantages:
(1) AHP can effectively handle the qualitative and quantitative data.
The above mentioned research gaps clearly justifies the objectives (2) It exploits a hierarchical framework to resolve the various issues
set for the present study. of decision making problems. (3) It helps the decision‐makers to eval-
uate the consistency of MCDM problem. Therefore, this research
employs the AHP method for assessment of CSC barriers. However,
3. Methods the classic AHP results are largely influenced by human subjective
judgments (Raj and Sah, 2019). Thus, to address the uncertainty asso-
The detail about the research methodology adopted in this research ciated with barriers to CSC implementation, the integration of PFS in
is presented in following sub‐sections. AHP technique has been adopted for this study. PF‐AHP gives greater
freedom to decision‐makers to communicate their idea in MCDM prob-
lems (Lahane and Kant, 2021a,b). Recently, PF‐AHP has been applied
3.1. Pythagorean fuzzy set theory in various domains such as location selection for WEEE recycling plant
(Kaya et al., 2020); hospital service quality evaluation (Yucesan and
The uncertain and vague information in MCDM problems can be Gul, 2020); risk assessment for health safety (Ilbahar et al., 2018);
easily handled by the application of Intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS) information security risk analysis (Ak and Gul, 2019); risk evaluation
(Lahane and Kant, 2021a). The IFS is generally expressed in three in hydropower plant operations (Yucesan and Kahraman, 2019); etc.
forms: membership, non‐membership, and hesitancy function. How- The steps of PF‐AHP method are given below:
ever, in some situations where the degree of membership and non‐ Step 1: Develop a pair wise comparison matrix A ¼ ðaik Þmn using
membership function is greater than one, IFS can’t handle the impre- the linguistic terms given in Appendix B (Please see Table B.1).
ciseness. IFS consist of three different extensions such as Neutrosophic Step 2: Calculate the differences matrix D ¼ ðdik Þmn using Eqs. (1)
set (Abdullah and Goh, 2019), PFS (Lahane and Kant, 2021a), and and (2):
orthopedic fuzzy set (Yazdi et al., 2020) to address these issues of
uncertainty. This research uses PFS to deals with the problems of dikL ¼ μ2ikL  v2ikU ð1Þ
vagueness and imprecision in MCDM problems.
In PFS, the limitation associated to IFS can be fulfilled with a dikU ¼ μ2ikU  v2ikL ð2Þ
greater value of membership and non membership grade. In IFS, all
the point (x, y) of its membership grade are under the line x + y ≤ 1, Step 3: Calculate the interval multiplicative matrix S ¼ ðsik Þmn
whereas every point of Pythagorean membership grades are with using Eqs. (3) and (4):
x2 + y2 ≤ 1. Thus the set of PFS is larger than the set of IFS. As a result, pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
SikL ¼ 1000dikL ð3Þ
the PFS gives the large liberty to the experts to express their judgments
on the vagueness in decision making problems. Therefore, this pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
research proposes PFS with extension to AHP and DEMATEL method SikU ¼ 1000dikL ð4Þ
to evaluate the causal relationship among the barriers of CSC imple- Step 4: Calculate determinacy value τ ¼ ðτik Þmn of the aik using Eq.
mentation. The space of Pythagorean and intuitionistic membership
(5):
grades is presented in Fig. 1.  
The details about the preliminary operations of PFS are given in τik ¼ 1  μ2ikU  μ2ikL  ðv2ikU  v2ikL Þ ð5Þ
Appendix A.
Step 5: Calculate the matrix of weights, T ¼ ðt ik Þmm using Eq. (6):
 
SikL þ SikU
t ik ¼ τik ð6Þ
2
Step 6: Calculate the normalized priority weight ; wi using Eq. (7):
m
∑k¼1 t ik
wi ¼ m m ð7Þ
∑i¼1 ∑k¼1 t ik

3.3. Pythagorean fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory

There are several MCDM methods are available in literature,

whereby DEMATEL is one of the fruitful MCDM method widely used
for analyzing and building the structural model (Abdullah and Goh,
2019). It is considered as simple in conception and computation com-
pared to other MCDM methods. According to Yazdi et al. (Yazdi et al.,
2020) the DEMATEL technique has the following advantages: (1) It
helps to visualize the complex structure using digraphs in the decision
Fig. 1. Comparison of spaces of Pythagorean and Intuitionistic membership making problem. (2) It determines the cause and effect relationships
grade (Lahane and Kant, 2021a). among the selected set of criteria. (3) It also quantifies the strength

4
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

of the relationship between the variables and can produce the result Ei ¼ Ri  Cj ð17Þ
with minimum data input compared to other MCDM methods such
as interpretive structural modeling (ISM), total interpretive structural
modeling (TISM), etc. (Govindan et al., 2015; Sivakumar et al., 4. Proposed research framework
2018). However, imprecision and vagueness in human judgments can-
not be handled with the help of classic DEMATEL approach. Therefore, The present study utilizes the integrated PF‐AHP and PF‐DEMATEL
this research uses the PFS with classic DEMATEL for handling the approach for evaluation of CSC barriers. The proposed research frame-
uncertainty associated with MCDM problems. Recently, PF‐ work comprise of three stages. The research design of the proposed
DEMATEL is applied in solid waste management adoption (Abdullah framework is illustrated in Fig. 2.
and Goh, 2019) and safety analysis in operational management Stage I: Procedure for selection of CSC barriers.
(Yazdi et al., 2020). The following steps are involved in PF‐ Stage II: Compute the weights of CSC barriers using PF‐AHP
DEMATEL method: method.
Step 1: Construct the initial direct relationship matrix (Z) by using Stage III: Ranking the selected CSC barriers using PF‐DEMATEL
linguistic scale given in Appendix C (Please see Table C.1). method.
Step 2: Covert the initial direct relationship matrix (Z) into Pytha-
gorean fuzzy direct relationship matrix by assigning the respective 5. An empirical case example
Pythagorean fuzzy numbers.
Step 3: Compute the weighted initial direct‐relation matrix using This section consists of four sub‐sections namely introduction to
Eq. (8): case organization, selection procedure of CSC barriers, followed by
2 3
λð0;m 0Þ    λm P1n computational procedure of PF‐AHP and PF‐DEMATEL is presented
6 7
... ...
in sub‐sequent section.
λ m Zm ¼ 6
4
7
5 ð8Þ
λm Pn1    λm ð0; 0Þ
5.1. Case organization and problem definition
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 λffi  
λ
where λm Pij ¼ h 1  1  μ2ij ; #ij i is the weighted PFS element. The Indian automotive plastic industry is selected for demonstra-
Step 4: Compute the aggregated matrix using Eqs. (9) and (10); tion of the effectiveness of the proposed framework. The selected orga-
2 3 nization was established in the year 1996 and having turnover of $142
λm1 PZm1 ; 11  λm2 PZm2 ; 11    λm1 PZm1 ;1nλm2 Pzm2 ;1n
6 7 million and over 10,000 employees. Due to the confidentiality reason
6 .. .. 7
λm1 Zm1  λm2 Zm2 ¼ 6 . . 7 organization name is not disclosed and hence, named as ABC organiza-
4  5 tion. The organization is presently located in Aurangabad city in the
λm1 PZm1 ; n1  λm2 PZm2 ; n1 λm1 PZm1 ;nnλm2 Pzm2 ;nn
State of Maharashtra, India. The selected organization is a manufac-
ð9Þ turer of seat cowling, fenders, windshields, fairing, and other automo-
tive plastic components. The company also manufactured various
λm1 PZm1 ; ij  λm2 PZm2 ; ij plastic parts for refrigeration, televisions, washing machines, water
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi heaters, air conditioners, etc. Using regular molding, stack molding,
¼h μ2λm Z m1 þ μ2λm Z m2  μ2λm Z m1 μ2λm Z m2 ; #λm1 Z m1 #λm2 Z m2 i ð10Þ and various insert molding techniques.
1 2 1 2
The selected case organization is facing the problem of waste man-
Step 5: Construct the total average crisp matrix using Eq. (11) agement. This organization does not in house facility for recycling and
2 3 remanufacturing of waste components, hence, to manage the waste
a11    a1n
6 . generated across the various operations of the supply chain. There is
A¼6
.. .. 7
7
4 .. . . 5 ð11Þ a need to establish an efficient waste management facility to convert
an1    ann waste into useful resources. However, it is challenging to integrate
the CE in supply chain due to numerous barriers, which hamper its
where, aij ¼ μ2Pz ;ij  #2Pz ;ij implementation and adoption. Thus, the selected case organization
Step 6: Develop the normalized average crisp matrix (X) using the executives are fascinated to evaluate CSC barriers and their impacts
Eq. (12): on the implementation process.
X¼sA ð12Þ
5.2. Stage I: Procedure for selection of CSC barriers
where, s ¼ 1
max 1 ≤ i ≤ n∑nj¼1 aij
i, j = 1, 2, …, n.
Step 7: Develop the total‐relation matrix (T) using the Eq. (13). From the literature, 42 CSC barriers are listed. After that, the ques-
1 tionnaire form was prepared in terms of CSC barriers and it was pre-
T ¼ XðI  XÞ ð13Þ
sented to the decision‐making (DM) panel of selected case
where, I: identity matrix. organization for confirmation. The DM panel consists of five experts,
Step 8: Calculate the summation of rows and columns separately Head (manufacturing), Head (production), Head (environmental
using Eqs. (14) and (15). safety), Head (operation), and Head (logistics). These experts of DM
n panel are expertise in the domain of waste management and having
Sum of row; Ri ¼ ∑ tij ð14Þ more than 15 years of industrial experience. Moreover, they are
j¼1
dynamically involved from the initial stages of CSC adoption in the
n case organization. Hence, it is assumed that the expertise of these
Sum of column; Cj ¼ ∑ tij ð15Þ members of the DM panel is adequate to carry out further research.
i¼1
Upon several rounds of discussion and brain storming session among
Step 9: Calculate the prominence (Pi) and net effect (Ei) of the cri- experts, thirty‐two CSC barriers were lastly selected. In addition, three
teria (barrier) using Eqs. (16) and (17). more barriers were added in the list. A total of 35 CSC barriers were
Pi ¼ Ri þ Cj ð16Þ finally selected, and categorized it into six major criteria. The list of
identified and selected CSC barriers is presented below (Table 1). From

5
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

Fig. 2. Research design.

6
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

Table 1
List of common barriers to CSC implementation.

Main Barriers Code Sub-Barriers References

Strategic Barriers (SBs) SB1 Lack of top management support and commitment to adopt (Sarja et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2019; Mangla et al., 2018; Urbinati
circular practices et al., 2021; Guldmann and Huulgaard, 2020; Ratner et al., 2021)
SB2 Lack of knowledge, skills, awareness and participation of (Caldera et al., 2019; Mangla et al., 2018; Moktadir et al., 2018a;
stakeholders Kirchherr et al., 2018; Masi et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019)
SB3 Lack of vision and strategic plan to implement CSC activities (Moktadir et al., 2018b,a; Kirchherr et al., 2018; Urbinati et al.,
2021)
SB4 Lack of CE integration with business processes (Bai et al., 2021; Marcos et al., 2021; Rizos et al., 2015; Jaeger and
Upadhyay, 2020)
SB5 Lack of adequate collection centers and recycling plants (Raj and Sah, 2019; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018)
SB6 Lack of circular business models and frameworks to implement (Mangla et al., 2018; Jaeger and Upadhyay, 2020; Govindan and
CSC in industry Hasanagic, 2018)
SB7 Lack of training programmes to members of supply chain (Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Kirchherr et al., 2018; Urbinati et al.,
2021; Guldmann and Huulgaard, 2020)
Operational Barriers OPEB1 Strong industrial focus on traditional business model of supply (Kumar et al., 2019; Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua,
(OPEBs) chain 2020; Urbinati et al., 2021; Saroha et al., 2020)
OPEB2 Remanufacturing / Recycling is a time consuming and labor- (Grafström and Aasma, 2021; Vermunt et al., 2019; Govindan and
intensive procedure Hasanagic, 2018)
OPEB3 Lack of supportive supply and demand network (Urbinati et al., 2021; Kazancoglu et al., 2020; Saroha et al., 2020)
OPEB4 Lack of organizational infrastructure to support CSC activities (Caldera et al., 2019; Masi et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019)
OPEB5 Lack of industrial symbiosis and reverse logistics network (Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Masi et al., 2018;
Urbinati et al., 2021)
OPEB6 Lack of circular design aspects Experts opinion
OPEB7 Easy access of product disposal zone (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018)
OPEB8 Risk of circular practice implementation (Moktadir et al., 2018a; Urbinati et al., 2021)
Environmental and ENVRB1 Lack of environmental laws, policy standards and regulations for (Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Lahane and Kant,
Regulatory Barriers CSC adoption 2021b; Moktadir et al., 2018a)
(ENVRBs) ENVRB2 Nonexistence of suitable performance measurement system (Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Rizos et al., 2015; Agyemang et al.,
2019; Urbinati et al., 2021)
ENVRB3 Lack of management readiness to adopt environmental (Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Lahane and Kant,
management certifications and systems 2021b; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018)
ENVRB4 Lack of directives for end-of-life product management Experts opinion
ENVRB5 Ineffective supplier selection strategies (Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Tura et al., 2019; Saroha et al., 2020)
Technological Barriers TECHB1 Lack of systematic information system to track recycled materials (Zhang et al., 2019; Urbinati et al., 2021; Saroha et al., 2020)
(TECHBs) TECHB2 Lack of demand for environmentally superior technologies (Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Kirchherr et al.,
2018; Masi et al., 2018)
TECHB3 Inadequate technical experts for CSC adoption (Mangla et al., 2018; Agyemang et al., 2019; Saroha et al., 2020)
TECHB4 Lack of technological infrastructure and marketing strategy for (Kumar et al., 2019; Kirchherr et al., 2018; Agyemang et al., 2019;
CSC adoption Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018)
TECHB5 Low returned products quality and quantity (Mangla et al., 2018; Agyemang et al., 2019; Urbinati et al., 2021)
TECHB6 Lack of technology transfers (Urbinati et al., 2021; Saroha et al., 2020)
Economic Barriers ECOB1 Lack of financial resources and capabilities (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Rizos et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2019;
(ECOBs) Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018)
ECOB2 Lack of financial benefits in short-run (Kumar et al., 2019; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Agyemang et al.,
2019; Saroha et al., 2020)
ECOB3 Lack of upfront investment costs in supply chain by adopting CSC (Kumar et al., 2019; Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua,
management 2020)
ECOB4 Uncertainty about price and quality of recycled material (Agyemang et al., 2019; Kazancoglu et al., 2020; Govindan and
Hasanagic, 2018)
ECOB5 Lack of government support towards tax rebate policies, (Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Saroha et al.,
incentives, subsidies, grant etc. for promoting the circular business 2020)
models
Socio-Cultural Barriers SOCB1 Lack of formal waste management practices (Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Urbinati et al.,
(SOCBs) 2021)
SOCB2 Limited community and business acceptance for sharing models (Kumar et al., 2019; Mangla et al., 2018; Vermunt et al., 2019)
SOCB3 Emotional attachment of people with products even after end of Experts opinion
use phase
SOCB4 Low acceptability for adopting remanufactured, recycled and (Mangla et al., 2018; Khandelwal and Barua, 2020; Rizos et al.,
refurbished products 2015; Saroha et al., 2020)

analysis result of PF‐AHP, the only top 20 barriers out of 35 are for each CSC barrier are illustrated in Table 2.The strategic barriers
selected for further calculation in PF‐DEMATEL method. (SBs) positioned the maximum weightage among all CSC barriers.
The obtained weight of CSC barriers in PF‐AHP helps to select the most
significant barriers. Top 20 out of 35 CSC barriers are selected for fur-
5.3. Stage II: Compute the weights of CSC barriers using PF-AHP method ther evaluation in PF‐DEMATEL and the list of these CSC barriers is
presented in Table 3.
In this stage, the weights of CSC barriers are calculated using PH‐
AHP method. The decision matrices of main barriers and sub‐
barriers are filled by DM panel of selected case organization with 5.4. Stage III: Ranking the selected CSC barriers using PF-DEMATEL
the help of linguistic variables (Please see Table B.1 of appendix). After method
that, single decision matrix mode is calculated to obtain further com-
putations. The steps of PF‐AHP provided in section 3.2 were used for The obtained weights in PF‐AHP are used in PF‐DEMATEL method
subsequent calculations. The sample calculation of PF‐AHP for data for the identification of inter‐relationship between selected CSC barri-
received from expert 1 is given in Appendix B. The final global weights ers. The questionnaire form in terms of decision matrix is provided to

7
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

Table 2
Weight of CSC barriers.

Main Barriers Main Barriers weight Code Ratio weight Final weight Rank

Strategic Barriers (SBs) 0.2407 SB1 0.3433 0.0826 1

SB2 0.1137 0.0274 15
SB3 0.1399 0.0337 9
SB4 0.0723 0.0174 28
SB5 0.1120 0.0270 16
SB6 0.0844 0.0203 23
SB7 0.1344 0.0323 11
Operational Barriers (OPEBs) 0.1315 OPEB1 0.0344 0.0045 34
OPEB2 0.0655 0.0086 31
OPEB3 0.1935 0.0254 20
OPEB4 0.0773 0.0102 30
OPEB5 0.2000 0.0263 19
OPEB6 0.1785 0.0235 22
OPEB7 0.1358 0.0179 27
OPEB8 0.1149 0.0151 29
Environmental and Regulatory Barriers (ENVRBs) 0.1978 ENVRB1 0.3694 0.0731 2
ENVRB2 0.1536 0.0304 12
ENVRB3 0.3568 0.0706 3
ENVRB4 0.0243 0.0048 33
ENVRB5 0.0959 0.0190 25
Technological Barriers (TECHBs) 0.1554 TECHB1 0.1892 0.0294 13
TECHB2 0.2468 0.0384 8
TECHB3 0.1699 0.0264 18
TECHB4 0.2531 0.0393 6
TECHB5 0.0121 0.0019 35
TECHB6 0.1288 0.0200 24
Economic Barriers (ECOBs) 0.1861 ECOB1 0.2738 0.0510 4
ECOB2 0.1436 0.0267 17
ECOB3 0.2421 0.0451 5
ECOB4 0.1307 0.0243 21
ECOB5 0.2097 0.0390 7
Socio-Cultural Barriers (SOCBs) 0.0885 SOCB1 0.2082 0.0184 26
SOCB2 0.0891 0.0079 32
SOCB3 0.3268 0.0289 14
SOCB4 0.3759 0.0333 10

Table 3 used for further calculations. The sample data calculation sheet
List of significant barriers to CSC implementation. received from expert 1 is given in Appendix C. The finding of the
Code CSC Barriers
PF‐DEMATEL provides the significance order of each barrier and clas-
sified the CSC barriers into two groups (i.e., cause and effect)
CSCB1 Lack of financial resources and capabilities (Table 4).
CSCB2 Lack of government support towards tax rebate policies, incentives,
subsidies, grant etc. for promoting the circular business models
CSCB3 Lack of industrial symbiosis and reverse logistics network
CSCB4 Lack of management readiness to adopt environmental management 6. Results and discussion
certifications and systems
CSCB5 Lack of knowledge, skills, awareness and involvement of stakeholders The following sub‐sections discuss the details about the influencing
CSCB6 Lack of financial benefits in short-run
and influenced group of CSC barriers and sensitivity analysis of the
CSCB7 Lack of supportive supply and demand network
CSCB8 Low acceptability for adopting remanufactured, recycled and refurbished proposed framework.
products
CSCB9 Lack of vision and strategic plan to implement CSC activities
CSCB10 Lack of adequate collection centers and recycling plants 6.1. Influencing CSC barriers
CSCB11 Lack of upfront investment costs in supply chain by adopting CSC
management The prominence and net effect of each barrier are plotted on the
CSCB12 Inadequate technical experts for CSC adoption.
graph and shown in Fig. 3. The eight CSC barriers are identified as
CSCB13 Lack of systematic information system to track recycled materials.
CSCB14 Lack of demand for environmentally superior technologies cause group barriers. These barriers are crucial for effective adoption
CSCB15 Lack of top management support and commitment to adopt circular of CSC management. Any change or improvement in the cause group
practices barriers brings the improvement in the effect group barriers. There-
CSCB16 Lack of training programmes to members of supply chain fore, firstly, need to concentrate more on these barriers. The highest
CSCB17 Nonexistence of suitable performance measurement system
CSCB18 Lack of technological infrastructure and marketing strategy for
“R‐C” score is for barrier “Lack of top management support and com-
remanufactured goods and secondary market mitment to adopt circular practices (CSCB15)”. The support and com-
CSCB19 Emotional attachment of people with products even after end of use mitment from top management play a very vital role in the effective
phase adoption of CSC management in manufacturing organizations (Gupta
CSCB20 Lack of environmental laws, policy standards and regulations for CSC
and Barua, 2018). The executives from top management must form a
adoption
common strategy to understand and develop the framework for CSC
adoption (Mangla et al., 2018). The mind set of sticking to traditional
the same DM panel. Before proceeding calculations, the single decision mode of production and consumption activity keeps the organization
matrix mode is computed from all decision matrices given by experts away from transformation of linear to CSC business model (Lieder
of DM panel. The steps of PF‐DEMATEL provided in section 3.3 were and Rashid, 2016).

8
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

Table 4
Final result of PF-DEMATEL method.

CSC Barriers R C Pi = R + C Ei = R-C Cause / Effect groups based on Ranking based on Ranking based on
R-C value R + C value R-C value

CSCB1 1.3966 0.6006 1.9972 0.7960 Cause 4 3

CSCB2 1.1455 0.1536 1.2991 0.9919 Cause 15 2
CSCB3 0.4881 1.0784 1.5665 −0.5903 Effect 8 18
CSCB4 1.1210 1.0887 2.2097 0.0323 Cause 3 7
CSCB5 0.3099 0.8324 1.1423 −0.5225 Effect 16 16
CSCB6 0.3748 0.9821 1.3569 −0.6073 Effect 14 19
CSCB7 0.6619 0.9024 1.5643 −0.2405 Effect 9 12
CSCB8 0.1439 0.5752 0.7191 −0.4313 Effect 20 15
CSCB9 0.9712 0.5909 1.5621 0.3803 Cause 10 6
CSCB10 0.4715 0.5602 1.0317 −0.0887 Effect 18 9
CSCB11 1.7463 0.1450 1.8913 1.6013 Cause 5 1
CSCB12 0.2575 0.7836 1.0411 −0.5261 Effect 17 17
CSCB13 0.7898 0.9367 1.7265 −0.1469 Effect 7 10
CSCB14 0.7826 0.9464 1.7290 −0.1638 Effect 6 11
CSCB15 1.6400 1.0235 2.6635 0.6165 Cause 1 5
CSCB16 0.5609 0.8889 1.4498 −0.3280 Effect 11 13
CSCB17 −0.1164 0.9846 0.8682 −1.1010 Effect 19 20
CSCB18 0.7294 0.7028 1.4322 0.0266 Cause 12 8
CSCB19 0.5263 0.8624 1.3887 −0.3361 Effect 13 14
CSCB20 1.5545 0.9169 2.4714 0.6376 Cause 2 4

et al., 2020). The fourth influential barrier is the “Lack of financial

resources and capabilities (CSCB1)”. Most of the emerging nations'
organizations face an economic crunch to CSC adoption because of a
lack of funding from financial institutions and banks (Saroha et al.,
2020). Consequently, it hampers the CSC implementation. Saha
et al. (2021) reported that the lack of financial, technological and
human resources along with management's reluctance to sustainability
is the biggest challenge for CSC adoption and implementation. The
high cost associated to waste collection, transportations, segregation,
processing system, fear of failure, and lack of capabilities restrict man-
ufacturing organizations from switching to new business operational
practices (Farooque et al., 2019; Merli et al., 2018; D’Agostin et al.,
2020). Thus, a sufficient amount of fund is required for the success
of CSC adoption.

Fig. 3. Cause effect diagram.

6.2. Influenced CSC barriers

The organizational top management must educate, motivates and Twelve barriers of CSC implementation are categorized under influ-
gives training to their stakeholders and creates the awareness about enced group based on “R‐C” value. The effect group barriers are influ-
the benefits of CSC adoption. Singh et al. (2016) reported that the enced by cause group barriers. From the analysis, the most influenced
absence of concrete support of government institutions would cer- barrier is the “Nonexistence of suitable performance measurement sys-
tainly affect the CSC adoption. The second most significant barrier tem (CSCB17)”. Lahane and Kant, 2021b) stated that the sustainability
among the selected barriers is “Lack of environmental laws, policy of manufacturing organizations is measured based on appropriate per-
standards and regulations for CSC adoption (CSCB20)”. Poor laws formance measurement system. Thus, the lack of a standard system for
and policies towards CSC adoption in India restrict the implementation measuring the performance of CSC network will certainly affects its
process. There is a need to frame a strong direction, policies, and stan- adoption (Mangla et al., 2018; Malek and Desai, 2021; Saroha et al.,
dards for CSC implementation (Mangla et al., 2018). Ghisellini et al. 2020). After that, second most influenced barrier is “Lack of economic
(2016) suggested that legislative and economic barriers play a crucial benefits in short‐run” (CSCB6). Khandelwal and Barua (2020) argue
role in sustainable business organization adoption. Kazancoglu et al. that, if business organization focuses on ecological aspects, then it
(2021) stressed that the government should push a firms to implement would be certainly have some loss of financial value. It would be
CSC policies by setting the environmental laws and regulations for understandable that lack of economic benefits in short‐run will also
each manufacturing industry. The third most influential barrier is increase short‐term cost, which is significant barrier in any decision
the “Lack of management readiness to adopt environmental manage- making process (Tura et al., 2019; Saroha et al., 2020). Thus, lack of
ment certifications and systems (CSCB4)”. The environmental manage- economic benefits in short‐run is considered as a vital barrier in CSC
ment system acts as an essential pillar for manufacturing organizations adoption. This can be justified as it is influenced by several cause
because its main objective is to protect the environmental aspects of group barriers such as Lack of top management support and commit-
the system (Mangla et al., 2018). ment to adopt circular practices, Lack of ecological laws, policy stan-
Daddi et al. (2021) highlighted the positive impact of CSC manage- dards, and regulations for CSC adoption, and Lack of organizations'
ment capability on the internalization of environmental management willingness to adopt environmental management certifications sys-
systems and organization performance. Several manufacturing organi- tems. The other remaining influenced (effect) barriers are in the order
zations are paying less attention towards adoption of strict laws and of their ranking obtained: CSCB6, CSCB3, CSCB12, CSCB5, CSCB8,
regulations for effective CSC adoption and implementation (Saroha CSCB19, CSCB16, CSCB7, CSCB14, CSCB13, and CSCB10. These effect

9
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

group barriers are the benefits of the CSC implementation in organiza- iv. This research is based on qualitative and quantitative data. This
tions. Thus, to improve the effect groups barriers, cause group barriers study's outcomes play a crucial role in adopting circular activi-
must be improve with more focus on its effective adoption (Werning ties in business organizations' supply chain for profit gain.
and Spinler, 2020). This is because of the effect group barriers have v. The industrial practitioners can design their plan to adopt CSC.
a higher dependency on influential group barriers. The cause and effects relationships among the barriers help the
practitioners to implement the CSC effectively and efficiently.
vi. CSC implementation is at the heart of the solutions, providing
6.3. Sensitivity analysis and feedback of the results the necessary fillip to various missions formed by Indian gov-
ernment such as Make in India and Swacch Bharat and ensures
The sensitivity analysis is generally performed to confirm the con- the innovative growth towards the sustainability.
sistency in the decision‐making problems (Shete et al., 2020). In this, vii. The proposed framework and barriers identified in this study
major weights are given by five experts independently by keeping the are in the context of emerging economies especially India. How-
same weights for others. The detail summary of sensitivity analysis is ever, the same framework with some modification can be
given in the appendix (Please see Table D.1). In sensitivity run 1, the employed to other developing economies such as China, Brazil,
maximum weightage value 0.4 is assigned to expert 1 and equal Malaysia, Sri Lanka, etc. where many of the industries are still
weightage value 0.2 is assigned to remaining experts. Then, we facing the issues of CSC adoption and implementation.
checked and determined the cause‐effect interrelationship between
selected CSC barriers.
7.2. Recommendation for policymakers
Similar process is followed for sensitivity run 2; In that, expert 2
has uppermost weightage is of 0.4 and rest of the experts have
In recent times, most of the manufacturing organizations are look-
assigned equal value of 0.2, then cause‐effect indicates that
ing forward to implement a sustainable development strategy into
CSCB15 > CSCB20 > CSCB4 > CSCB11 > CSCB1 are five significant
their supply chain. CSC acts as a critical, innovative approach for pol-
barriers, CSCB11 > CSCB2 > CSCB11 are three causal factors and
icy planners to attain sustainability goals such as improving economic
CSCB17 > CSCB6 > CSCB12 are three effect factors. It shows the
growth, reducing environmental pollutions, and improving employ-
same ranking for cause and effect group barriers. Similarly, sensitivity
ment opportunities (Svensson‐Hoglund et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2019).
runs 3, 4 and 5 were performed for experts 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
Consequently, it is anticipated that government should develop and
The sensitivity analysis findings show that CSCB15 and CSCB20 are
formulate effective laws, policies, and regulations favoring CSC's adop-
critical factors in all sensitivity runs.
tion (Kopnina, 2021). Also, at the same time, policymakers must likely
The sensitivity analysis performed in this research determined that
come up with subsidies / grants to the organizations willing to adopt
whether decision making procedure has been affected by varied
CSC in their business (Kiefer et al., 2019). Such initiatives boost the
weightage scores assigned to decision makers (Lahane and Kant,
organization's interest in circular activities and inspire them to con-
2021a,b; Shete et al., 2020). It also helps to know the possible biases
struct their green image reflecting the CSC as a key element of their
of a particular expert may have influenced the final results. The rank-
business (García‐Quevedo et al., 2020). The government agencies are
ing of CSC barriers obtained in the present research were presented to
advised to conduct sustainability awareness drives to train the organi-
the top executives of case organization for taking their valuable feed-
zations and their consumers who can strongly contribute to improving
back on the results. The case organization management was convinced
business organizations' sustainable performance. The final ranking /
with the obtained results and also showed their positive approach
cause and effect groups obtained based on PF‐DEMATEL helps govern-
towards CSC adoption and implementation. The cause and effect group
ment officials develop effective strategies to overcome the selected
barriers obtained in this research would certainly help the decision
CSC barriers.
makers of other Indian case organizations for effective adoption of
CSC management.
8. Conclusions

7. Research implications This research is intended to recognize and evaluate the inter‐
relationships among the CSC barriers and their impact on CSC imple-
This research findings list out the number of theoretical and prac- mentation. The thirty five significant barriers affecting the CSC imple-
tical implications for the decision makers to efficiently handles the mentation were identified through literature review and industrial
CE practices in supply chain operations. experts. The combined approach of PF‐AHP and PF‐DEMATEL were
used for the evaluation of inter‐relationship among the selected CSC
7.1. Implications for academicians and industrialists barriers. PF‐AHP was used to determine the relative weight of identi-
fied CSC barriers. These weights of CSC barriers helped to choose the
The findings contribute to CSC domain for academicians and prac- most significant barriers to CSC implementation for further evaluation.
titioners in the subsequent ways: PF‐DEMATEL was used to categorize the selected CSC barriers into two
groups: influential and influenced groups.
i. The continually varying market situation needs have demanded The result findings show that eight CSC barriers linked with the
the policy makers / planners to identify the barriers to CSC influential group and the twelve CSC barriers belong to the influenced
implementation (van Keulen and Kirchherr, 2021; Salim et al., group. Besides, the selected CSC barriers are prioritized based on the
2019). This research provides an extensive list of CSC barriers “R + C” and “R − C” value. The finding of this research reveals that
that are reported by various researchers in past literature. the most significant barrier is lack of top management support and
ii. The list of identified CSC barriers will aid the practitioners in commitment to adopt circular practices from the category of strategic
understanding the importance of CSC barriers and their impact barriers (SBs) and the most influenced barrier is low acceptability for
on CSC implementation. adopting remanufactured, recycled and refurbished products from the
iii. The proposed research framework in this study helps the category of socio‐cultural barriers (SOCBs). This research outcome
decision‐makers to formulate an effective strategy to overcome provides a suitable direction to policymakers to formulate and design
the CSC barriers through the application of the PF‐AHP and PF‐ the standard policies, laws, and regulations toward the efficient adop-
DEMATEL approach. tion of CSC operations in an industry. This research is beneficial to

10
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

industrial practitioners that seeks to implement the CE in their supply García‐Quevedo, J., Jové‐Llopis, E., Martínez‐Ros, E., 2020. Barriers to the circular
economy in European small and medium-sized firms. Bus. Strategy Environ. 29 (6),
chain operations and also helps researchers to contribute in the differ-
2450–2464. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.v29.610.1002/bse.2513.
ent domain of CSC such as the products EOL management, industrial Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected
symbiosis, life cycle assessments, eco‐innovation, reverse supply chain, transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J.
process integration, industrial ecology, etc. The sensitivity analysis test Cleaner Prod. 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007.
Govindan, K., Hasanagic, M., 2018. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and
was performed for checking the effectiveness of the proposed model. practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56
(1-2), 278–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141.
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Vafadarnikjoo, A., 2015. Intuitionistic fuzzy based
8.1. Limitations and future research directions DEMATEL method for developing green practices and performances in a green
supply chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (20), 7207–7220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
This research work has some limitations and which can form the eswa.2015.04.030.
Goyal, S., Esposito, M., Kapoor, A., 2018. Circular economy business models in
avenues for future researchers. This research is based on experts' sub- developing economies: lessons from India on reduce, recycle, and reuse paradigms.
jective opinions; however, it may be biased and affect the final results. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 60, 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21883.
Therefore, the result obtained in this research can be validated or gen- Grafström, J., Aasma, S., 2021. Breaking circular economy barriers. J. Cleaner Prod.
292, 126002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126002.
eralized through simulation‐based models or statistical tools such as Guldmann, E., Huulgaard, R.D., 2020. Barriers to circular business model innovation: a
structural equation modeling. Moreover, the present research is multiple-case study. J. Cleaner Prod. 243, 118160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
focused on the CSC adoption in developing economies, especially jclepro.2019.118160.
Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., 2018. A framework to overcome barriers to green innovation in
India, in the future; this study can be extended to other geographical
SMEs using BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Sci. Total Environ. 633, 122–139. https://doi.
locations of developing economies like Indonesia, Thailand, Bangla- org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.173.
desh, China etc. with similar set of barriers. This study is focused on Ilbahar, E., Karaşan, A., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C., 2018. A novel approach to risk
the CSC, in future, it can be extended to another specific supply chain assessment for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy
inference system. Saf. Sci. 103, 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
such as food supply chain, construction supply chain, Agri‐food supply ssci.2017.10.025.
chain and WEEE supply chain. Also, in future studies, selected CSC Jaeger, B., Upadhyay, A., 2020. Understanding barriers to circular economy: cases from
barriers can be evaluated and analyzed using other advanced decision the manufacturing industry. J. Enterprise Inf. Manage. 33, 729–745. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2019-0047.
making techniques like ELECTREE, SWARA, WASPAS, TODIM, and Kaya, A., Çiçekalan, B., Çebi, F., 2020. Location selection for WEEE recycling plant by
PROMETHEE with extension to Pythagorean fuzzy set theory. using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP, J. Intelligent Fuzzy Syst., 38, 1097–1106.
https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179471.
Kazancoglu, M. Sagnak, S. Kumar Mangla, Y. Kazancoglu, Circular economy and the
Declaration of Competing Interest policy: A framework for improving the corporate environmental management in
supply chains, Bus. Strategy Environ. 30(2021) 590-608. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.2641.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Kazancoglu, I., Kazancoglu, Y., Kahraman, A., Yarimoglu, E., Soni, G., 2020.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- Investigating barriers to circular supply chain in the textile industry from
ence the work reported in this paper. Stakeholders’ perspective. Int. J. Logistics Res. Appl., 1–28. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13675567.2020.1846694.
Khandelwal, C., Barua, M.K., 2020. Prioritizing circular supply chain management
Appendix A. Supplementary data barriers using fuzzy AHP: case of the Indian plastic industry. Global Bus. Rev..
10.1177%2F0972150920948818.
Kiefer, C.P., Del Rio Gonzalez, P., J. Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. Drivers and barriers of
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: a quantitative perspective, Bus.
org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100014. Strategy Environ., 28, 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2246.
Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens,
A., Hekkert, M., 2018. Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European
References Union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 150, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2018.04.028.
Kopnina, H., 2021. Towards ecological management: identifying barriers and
Abdullah, L., Goh, P., 2019. Decision making method based on Pythagorean fuzzy sets
opportunities in transition from linear to circular economy. Philos. Manage. 20
and its application to solid waste management. Complex Intelligent Syst. 5 (2),
(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00108-x.
185–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-019-0100-9.
Kumar, V., Sezersan, I., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Gonzalez, E.D., Moh’d Anwer, A.S., 2019.
Agyemang, M., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Khan, S.A., Mani, V., Rehman, S.T., Kusi-Sarpong, H.,
Circular economy in the manufacturing sector: benefits, opportunities and barriers.
2019. Drivers and barriers to circular economy implementation: an explorative
Manag. Decis. 57, 1067–1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-1070.
study in Pakistan’s automobile industry. Manag. Decis. 57 (4), 971–994. https://doi.
Lahane, S., Kant, R., 2021a. Evaluation and ranking of solutions to mitigate circular
org/10.1108/MD-11-2018-1178.
supply chain risks. Sustainable Prod. Consump. 27, 753–773. https://doi.org/
Ak, M.F., Gul, M., 2019. AHP–TOPSIS integration extended with Pythagorean fuzzy sets
10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.034.
for information security risk analysis. Complex Intelligent Syst. 5 (2), 113–126.
Lahane, S., Kant, R., Shankar, R., 2020. Circular supply chain management: a state-of-art
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-018-0087-7.
review and future opportunities. J. Cleaner Prod. 258, 120859. https://doi.org/
Atmayudha, A., Syauqi, A., Purwanto, W.W., 2021. Green logistics of crude oil
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120859.
transportation: a multi-objective optimization approach. Clean. Logistics Supply
Lahane, S., Kant, R., 2021b. A hybrid Pythagorean fuzzy AHP–CoCoSo framework to
Chain 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100002.
rank the performance outcomes of circular supply chain due to adoption of its
Bai, C., Ahmadi, H.B., Moktadir, M.A., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Liou, J.J.H., 2021. Analyzing
enablers. Waste Manage. 130, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the interactions among the challenges to circular economy practices. IEEE Access 9,
wasman.2021.05.013.
63199–63212. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3074931.
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a
Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Liu, Y., Smart, P., Sohal, A., 2018. Supply chain operations for
comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Cleaner Prod. 115,
a circular economy. Prod. Plann. Control 29 (6), 419–424. https://doi.org/
36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042.
10.1080/09537287.2018.1449267.
Malek, J., Desai, T.N., 2021. A framework for prioritizing the solutions to overcome
Boulding, K.E., 2018. The economics of the coming spaceship earth, New York.
sustainable manufacturing barriers. Clean. Logistics Supply Chain 1, 100004.
Caldera, H.T.S., Desha, C., Dawes, L., 2019. Evaluating the enablers and barriers for
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100004.
successful implementation of sustainable business practice in ‘lean’SMEs. J. Cleaner
Mangla, S.K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N.P., Dora, M., Dwivedi, Y., 2018.
Prod. 218, 575–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.239.
Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country
D’Agostin, A., de Medeiros, J.F., Vidor, G., Zulpo, M., Moretto, C.F., 2020. Drivers and
context. Prod. Plann. Control 29 (6), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/
barriers for the adoption of use-oriented product-service systems: a study with
09537287.2018.1449265.
young consumers in medium and small cities. Sustainable Product. Consump. 21,
Marcos, J.T., Scheller, C., Godina, R., Spengler, T.S., Carvalho, H., 2021. Sources of
92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.11.002.
uncertainty in the Closed-loop supply chain of lithium-ion batteries for electric
Daddi, T., Heras‐Saizarbitoria, I., Marrucci, L., Rizzi, F., Testa, F., 2021. The effects of
vehicles. Clean. Logistics Supply Chain 1, 100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/
green supply chain management capability on the internalisation of environmental
j.clscn.2021.100006.
management systems and organisation performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
Masi, D., Kumar, V., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Godsell, J., 2018. Towards a more circular
Manag. 28 (4), 1241–1253. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.v28.410.1002/csr.2144.
economy: exploring the awareness, practices, and barriers from a focal firm
Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thürer, M., Qu, T., Huisingh, D., 2019. Circular supply chain
perspective. Prod. Plann. Control 29 (6), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/
management: a definition and structured literature review. J. Cleaner Prod. 228,
09537287.2018.1449246.
882–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.303.

11
S. Lahane, R. Kant Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 2 (2021) 100014

Merli, R., Preziosi, M., Acampora, A., 2018. How do scholars approach the circular Cleaner Logistics Supply Chain 1,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100007
economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 703–722. https://doi. 100007.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112. Shayganmehr, M., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Moktadir, M.A., 2021. Industry 4.0
Moktadir, M.A., Ali, S.M., Rajesh, R., Paul, S.K., 2018a. Modeling the interrelationships enablers for a cleaner production and circular economy within the context of
among barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry. J. business ethics: a study in a developing country. J. Clean. Prod. 281, 125280.
Cleaner Prod. 181, 631–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125280.
Moktadir, M.A., Rahman, T., Rahman, M.H., Ali, S.M., Paul, S.K., 2018b. Drivers to Shete, P.C., Ansari, Z.N., Kant, R., 2020. A Pythagorean fuzzy AHP approach and its
sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy: a perspective of leather application to evaluate the enablers of sustainable supply chain innovation.
industries in Bangladesh. J. Cleaner Prod. 174, 1366–1380. https://doi.org/ Sustainable Product. Consump. 23, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.063. spc.2020.05.001.
Moktadir, M.A., Ahmadi, H.B., Sultana, R., Zohra, F.-T., Liou, J.J.H., Rezaei, J., 2020a. Shi, J., Zhou, J., Zhu, Q., 2019. Barriers of a closed-loop cartridge remanufacturing
Circular economy practices in the leather industry: a practical step towards supply chain for urban waste recovery governance in China. J. Cleaner Prod. 212,
sustainable development. J. Cleaner Prod. 251, 119737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 1544–1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.114.
jclepro.2019.119737. R.K. Singh, S. Rastogi, M. Aggarwal, Analyzing the factors for implementation of green
Moktadir, M.A., Kumar, A., Ali, S.M., Paul, S.K., Sultana, R., Rezaei, J., 2020b. Critical supply chain management, Competitive. Rev. 26 (2016) 246–264. https:// doi.org/
success factors for a circular economy: implications for business strategy and the 10.1108/CR-06-2015-0045.
environment. Bus. Strategy Environ. 29 (8), 3611–3635. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Sivakumar, K., Jeyapaul, R., Vimal, K.E.K., Ravi, P., 2018. A DEMATEL approach for
bse.v29.810.1002/bse.2600. evaluating barriers for sustainable end-of-life practices. J. Manuf. Technol. Manage.
Nascimento, D.L.M., Alencastro, V., Quelhas, O.L.G., Caiado, R.G.G., Garza-Reyes, J.A., 29 (6), 1065–1091. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2017-0164.
Rocha-Lona, L., Tortorella, G., 2019. Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable Svensson-Hoglund, S., Richter, J.L., Maitre-Ekern, E., Russell, J.D., Pihlajarinne, T.,
circular economy practices in a manufacturing context. J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. Dalhammar, C., 2021. Barriers, enablers and market governance: a review of the
30 (3), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0071. policy landscape for repair of consumer electronics in the EU and the US. J. Cleaner
Nasir, M.H.A., Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Koh, S.C.L., Yamoah, F., 2017. Comparing Prod. 288, 125488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125488.
linear and circular supply chains: a case study from the construction industry. Int. J. Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., Piiparinen, S., Valkokari, P., 2019. Unlocking
Prod. Econ. 183, 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.008. circular business: a framework of barriers and drivers. J. Cleaner Prod. 212, 90–98.
Pasha, J., Dulebenets, M.A., Singh, P., Moses, R., Sobanjo, J., Ozguven, E.E., 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.202.
Towards improving sustainability of rail transport by reducing traffic delays at level Urbinati, A., Franzò, S., Chiaroni, D., 2021. Enablers and barriers for circular business
crossings: a case study for the State of Florida. Cleaner Logist. Supply Chain 1, models: an empirical analysis in the Italian automotive industry. Sustainable Prod.
100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100001. Consum. 27, 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.022.
Raj, A., Sah, B., 2019. Analyzing critical success factors for implementation of drones in van Keulen, M., Kirchherr, J., 2021. The implementation of the Circular Economy:
the logistics sector using grey-DEMATEL based approach. Comp. Ind. Eng. 138, Barriers and enablers in the coffee value chain. J. Cleaner Prod. 281, 125033.
106118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125033.
Ratner, S., Lazanyuk, I., Revinova, S., Gomonov, K., 2021. Barriers of consumer behavior Vermunt, D.A., Negro, S.O., Verweij, P.A., Kuppens, D.V., Hekkert, M.P., 2019.
for the development of the circular economy: empirical evidence from Russia. Exploring barriers to implementing different circular business models. J. Cleaner
Applied Sciences 11, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010046. Prod. 222, 891–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.052.
Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Kafyeke, T., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., Ioannou, A., 2015. The Werning, J.P., Spinler, S., 2020. Transition to circular economy on firm level: Barrier
circular economy: Barriers and opportunities for SMEs, CEPS Working Documents. identification and prioritization along the value chain. J. Cleaner Prod. 245,
http://www.ceps.eu/publications/circular-economy-barriers-and-opportunities- 118609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118609.
smes. Yazdi, M., Nedjati, A., Zarei, E., Abbassi, R., 2020. A novel extension of DEMATEL
Saha, K., P. K. Dey, E. Papagiannaki, 2021. Implementing circular economy in the textile approach for probabilistic safety analysis in process systems. Saf. Sci. 121, 119–136.
and clothing industry, Bus. Strategy Environ., 30, 1497–1530. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.09.006.
10.1002/bse.2670. Yi, W., Wu, S., Zhen, L., Chawynski, G., 2021. Bi-level programming subsidy design for
Salim, H.K., Stewart, R.A., Sahin, O., Dudley, M., 2019. Drivers, barriers and enablers to promoting sustainable prefabricated product logistics. Clean. Logistics Supply Chain
end-of-life management of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: a 1, 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100005.
systematic literature review. J. Cleaner Prod. 211, 537–554. https://doi.org/ Yucesan, M., Gul, M., 2020. Hospital service quality evaluation: an integrated model
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.229. based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Soft. Comput. 24 (5),
Sarja, M., Onkila, T., Mäkelä, M., 2021. A systematic literature review of the transition 3237–3255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04084-2.
to the circular economy in business organizations: obstacles, catalysts and Yucesan, M., Kahraman, G., 2019. Risk evaluation and prevention in hydropower plant
ambivalences. J. Cleaner Prod. 286, 125492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. operations: a model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP. Energy Policy 126, 343–351.
jclepro.2020.125492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.039.
Saroha, M., Garg, D., Luthra, S., 2020. Pressures in implementation of circular supply Zhang, A., Venkatesh, V.G., Liu, Y., Wan, M., Qu, T., Huisingh, D., 2019. Barriers to
chain management for sustainability. Manage. Environ. Quality Int. J. 31, smart waste management for a circular economy in China. J. Cleaner Prod. 240,
1091–1110. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2019-0178. 118198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118198.
Sharma, N.K., Kumar, V., Verma, P., Luthra, S., 2021. The evaluation of reverse logistics
practices and performance with organized indian retailers using fuzzy TOPSIS.

12