Analyzing the barriers of green textile supply chain management in Southeast Asia using interpretive structural modeling

Accepted Manuscript Analyzing the barriers of green textile supply chain management in South-east Asia using interpretive structural modelling Abhijit Majumdar, Sanjib Kumar Sinha

PII: DOI: Reference:

S2352-5509(18)30242-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.10.005 SPC 182

To appear in:

Sustainable Production and Consumption

Received date : 28 June 2018 Revised date : 19 October 2018 Accepted date : 21 October 2018 Please cite this article as: Majumdar A., Sinha S.K., Analyzing the barriers of green textile supply chain management in South-east Asia using interpretive structural modelling. Sustainable Production and Consumption (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.10.005 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Analyzing the Barriers of Green Textile Supply Chain Management in South-east Asia using Interpretive Structural Modelling Abhijit Majumdar and Sanjib Kumar Sinha Department of Textile Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India 110016 Email: [email protected]

Abstract: South-east Asian countries have become the production hub of lean textile and apparel supply chain. This supply chain consumes huge amount of natural resources and emits polluting effluents and discharges creating serious environmental and human health concerns. Green design, green procurement, green operations and green transportation are the major areas of green supply chain management. This paper attempts to analyze the important barriers of green textile and apparel supply chain management in south-east Asian countries. Twelve important barriers have been identified through literature review and questionnaire survey. Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) has been used to decipher the contextual relationships among the barriers. Complexity of green process and system design was found to be the most elementary barrier having the maximum driving power. Lack of consumer support and encouragement, lack of guidance and support from regulatory authorities and high implementation and maintenance cost are the other elementary barriers of green textile supply chain. Lack of green suppliers is the most dependent barrier which is influenced by all other barriers considered in this research. Elimination of root causes or driving barriers are paramount to save the environment. Concerted efforts in terms of green technological innovation, consumers’ awareness and support of the regulatory bodies are needed for effective implementation of green supply practices in textile and apparel supply chain. Keywords: Barriers, Green supply chain; Interpretive structural modelling; South-east Asia; Textile and apparel. Corresponding author: Abhijit Majumdar Professor Department of Textile Technology Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi India 110016 Tel: +91-011-26591405
1


1 Introduction Supply chain is a network of organizations in which flows of material, money, information and ownership occurs. The philosophy of supply chain has migrated from leanness to agility to resilience over the last four decades (Christopher, 2000; Mason-Jones et al., 2000; Chtistopher and Peck, 2004; Agarwal et al., 2007; Christopher and Towill, 2013). The new paradigm of supply chain revolves around sustainability in three dimensions, namely social, economical and environmental (Harik et al., 2015). Environmentally sustainable supply chain is also known as green supply chain. Green supply chain management (GSCM) implies the integration of environmental friendly choices in supply chain management practices. GSCM has become one of the most vibrant areas as it is connected with the environment (Luthra et al., 2010). Textile and apparel supply chain is one of the most complex but the least addressed supply chains. High product variety, low profit margin, short life cycle, seasonal demand variability, lack of product standardization and environmental concerns are some of the issues which make the textile and apparel supply chain a complex one. The industrialization in most of the developed countries started with textile and allied industries as the entry barrier was low and being labour intensive, the industry could generate huge amount of job opportunities. In recent years, the production of basic textile goods has shifted to China and south-east Asian countries like India, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines etc. largely due to low cost of production. Indian textile industry contributes 4% to country’s GDP, 14% to industrial production and provides the maximum employment after agriculture sector. Textile industry employs 4 million people in Bangladesh and it contributes around 80% to the country's export revenue. Bangladesh is the second largest producer of ready-made garment after China. Sri Lankan textile industry contributed around 39% of country's industrial production and 43% of export revenue in late 2000s. Therefore, textile industry is one of the most important industry in south-east Asia and it acts the global hub for low cost apparel manufacturing and sourcing. However, textile and apparel industry consumes huge amount of natural resources (air, water and energy) and creates environmental pollution. On an average, 200 liters of water is required to produce 1 kg of textiles (Desai and Kore, 2011). Generally, textile wet processing operations which include desizing, scouring, bleaching, dyeing, finishing and printing use huge quantity of water and releases effluents which are finally discharged in river or other aquatic bodies. Wastewater from these chemical processing units is often rich 2


in color and residual chemicals. Therefore, wastewater requires adequate treatment before discharging into the environment (Zongping et al. 2011). The harmful effects of dyestuffs, organic compounds, acidic and alkaline contaminants contained in textile effluents are wellknown (Ramesh Babu et al., 2007). In 2010, Madras high court ordered the closure of around 750 dyeing and printing units in and around Tirupur, India, due to noncompliance with the zero liquid discharge (ZLD) norms (Valeur, 2013). The agriculture sector bore the brunt as the soil and water became contaminated and toxic with the effluents emanating from the textile processing plants. There are many certification systems like EU eco-label, Oeko-Tex 100, global organic textile standard (GOTS) which demands the restricted use of banned chemicals and limited use of scarce natural resources (Anonymous, 2010; EU ecolabel 2015). Therefore, designing green textile supply chain which uses minimum resources and creates minimum environmental impacts by adhering to environmental friendly practices is the need of the hour. However, the awareness about the green textile supply chain among the consumers is very limited which thwarts the creation of market pull for green textile products. In the absence of implementation of strict environment regulations, the top management often becomes reluctant to show their commitment for green supply chain design and management. Though it is of utmost importance for the textile industry of south-east Asia to adopt GSCM practices to survive in global market, the implementation is still in nascent stage (Mitra and Datta, 2014). Therefore, it is important to understand what thwarts the widespread implementation of GSCM practices in south-east Asian countries. However, very limited research has been conducted to unearth this problem. This paper attempts to identify important barriers of GSCM implementation in the textile supply chain of south-east Asian countries and elicit their contextual relationship. The paper is organized as follows: review of literature has been summarized in Section 2, followed by research methodology of the study in Section 3. The description of selected barriers of GSCM and their modeling using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) have been provided in Section 4 and 5, respectively. Discussion with obtained results has been provided in Section 6. Finally, the conclusions and recommendations are given in Section 7.

3


2 Review of Literature Several researchers have worked in the area of identification of drivers and barriers and establishing their linkages in green supply chain management (GSCM). The following section summarizes the application of ISM for the modelling of barriers, drivers and success factors with reference to GSCM. Ravi and Shankar (2005) identified 11 barriers related to reverse logistics in automobile industries and developed their contextual relationships using ISM. Lack of awareness about the reverse logistics, lack of top management commitment, problem with product quality and financial constraints and lack of strategic planning were the major driving barriers. Diabat and Govindan (2011) developed a model for green supply chain drivers based on ISM for an aluminum products manufacturing company. Government legislation and regulation along with reverse logistics were found to be the significant drivers enabling collaboration between designers of product and suppliers to reduce the impact on environment. Muduli et al. (2013) identified 12 behavioral elements for the implementation of green supply chain practices in mining industries. They found that top management support was the key behavioral element which drove all other elements. Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) selected 26 barriers based on literature review and discussion with experts for GSCM implementation in automobile industries in South India. Lack of environmental awareness among the suppliers was found to be the key barrier with strong driving power. Zabbi et al. (2013) worked on transition of traditional supply chain management (TSCM) to sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and identified 13 barriers in the context of Indian fastener manufacturing industry. Three barriers, namely cost of environmentally friendly packaging, complex design to reduce consumption of resources and lack of clarity regarding the sustainability were the leading impediments for SSCM. Diabat et al. (2014) identified 13 enablers for implementation of GSCM in Indian textile industries. They found that five enablers, namely adaption of safety standards, adaption of green practices, health and safety issue, economic welfare of community, and stability of employment dominated the industry practices. Luthra et al. (2015) identified 26 critical success factors for the implementation of GSCM in Indian mining industry. They concluded that scarcity of natural resources and societal issues are the basic drivers which induce legislations at the state and central government levels. In a recent study, Kumar and Dixit (2018) modelled the barriers of ewaste management practices in India. They found that lack of public awareness for e-waste recycling, lack of policies and regulations addressing e-waste problem and lack of CSR 4


initiatives are the major driving barriers. Gardas et al. (2018) addressed the barriers of sustainability in Indian textile and apparel sector using Delphi-DEMATEL approach. They found that lack of effective governmental policies and poor infrastructure are the most significant barriers. Some researchers have used Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for the ranking of strategies or barriers related to GSCM. Luthra et al. (2013) categorized strategies for the implementation of GSCM in four dimensions based upon their direct and indirect roles in green supply chain. The authors used analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to conclude that the dimension of non-members of supply chain has the highest global priority (0.410) followed by downstream supply chain members (0.269), organization perspective (0.212) and upstream supply chain members (0.109). Govindan et al. (2014) also used AHP technique to rank barriers of GSCM in Indian industries. Barriers were categorized into five classes, namely outsourcing, technology, knowledge, financial and involvement and support. Technology barrier category was the most critical one during GSCM adoption followed by outsourcing, financial and knowledge categories whereas involvement and support barrier ranks last. Lee (2008) described the facilitators or drivers of small and medium size suppliers who are into GSCM initiatives in various industries of South Korea. Hierarchical linear regression was adapted to test the hypothesis for the drivers. The study concluded that buyer’s environmental requirements and support are significantly connected to suppliers’ willingness to adapt in GSCM initiatives. Hu and Hsu (2010) conducted a survey in electrical and electronics industries in Taiwan for GSCM implementation. Support of top management, compliance statement, product testing, green procurement, environmental auditing for suppliers, establishing green requirements for supplier selection showed higher rating for successful implementation of GSCM. Zhu and Geng (2013) studied various drivers and barriers in implementing ESER (Energy Saving and Emission Reduction) program initiated by Chinese government. Coercive drivers, which are mainly related to regulations, did not motivate manufacturers. However, a strict enforcement of the regulation might be helpful in attaining the ESER goals. Yusof and Jamaludin (2014) studied the barriers for implementation of green initiatives in Malaysian hotel industry. The lack of green experts, lack of resources (equipment and manpower) and difficulty in balancing the service quality with environmental performance were the significant obstacles for green initiatives. Caniato et al. (2015) explored the drivers affecting the green supply chain practices and their measurement in fashion industries. Two fashion groups were considered for this exploratory 5


research namely GIBs (green international brands) and SAFs (small alternative firms). It was observed that corporate policy and personal commitment of the top executives were the main reasons behind adoption of green practices by GIBs whereas competitiveness and market survival were the reason for SAFs. Ghazilla et al. (2015) identified 39 drivers and 64 barriers for the implementation of green production practices in SMEs in Malaysia. The research revealed that improved company image, improved competiveness and enhanced product quality were the critical drivers whereas weak organizational structure, inadequate R&D and design and testing were the critical barriers. Styles et al. (2012) studied the challenges faced by European retailers to implement the green supply chain. They observed that proactive retailers go extra mile with suppliers to drive these environmental initiatives. Lai et al. (2012) studied the adoption of green logistics management (GLM) for Chinese manufacturing exporters’ adherence to meet the expectation of the international stakeholders for environmental performance. It was found that the economic expectation is not influencing the adoption of GLM. However, GLM is positively influenced by environment and operational performances. It was also observed that regulatory pressure enhances the overall performance of GLM. Lo et al. (2012) studied the financial performance impact of the EMS (environmental management system) adoption in the textile and fashion industries in United States. ISO 14000, the most popular EMS standard improved the manufacturing profitability over a three-year period in terms of returnon-assets (ROA). Mitra and Datta (2014) researched on Indian manufacturing firms to explore the level of implementation of GSCM and SSCM (sustainable supply chain management). They found that the adoption level of GSCM practices in Indian manufacturing firms is not significant yet. Moreover, there were very low awareness of environmental sustainability practices and there was absence of strong regulation for the implementation of GSCM practices. Table 1 summarizes the findings of some research on the drivers and barriers of GSCM. 2.1 Problem Description In recent years, researchers have tried to identify the enablers and barriers for the implantation of green supply chain in mining, automobile, electronics and other manufacturing industries (Shankar and Ravi, 2005; Diabat and Govindan, 2011; Muduli et al., 2013; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Zabbi et al., 2013; Luthra et al., 2015). Each and every supply chain is different and has their uniqueness is arising from the product characteristics or geographic locations. Textile and apparel is one of the most important industries for the 6


developing countries though it is the second most polluting industry after petrochemicals. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to develop and implement GSCM practices for the sustainability of textile and apparel industry in developing countries. Besides, the specific environmental issues (use of hazardous chemical substances in manufacturing and release of effluent in water bodies etc.) of textile supply chain are different from other supply chains (Diabat et al., 2014; Gardas et al., 2018). It is therefore important to understand the specific factors and their linkages which thwart the implementation of GSCM practices in textile industry of south-east Asia. Because, this understanding would help the decision makers to formulate strategies to eliminate these barriers for successful implementation of GSCM in textile industry. However, there is scarcity of research efforts in this direction. In this work, an attempt has been made to bridge this gap by identifying the important barriers of green textile supply chain management and developing their linkages in the context of south-east Asia.

Table 1: Drivers and barriers of green supply chain management Sl. no.

Source

Industries Involved

No. of elements

Methods used

Important elements

1

Shankar and Ravi (2005)

Automobile reverse logistics

11 barriers

ISM

2

Diabat and Govindan (2011)

Aluminium

11 drivers

ISM

Lack of awareness, Lack of top management commitment, Quality, Financial constraints Government regulation, Reverse logistics

3

Muduli et al. (2013)

Mining

12 drivers

ISM

Top management support, Strategies

4

Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013)

Automobile

26 barriers

ISM

Lack of environmental awareness

5

Zabbi et al. (2013)

Fastener

13 barriers

ISM

6

Diabat et al. (2014)

Textiles

13 drivers

ISM

7

Luthra et al. (2015)

Mining industries

Cost of green packaging, Complex design of process and technology Safety standards, green practices, health and safety issues, economic welfare of community. Scarcity of natural resources, societal issues.

8

Kumar and Dixit (2018)

Electronics and waste recycling

26 ISM success factors 10 ISM and barriers DEMATEL

7


Lack of public awareness, Lack of policies and regulations

9

Gardas et al. (2018)

Textile and apparel

14 barriers

ISM and Delphi

10

Allen and Cai-Wei (2010)

Electrical and electronics

24 drivers

Survey

11

Lai and Wong (2012)

Various industries

4 drivers

Variance

12

Zhu and Geng (2013)

13 14 15 16

Lack of governmental policies and poor infrastructure Support of top management, compliance statement, product testing, green procurement Regulatory pressure

Various 4 Factor Lack of financial gains, Chinese barriers analysis resources and capability industries Luthra et al. Indian 30 AHP Environmental management (2013) manufacturing strategies system, Top management industries perspective Govindan et al Various 47 AHP Lack of technology (2014) industries barriers Yusof and Hotel 12 In depth Lack of green experts, Jamaludin (2014) barriers interview lack of resources Caniato et al. Fashion 3 Exploratory Policy and top management (2015) drivers research commitment for Green International brand.




3 Research Methodologies This paper attempts to analyze the barriers of green supply chain management in textile and apparel industry in south-east Asia. The flowchart of research methodology is given in Figure 1. After exhaustive literature review in the area of GSCM, 36 barriers were identified as given in Table 2. There barriers were grouped into 7 categories like strategic management, supplier, technology, information, external stakeholder, human resource and economic. 3.1 Data Collection Forty-five questionnaires were sent to supply chain managers of leading textile and apparel companies asking the respondents to assign scores to the identified barriers using the Likert scale (Minimum score: 1 and maximum score: 5). These managers were having at least ten years of experience in managing the quality, production and certification issues of textile supply chain. Twenty-two responses were obtained making response rate of 49%. However, two responses were incomplete and therefore twenty useable responses were selected for the further analysis. The average score obtained by the top 12 barriers are given in Table 3. It is noted that there are three barriers each from the supplier and external stakeholder category, two barriers each from technology and economic category and one barrier each in strategic 8


management and human resources category. No barrier from the information category is present in the list of top 12 barriers. 3.2 Solution Methodology Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) was used to model the contextual relationship among the 12 shortlisted barriers. ISM was developed by Warfield (1974). It is one of the most popular qualitative modelling techniques which coverts poorly articulated and ill-structured metal perception into a clear and hierarchical model showing clear relationships among the elements (Sushil, 2012). ISM does not require any quantitative data. The perception of a decision maker is coded with symbols and binary numbers and then causal relationship among the elements are elicited in iterative steps. While developing the ISM model, the decision maker was asked about the type of causal relationship prevailing between two barriers under consideration. To understand the contextual relationship among the barriers, a focus group discussion was conducted. A team of six supply chain managers of leading textile and apparel organizations operating in south-east Asia, took part in focus group discussion. These six managers were selected through random sampling from the respondents who participated in the first phase of the study i.e. data collection. They represented various areas of textile and apparel supply chain like vendor identification and development, fabric sourcing, accessories sourcing, design development, quality assurance and certification. The range of experience for these managers was between 10-20 years. The barriers were defined and explained to the experts to remove any ambiguity. Then the opinion of the experts was sought regarding the contextual relations among various barriers.

9


Table 2: List of barriers collected from literature and their classification

1 2 3 4 5 6

Catego ry STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

No.

Specific barriers

Sources

Inadequate management capacity

Beamon (1999); Govindan et al. (2014)

Lack of top management commitment

Zhu et al. (2008); Luthra et al. (2013); Bhanot et al. (2015); Caniato et al. (2015); Ghazilla et al. (2015) Lack of strategic planning Shankar and Ravi (2005); Muduli et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014) Lack of commitment for Sharma (2000); Faisal et al. (2006); Mudgal et al. (2010); CSR Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) No specific Theyel (2000); Govindan et al. (2014) environmental goals Perception of 'Out of Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014) Responsibility' zone Lack of green suppliers

Styles et al. (2012); Luthra et al. (2013); Mitra and Datta (2013); Ghazilla et al. (2015)

8

Lack of trust and environmental partnership among supply chain partners

Faisal et al. (2006); Hamner (2006); Walker et al. (2008) ; Luthra et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014), Ghazilla et al. (2015)

Lack of reward system for suppliers

Faisal et al. (2006); Muduli et al. (2013); Ghazilla et al. (2015)

Reluctance of support by supply chain partners Lack of green innovation

Sarkis (2003); Shankar and Ravi (2005)

Lack of scope to change over to new system Complexity of green process and system design

Revell and Rutherfoord (2003); Govindan et al. (2014)

Lack of new technology, materials and process

Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013)

Lack of effective environmental measures Uncertainty of green outcome Fear of failure

Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013); Zhu and Geng (2013); Ghazilla et al. (2015) Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014)

Lack of environmental knowledge Lack of awareness about environmental impacts on business

Williams et al (2000); Bowen et al (2001), Shen and Tam (2002); Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) Chen et al. (2006); Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014)

9

SUPPLIER

7

10 11

13

14

TECHNOLOGY

12

15

17 18 19

INFORMATION

16

Zhu and Geng (2013); Muduli et al. (2013)

Luthra et al. (2013); Zabbi et al. (2013); Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) ; Govindan et al. (2014) ; Diabat et al. (2014); Ghazilla et al. (2015)

Srivastava ( 1995); Rao and Halt (2005); Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013);

10


20

Market competition and uncertainty

Mudgal et al (2010) ; Govindan et al. (2014)

21

Lack of knowledge of reverse logistics Lack of awareness of external stakeholders Lack of consumer support and encouragement

Mudgal et al (2010); Shankar and Ravi (2005)

Lack of laws and legislation Slackness in enforcement of legislation

Yosuf and Jamaludin (2014); Ghazilla et al. (2015)

Lack of guidance and support from regulatory

Lee (2008); Walker et al. (2008); Zabbi et al. (2013); Diabat et al. (2014); Lo et al. (2012)

authorities Lack of work culture

Janson and Gunderson (1994); Muduli et al. (2013)

23 24 25 26

EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER

22

28 29

30

HUMAN RESOURCES

27

31

33 34 35 36

ECONOMIC

32

Lack of technical expertise Lack of eco-literacy and training

Lack of training related to reverse logistics Lack of economic benefits High investment and low return-on-investments Non-availability of financial assistants High implementation and maintenance cost High cost for disposing hazardous wastes Cost of environmentally friendly packaging

Govindan et al. (2014); Ghazilla et al. (2015) Walker et al. (2008); Yosuf and Jamaludin (2014); Bhanot et al. (2015); Luthra et al. (2015)

Zabbi et al. (2013); Ghazilla et al. (2015)

Revell and Rutherfoord (2003); Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) Shankar et al. (2005); Styles et al. (2012); Mitra and Datta (2013); Zabbi et al. (2013); Zhu and Geng (2013) ; Bhanot et al. (2015); Caniato et al. (2015); Ghazilla et al. (2015); Luthra et al. (2015) Shankar and Ravi (2005); Mudgal et al. (2010) Luthra et al. (2013); Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013); Ghazilla et al. (2015); Luthra et al. (2015) Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014) Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014) Luthra et al. (2013); Zhu and Geng (2013); Bhanot et al. (2015); Ghazilla et al. (2015; Luthra et al. (2015); Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013); Govindan et al. (2014) Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) ; Govindan et al. (2014)

11


Identification of 36 barriers

Literature review

Identification of 12 important barriers

Questionnaire survey

Developing structural self interaction matrix

Expert opinion (Focus group discussion) Developing reachability matrix

Matrix partitioning

Removal of transitivity from digraph

Developing digraph




Replacing variable nodes with statements of relationship

Is there any inconsistency conceptually

No Representing relationship in model Figure 1: Flowchart of research methodology

12


Yes

Table 3: Top 12 barriers of green textile supply chain Important barriers for organized and unorganized sector

Average score

1 2

Lack of reward system for suppliers (RS) Lack of eco-literacy and training (ELT)

4.1 4.1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Complexity of green process and system design (GPD) Slackness in enforcement of legislation (SEL) Lack of top management commitment (TMC) Lack of green suppliers (GS) Lack of guidance and support from regulatory authorities (SRA) High implementation and maintenance cost (IMC) Lack of economic benefits (EB) Lack of consumer support and encouragement (CSE) Lack of trust and environmental partnership among supply chain partners (TEP) Lack of effective environmental measures (EEM)

4.1 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7

12

3.6

4 Description of important barriers of GSCM 4.1 Lack of reward system for suppliers (RS) Organizations trying to implement green supply chain practices should provide rewards and incentives to supply chain partners to promote green initiatives (Muduli et al., 2013). Rewards and incentives motivate the suppliers to change their behaviour toward implementation of green systems (Zhu et al., 2008). Supply chain partners will be more interested to work toward the green objectives if the suppliers are aligned with the incentives and revenues are shared (Faisal et al., 2006). Absence of reward system is one of the important barriers for green supply chain (Govindan et al., 2014) especially in outsourcing. Financial incentives as part of reward system from government body encourage the suppliers to take the initiatives towards green management (Ghazilla et al., 2015). 4.2 Lack of eco-literacy and training (ELT) Training and eco-literacy are of paramount importance for the successful implementation of GSCM (Ravi and Shankar 2005). Awareness and literacy about green and sustainable supply chain practices among the supply chain partners increases the success of GSCM implementation (Zabbi et al., 2013; Kumar et al., 2013). Lack of eco-literacy among the supply chain members is one of the barriers which thwart the implementation of green supply chain. Therefore, eco-literacy programs are considered as an important strategy for human 13


resource development (Luthra et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2014). By imparting training in the areas of green materials, processes and pollution prevention, the organization can improve its environmental performance to a significant extent (Rao and Holt, 2005). Environmental education and training programs among supply chain partners also construct a collaborative relationship which facilitates the implementation of GSCM (Mitra and Datta, 2013). Therefore, suitable training programs should be arranged periodically for the professionals along with involvement of government and regulating agencies to issue the guidelines of GSCM (Bhanot et al., 2015). 4.3 Complexity of green process and system design (GPD) Conceptually the design of green processes is more complex as it imposes constraints in terms of limited use of scare natural resources and disposal of wastes. Organizations should design, plan and manufacture products or services in such a way that customers’ environmental expectation are met (Zhu et al., 2008). The complexity of monitoring and measuring of environmental practices of suppliers and complexity in designing for recycling and reusing are very critical to implement the green supply chain (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). Green system design help to reduce the energy consumption and it should be integrated with the environmental management systems (Diabat and Govindan, 2011). Zabbi et al., (2013) explained that the complex design of processes and systems to reduce the use of resources and energy is a critical task for the organization to implement the green initiatives. Technology transfer to suppliers and vendors is a critical success factor for the implementation of sustainable green supply chain (Luthra et al., 2015).


4.4 Slackness in enforcement of legislation (SEL) Consumers generally raise their concern related to environmental damages to the Government. Government agencies related to environment and pollution control are expected to create stringent regulations and implementing them to prevent damages to environment (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). Supply chain partners need to work in tandem to fulfill the government policies and regulations towards the green drive (Zhu and Sarkis, 2006). However, lack of enforcement of environmental legislations by the government agencies is a major obstacle against the successful implementation of green supply chain (Yusof and Jamaludin, 2014; Ghazilla et al., 2015). Inadequate industrial self regulation and enforcement is also an important barrier against the green drive (Zabbi et al., 2013).

14


4.5 Lack of top management commitment (TMC) Top management commitment and support is identified as one of the key behavioral factors which influence the implementation of green supply chain practice. Top management’s perspective related to the implementation of green supply chain includes initiation of process, commitment,

policies

implementation,

sanctioning

resources

for

technology

and

advancement in terms of information technology (Luthra et al., 2013). Top management initiatives and action cultivate the GSCM training programs which again influence the working environment (Muduli et al., 2013; Caniato et al., 2012). In terms of financial implication, it is observed that the commitment and involvement of top management is relatively less during the implementation of GSCM concept (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2012). The top management’s commitment usually determines the overall impact of environmental practices and initiatives within its supply chain (Olugu et al., 2011)


4.6 Lack of green suppliers (GS) Availability of green raw materials is a very important aspect for sustainable supply chain (Govindan et al., 2015; Awasthi et al., 2016). However, green supply chain design often faces the stumbling block of scarcity of green materials at right quantity and cost. “Scarcity of natural resources” is the most important driver for the sustainable supply chain which influences the replacement of non renewable resources with renewable and reusable resources (Luthra et al., 2015). Green procurement strategy where the green raw material procurement is given priority often forms a part of the environmental management system of organizations (Govindan et al., 2014; Luthra et al., 2013).

The most practiced

environmentally sustainable initiative is to encourage suppliers to use the green materials and to follow the sustainable purchase practices like selection of green suppliers, educating and generating the awareness among the suppliers and auditing their environmental performances (Styles et al., 2012; Mitra and Datta 2014). In textile and fashion industries, the adoption of natural materials and processes impact the quality of final product which directly encourage the use of green natural raw materials (Caniato et al., 2015). 4.7 Lack of guidance and support from regulatory authorities (SRA) To promote the green initiatives and manage environmental concerns, different countries have different departments in the form of ministries or councils. In recent years, government is getting involved to implement regulations to control pollution and encourage manufacturers to implement the green supply chain by making it a corporate commitment 15


(Lee 2008). State government’s initiation to frame the regulations of green drive also plays a significant role to promote sustainability in supply chains (Mitra and Datta 2014). In India, ministry of environment and forests, ministry of earth and science, ministry of water resources and ministry of science and technology, have direct roles to work on the green issues and initiatives (Luthra et al., 2010). Lack of government support and regulations to adopt the environmental polices is one of the challenges to implement the green supply chain (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2014). Similarly guidance and support from regulatory authority are very critical to adopt the implementation process (Ghazilla et al., 2015). 4.8 High implementation and maintenance cost (IMC) Most of the green suppliers and manufacturers struggle to maintain the environmental commitment due to the high investment and low profit associated with green initiatives (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). Govindan et al., (2014) mentioned that high investment and low return is the biggest setback for the implementation of green supply chain. High initial capital cost of environmental friendly packaging and the high cost of disposal of waste are also the barriers for the organization for the implementation of GSCM (Ghazilla et al., 2015; Zabbi et al., 2013; Zhu et al., 2013). Bhanot et al., 2015 mentioned that the organizations are often willing to implement the green and sustainable technologies. However, the initial high cost is a challenge for them.


4.9 Lack of economic benefits (EB) There is a strong disbelief and confusion among the industries about the economic benefits related to environmental (Ghazilla et al., 2015). Yusof and Jamaludin (2014) pointed out that organizations are uncertain about the economic benefits of the green operations and hence, there is a dilemma in every stages of implementation. Therefore, ecological and economic impacts of environmental measures taken by the organizations should be analyzed together (Diabat et al., 2014). Though big organizations are often encouraged to look at the long term benefits of environmental measures, small manufacturers are very reluctant to respond to the call for emission reduction as there is no established benefits in the bottom-line (Revell, 2007).

16


4.10 Lack of consumer support and encouragement (CSE) Ethical consumers prefer to purchase from the organizations who give priorities to environmental commitments. Ethical and caring consumers are also ready to pay little extra for green products and services (Kumar et al., 2013). This can create market pull and encourage the organizations to implement green practices. Luthra et al. (2015) and Yosuf and Jamaludin (2014) considered the lack of consumer support as one of the critical barriers for the implementation of GSCM. Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) also found that the customer pressure is one of the top initiators for the implementation of GSCM. Customer demand for green products can influence the organizations to have green initiatives (Diabat and Govindan 2011). The consumers can also create the pressure on the organizations to adhere to the GSCM practices (Green et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2008). 4. 11 Lack of Trust and environmental partnership (LT) One of the major steps towards implementation of green supply chain is to counter the risks in an effective manner. This is possible when all the partners in the supply chain frequently address the issues they face and share the information which create the trust among them and facilitate the collaborative relationship (Faisal et al., 2006). Trust is an organizational culture which encourages participation and responsiveness in green innovation and risk-taking (Muduli et al., 2013). Chiles and McMackin (1996) explained that trust is an expectation where partners work in their best possible way to make the implementation a success without acting in opportunistic manner even if there is some short-term incentives. This initiates longterm partnership in the supply chain (Spekman et al., 1998). The supply chain trust is built with organization’s involvement with the downstream supply chain partners to implement the GSCM practices whereas upstream supply chain partners encourage green practices by purchasing the green materials and products (Luthra et al., 2013). Strong relationships with suppliers helps in trust building which can lower the inventory level, cost and improve the production accuracy (Luthra et al., 2010). The outsourcing partnership is one of the major barriers for the GSCM due to the problem in maintaining and monitoring the environmental practices and lack of partnership (Govindan et al., 2014).


4.12 Lack of effective environmental measures (EEM) Over the last few years, it is observed that there has been significant changes and expansion in product certification like ‘eco-product’ as part of the environmental measure, followed by 17


standards and certifications like Fair-trade, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) which enhances the supply chain performance (Styles et al., 2012). Rao and Halt (2005) explained that the environmental measurement is difficult but it is important for implementing and maintaining the green concepts in the industry. Lack of effective environmental measures is one of the major challenges for the organizations to plan and implement GSCM (Zabbi et al., 2013; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2014) 5 Interpretive Structural Modelling 5.1 Developing structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) Developing structural self interaction matrix (SSIM) is the first step of ISM. Contextual relations between any two barriers (i and j) and associated direction of relation was questioned to the experts during focus group discussion. In case of disagreement of opinions, consensus were made through lengthy discussions. Four symbols were used to denote the direction of relationship between two barriers (i and j): V: Barrier i is influencing barrier j A: Barrier j is influencing barrier i X: Barriers i and j are influencing each other O: Barriers i and j are unrelated The SSIM for barriers for green supply chain management is given in Table 4.

18





O

O

A

TEP

RS

ELT

GPD

EEM

CSE

SEL

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 SRA

11 EB

O

A

V

O

O

A

O

GS

2

A

O

O

V

A

V

A

A

A

A

A

EB

IMC

TMC

11

12

1

Barriers

A

O

A

O

A

O

O

O

A

SRA

10

O

A

O

O

O

O

O

A

SEL

9

19


A

O

A

A

A

A

A

CSE

8

Table 4: Structural self interaction matrix of green textile supply chain barriers

V

V

O

V

A

O

EEM

7

O

O

O

O

A

GPD

6

A

X

A

V

ELT

5

X

A

V

RS

4

A

V

TEP

3

O

GS

2

5.2 Developing reachability matrix In this step, the SSIM was transformed into a binary matrix, called the reachability matrix, by substituting V, A, X, O by 1 and 0 as per the case. The rules for the substitution of 1’s and 0’s are as follows. If (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, then (i, j) and (j, i) entry become 1 and 0, respectively. If (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, then (i, j) and (j, i) entry become 0 and 1, respectively. If (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, then (i, j) and (j, i) entry both become 1. If (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, then (i, j) and (j, i) entry both become 0. The reachability matrix is shown in Table 5. Entry 1 implies that the barrier in row influences or drives the element in column. In contrast, entry 0 implies that the barrier in row does not influence or drive the element in column. The entries 1* indicates transitivity links. For example, lack of top management commitment (TMC) is unrelated to lack of green suppliers (GS) as indicated by 'O' in Table 4. However, TMC influences lack of trust and environmental partnership (TEP) as indicated by 'V' in Table 4. On the other hand, GS is influenced by TEP as indicated by 'A'. Therefore, using transitivity, it can be inferred that TMC will influence GS.


Table 5: Reachability matrix of green textile supply chain barriers



TMC

GS

TEP

RS

ELT

GPD

EEM

CSE

SEL

SRA

EB

IMP

TMC GS TEP RS ELT GPD EEM CSE SEL SRA EB IMP



























































































































































































5.3 Partitioning of reachability matrix In this step, the reachability matrix is partitioned at different levels. Reachability set consists of the element itself and other elements, which it may influence or drive. On the other hand, 20


the antecedent set consists of the element itself and other elements, which may influence or drive the element under consideration. Then intersection of reachability and antecedent sets is derived for all the elements. The elements having identical reachability and intersection sets are placed at the top-level of ISM hierarchy. The top-level elements of the hierarchy are influenced or driven by other elements. Once the top-level elements are identified, it is removed from the set of elements. Then, the process is repeated to find the elements of next level. These identified levels help in constructing the digraph and the final model. Table 6 shows the iteration 1 of matrix partitioning. Lack of green suppliers (GS) has antecedent set containing all the barriers (barriers 1-12). This implies that GS is influenced or driven by all the barriers. On the other hand, the reachability set of GS has only one element and that is GS itself. This implies that GS does not drive any other barrier. Thus the reachability and intersection sets of GS becomes identical making it the barrier at level I. Table 7 shows the iteration 2 of matrix partitioning. Element 2 (GS) has been removed as it has already been assigned level I in the hierarchy. Lack of effective environmental measure (EEM) has antecedent set which contains all the barriers except GS. So, barring GS, all other barriers influence EEM. On the other hand, EEM has reachability set which contains two barriers, namely EEM and GS. Therefore, in iteration 2, EEM shows identical reachability and intersection set. Hence, EEM is assigned level II in the hierarchy. In the same way, lack of trust and environmental partnership (TEP), lack of reward system for suppliers (RS) and lack of eco-literacy and training (ELT) are assigned level III as shown in Table 8. The remaining iterations have been shown together in Table 9. Lack of top management commitment (TMC) is assigned level IV which is exactly at the middle of the hierarchy. Slackness of enforcement of legislation (SEL) and lack of economic benefits (EB) are assigned level V implying that they directly drive the lack of top management commitment (TMC). Lack of consumer support and encouragement (CSE) and lack of guidance and support from regulatory authorities (SRA) and high implementation and maintenance cost (IMC) are assigned level VI implying that they are barriers with strong driving power. Complexity of green process and system design secures level VII i.e. the lowest level of the hierarchy.

21


Table 6: Iteration 1 of matrix partitioning Sl. Barrier no.

Reachability set

Antecedent set

Intersection set

1

TMC

1,2,3,4,5,7

1,6,8,9,10,11,12

1

2

GS

2

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 2

3

TEP

2,3,4,5,7

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

3,4,5

4

RS

2,3,4,5,7

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

3,4,5

5

ELT

2,3,4,5,7

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

3,4,5

6

GPD

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11,12

6

6

7

EEM

2,7

1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

7

8

CSE

1,2,3,4,5,7,8,11

8

8

9

SEL

1,2,3,4,5,7,9

9,10

9

10

SRA

1,2,3,4,5,7,9,10

10

10

11

EB IMC

1,2,3,4,5,7,11

6,8,11,12

11

1,2,3,4,5,7,11,12

6,12

12

12

Level

I

Table 7: Iteration 2 of matrix partitioning Sl. Barrier no.

Reachability set

Antecedent set

Intersection set

1

TMC

1,3,4,5,7

1,6,8,9,10,11,12

1

3

TEP

3,4,5,7

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

3,4,5

4

RS

3,4,5,7

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

3,4,5

5

ELT

3,4,5,7

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

3,4,5

6

GPD

1,3,4,5,6,7,11,12

6

6

7

EEM

7

1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

7

8

CSE

1,3,4,5,7,8,11

8

8

9

SEL

1,3,4,5,7,9

9,10

9

10

SRA

1,3,4,5,7,9,10

10

10

11

EB IMC

1,3,4,5,7,11

6,8,11,12

11

1,3,4,5,7,11,12

6,12

12

12

22


Level

II

Table 8: Iteration 3 of matrix partitioning Sl. Barrier no.

Reachability set

Antecedent set

Intersection set

1

TMC

1,3,4,5

1,6,8,9,10,11,12

1

3

TEP

3,4,5

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

3,4,5

III

4

RS

3,4,5

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

3,4,5

III

5

ELT

3,4,5

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

3,4,5

III

6

GPD

1,3,4,5,6,11,12

6

6

8

CSE

1,3,4,5,8,11

8

8

9

SEL

1,3,4,5,9

9,10

9

10

SRA

1,3,4,5,9,10

10

10

11

EB IMC

1,3,4,5,11

6,8,11,12

11

1,3,4,5,11,12

6,12

12

12

Level

Table 9: Iterations 4-7 of matrix partitioning Iteration Sl. no. no.

Barrier

Reachability set

Antecedent set

Intersection Level set

4

1

TMC

1

1,6,8,9,10,11,12

1

IV

5

9

SEL

9

9,10

9

V

5

11

EB

11

6,8,11,12

11

V

6

8

CSE

8

8

8

VI

6

10

10

10

10

VI

6

12

SRA IMC

12

6,12

12

VI

7

6

GPD

6

6

6

VII

6 Results and Discussion Figure 2 depicts the digraph showing the relationships among various barriers of green textile and apparel supply chain management. Barriers are arranged in seven levels in an hierarchical structure. Barriers which are at the lower level of hierarchy drives the barriers at the upper levels. Complexity of green process and system design (GPD), which is a technology related barrier, is the most elementary barrier which hinders the GSCM implementation in textile supply chain of south-east Asia. There is lack of availability of cost-effective technologies for treatment of waste water (effluent treatment plant), reduction of energy consumption and use 23


of recycled and green materials. Use of green and organic materials is of paramount importance in textile and apparel industry as chemicals like azo dyes, formaldehyde, phthalates,

organotin

compounds,

chlorobenzenes,

chlorophenols,

chlorinated

and

bromanated flame retardants which are used in various textile processes have been banned or restricted in many countries considering their adverse impact on health and environment (EU ecolabel, 2015). Govindan et al. (2014) also found that technology barrier is the most dominant factor against the implementation of GSCM. At present, only few textile and apparel companies of south-east Asia, which operate in niche market segment, have paid stringent attention to the life cycle analysis of textile products, use of organic materials (natural fibres, natural dyes etc.), use of recycled materials and restricted use of hazardous chemicals. It is interesting to note that the three barriers at the next level i.e. lack of consumer support and encouragement (CSE) and lack of guidance and support from regulatory authorities (SRA) and high implementation and maintenance cost (IMC) represent market, legal and economic barriers of GSCM. Lee (2008) reported that buyer’s commitment towards green products can force the supplier to adhere to GSCM practices whereas Mitra and Datta (2014) found that the absence of strong legislation and implementation can hinder the GSCM implementation. Lai and Wong (2012) also supported that regulatory pressure can facilitate green logistics management. It is pertinent to mention here that in April 2015, Government of India have passed a legislation that textile units which discharges 25 kilolitre or more water must conform to zero liquid discharge (ZLD) norms by installing effluent treatment plant and using techniques like reverse osmosis and multi-effect evaporators. Therefore, green textile organizations should make efforts and spend their resources to overcome these market, legal and economic barriers. Investment in research and development for green technologies, marketing campaign for generating consumer awareness about green and sustainable apparels and bargaining with the regulatory agencies like pollution control board for their support and guidance should form integral part of organization's operations strategy for the implementation of green supply chain. Lack of top management commitment (TMC) seems to the linkage barrier in this context of green textile and apparel supply chain management. TMC is driven by two barriers, namely slackness in enforcement of legislation (SEL) and lack of economic benefits (EB). If the former acts as lack of stick then the latter acts as lack of carrot and thus the top management does not feel coerced or motivated to promote green supply chain practices. It has been seen in many textile industries that effluent treatment plants are installed and selectively operated just to fulfil the requirement of environmental 24


legislation. The company use it as a reactive environmental strategy due to slackness in enforcement of legislation. Lack of top management commitment (TMC) drives lack of trust and environmental partnership (TEP), lack of reward system for suppliers (RS) and lack of eco-literacy and training (ELT). If the top management is noncommittal about the green supply chain then, it will not take proactive steps to develop environmental partnership with the suppliers by developing long term trust, information sharing practices, reward systems, revenue sharing models and environmental training programmes (Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Hu and Hsu, 2010; Caniato et al., 2015). Under this circumstances, the supply chain partners will act in isolated silos and thereby hampering the overall goal of green supply chain. TEP, RS and ELT will influence or drive effective environmental measures (EEM) like implementation of energy and water saving or recycling systems, use of green raw materials like organic cotton, natural dyes and recycled fibres. Finally, lack of effective environmental measures creates lack of green suppliers which is the key for designing and implementing GSCM practices.

25


Lack of green suppliers (2)

Lack of effective environmental measures (7)
Lack of trust and environmental partnership (3)


No proper reward system for suppliers (4)


Lack of eco-literacy and Training (5)


Lack of top management commitment (1)


Lack of economic benefits (11)


Slackness in enforcement of legislation (9)


Lack of guidance and support from regulatory authorities (10)


Lack of consumer support and encouragement (8)


High implementation and maintenance cost (12)

Complexity of green process and system design (6)
Figure 2: ISM model of barriers of green supply chain management in textile industry

6.1 MICMAC analysis MICMAC (Matrix of Cross-Impact Multiplications Applied to Classification) is a very simple but powerful analysis to determine the driving power and dependence of different elements used in ISM. Driving power of one element is calculated by adding all the entries in the corresponding row of reachability matrix shown in Table 5. On the other hand, 26


dependence of one element is calculated by adding all the entries in the corresponding column of reachability matrix. For example, top management commitment (TMC) has driving power of six and dependence of seven. This implies that TMC influences or drives six barriers and it is influenced or driven by seven barriers. The elements having low driving power and dependence are called autonomous variables (cluster I) as they do not influence the system much. The elements having high dependence and low driving power are called dependent elements (cluster II). The elements having high driving power and high dependence are called linkage elements (cluster III). Finally, the elements having high driving power and low dependence are called driving elements (cluster IV). Figure 3 presents the positions of 12 barriers according to their driving power and dependence. There is no autonomous barrier in cluster I which justify judicious selection of barriers in this research. Lack of green suppliers (GS) is the most dependent barrier followed by lack of effective environmental measures (EEM). Lack of trust and environmental partnership among supply chain partners (TEP), lack of reward system for suppliers (RS) and lack of eco-literacy and training (ELT) are the other dependent barriers positioned in cluster II. Lack of top management commitment (TMC) is the only linkage variable which is influenced by the driver barriers and in turn drives the dependent barriers. Linkage elements are generally considered as unstable as they connect with the driver as well as dependent elements (Yadav and Barve, 2015). Presence of only one linkage variable (TMC) that too in the boundary of clusters II and III implies that the ISM model is quite robust. Complexity of green process and system design (GPD) has the highest driving power followed by lack of consumer support and encouragement (CSE), lack of guidance and support from regulatory authorities (SRA). High implementation and maintenance cost (IMC), slackness in enforcement of legislation (SEL) and lack of economic benefits (EB) are the other driving barriers. Management desirous to implement GSCM practices in textile and apparel industry should spend resources to overcome these driving barriers (Ravi and Shankar, 2005). Because, if these driving barriers, which are the root causes, are eliminated, then the barriers at the top levels will be nullified automatically.

27


Figure 3:: Driving poower and deependence of o barriers

7 Conclusions The impportant barrriers for the implementtation of greeen supply chain c managgement practices in textile aand apparel industry of o south-eaast Asia hav ve been ideentified. Intterpretive sttructural modelinng has beeen used to convert thhe perceptio on of dom main expertss into a cllear and structurred map whhich deciph hers the coontextual reelationships (driver-driiven) amon ng these barrierss. Complexiity of green n process annd system design, d lack k of consum mer support,, lack of supportt from reguulatory auth horities and high impleementation and mainteenance costt are the basic bbarriers of green texttile supply chain man nagement. These barrriers repressent the technological, marrket, legal and a econom mic facets off obstacles in the pathh of implem mentation of GSC CM in texttile industrry. These bbarriers driive other barriers, b naamely slack kness in enforceement of legislation and lack oof econom mic benefitss. Lack off top manaagement committment in thee linkage baarrier as it iis driven by y the basic barriers andd in turn drrives the barrierss placed att the higheer level off hierarchy y like lack of trust aand enviro onmental partnersship, lack of reward sy ystem for suuppliers and d lack of eco o-literacy annd training. Lack of green suuppliers is the t final driven barrier is influenceed by most of the otherr barriers. 28



As an outcome of this study, it can be recommended that textile and apparel organizations should pay attention and use their resources to overcome the driver barriers like complexity of green process and system design (technology barrier), lack of consumer support (market barrier), lack of support from regulatory authorities (legal barrier) and high implementation and maintenance cost (economic barrier). The available green process technologies like zero liquid discharge (ZLD) is highly cost intensive and it deters the small and medium scale textile and apparel organizations to invest in such technologies. Therefore, it is imperative to develop cost-effective green process technologies. Collaborative research initiatives between academia and industry should be strengthened to develop and implement such technologies. This will create the much needed technology push for GSCM in textile industry of south-east Asia. Government and industry bodies should start consumer awareness campaign so that a sustained pull is created for the green clothing. It is also suggested that Government agencies should espouse the environmental initiatives taken by textile and apparel organizations by sharing part of the huge capital investment. It is heartening to see that some public-private partnership has been initiated very recently where Government bodies are bearing most of the capital investment in developing common facility centres (CFC) in various textile clusters which is used by a large number of small and medium scale organizations. The developed ISM model can help policy makers to devise proper strategy for the development and successful implementation of green textile supply chain.

References 1.

Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M. K., 2007, Modeling agility of supply chain, Ind. Market. Manag., 36 443–457.

2.

Anonymous, Textile floor coverings EU eco-label award scheme User manual, EU Eco-label, January 2010, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/User_manual_Textile_coverings. pdf (last access 13.01.2016)




Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Goyal, S.K., 2016, A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 126, 370–378.


4.

Beamon, M.B., 1999, Designing the green supply chain, Logist. Inf. Manag., 12, 332– 342.

29


5.

Bhanot, N., Rao, P., Desmukh, S.G., 2015, Enablers and barriers of sustainable manufacturing: Result from a survey of researchers and industry professionals, Precedia CIRP, 29, 562–567.

6.

Bowen, F., Cousins, P., Lamming, R., Faruk, A., 2001, The role of supply management capabilities in green supply, Prod. Oper. Manag. 10, 74–189.

7.

Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Crippa, L., Moretto, A., 2015, Environmental sustainability in fashion chains: An exploratory case based research, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135, 659–670.

8.

Chen, Y., Lai, S., Wen, C., 2006, The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan, J. Bus. Ethics, 67 331–339.

9.

Chiles, T.D., Mcmackin, J.F., 1996, Integrating variable risk preferences, trust and transaction cost economics, The Acad. Manag. Rev., 21, 73–99.

10.

Christopher, M., 2000, The Agile Supply Chain: Competing in Volatile Markets, Ind. Market. Manag., 29 37–44.

11.

Christopher, M., Towill, D. R., 2000, Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile and customized, Int. J. Supply Chain Manag., 5 206–213.

12.

Christopher, M., Peck, H., 2004 Building the resilient supply chain, Int. J. Logist. Manag., 15, 1–14.

13.

Desai P. A., Kore V. S., 2011, Performance Evaluation of Effluent Treatment Plant for Textile Industry in Kolhapur of Maharashtra University, J. Environ. Res. Technol., 1, 560–565

14.

Diabat, A., Govindan, K., 2011, An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management, Resour. Conserv. Recy
, 55, 659– 667.

15.

Diabat, A., Kannan, D., Mathayazhagan, K., 2014, Analysis of enablers for implementation of sustainable supply chain management-A textile case, J. Clean. Prod., 83, 391–403.

16.

EU ecolabel textile products user manual, Commission decision for the award of the EU Ecolabel for textile products (2014/350/EU), Version 1.0 march 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/User_manual_textile.pdf,

(last

accessed on 05.01.2016) 17.

Faisal, N., Banwet, D. K., Shankar, R., 2006, Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the enablers, Bus. Proc. Manag. J., 12, 535–552.

30


18.

Gardas, B. B., Raut, R. D., Narkhede, B., Modelling the challenges to sustainability in the textile and apparel (T&A) sector: A Delphi-DEMATEL approach, Sustainable Prod. Consump. 15 (2018) 96–108.

19.

Ghazilla, R., Sakundarini, N., Rashid, S., Ayub, N., Olugu, E., Musa, S., 2015, Drivers and barriers analysis for green manufacturing practices in Malaysian SMEs: A preliminary Findings, Procedia CIRP, 26, 658–663.

20.

Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., Haq, A., 2014, Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 147, 555–568.

21.

Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P., 2015, Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review, J. Clean. Prod., 98, 66–83.

22.

Green, Jr., K.W., Zelbst, P. J., Meacham, J., Bhaduria, V.S., 2012, Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance, Supply Chain Manag., 17, 290–305.

23.

Hamner, B., 2006, Effects of green purchasing strategies on supplier behaviour, In: Sarkis, j., (Ed), Greening the supply chain, Springer, Berlin, 25–38.

24.

Harik, R., Hachem, W. EL., Medini, K., Bernard, A., 2015, Towards a holistic sustainability index for measuring sustainability of manufacturing companies, Int. J. Prod. Res., 53, 4117–4139.

25.

Hauser P.J., 2011, Textile Dyeing Wastewater Treatment. In Advances in Treating Textile Effluent. In Tech, Cortia, pp.91–116.

26.

Hu, A.H., Hsu, C-W., 2010, Critical factors for implementing green supply chain management practice, Manag. Res. Rev., 33, 586–608.

27.

Janson, R., Gunderson, R. L., 1994, The team approach to companywide change. In: Willing JT, Editor. Environmental TQM. 2nd ed New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 52– 61.

28.

Kumar, S., Luthra, S., Haleem, A., 2013, Customer involvement in greening the supply chain: An interpretive structural modeling methodology, J. Ind. Eng. Int., 9, 1– 13.

29.

Kumar, A., Dixit, G., An analysis of barriers affecting the implementation of e-waste management practices in India: A novel ISM-DEMATEL approach, Sustainable Prod. Consump. 14 (2018) 36–52.

30.

Lai, K-H., Wong, C., 2012, Green logistics management and performance: Some empirical evidence from Chinese manufacturing Exporters, Omega 40, 267–282. 31


31.

Lee, S. Y., 2008, Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain Initiatives, Supply Chain Manag., 13, 185–198.

32.

Lo, C., Yeung, A., Cheng, T.C.E., 2012, The impact of environmental management systems on financial performance in fashion and textiles industries, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 135, 561–567.

33.

Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S., Haleem, A., 2010, Green Supply Chain Management Issues: A Literature Review Approach, J. Inf., Knowl. Res. Mech. Eng., 1, 12–20.

34.

Luthra, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., 2013, Identifying and ranking of strategies to implement green supply chain management in Indian manufacturing industry using Analytical Hierarchy Process, J. Ind. Eng. Manag., 6, 930–962.

35.

Luthra, S., Garg, D., and Haleem, A., 2015, An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian perspective, Resour. Policy, 46, 37–50.

36.

Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, J. B., Towill, D., 2000, Engineering the leagile supply chain, Int. J. Agile Manag. Syst., 2, 54–61.

37.

Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., Noorul Haq, A., Geng, Y., 2013, An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management: J. Clean. Prod., 47, 283–297.

38.

Mitra, S., Datta P. P., 2014, Adoption of green supply chain management practices and their impact on performance: An exploratory study of Indian manufacturing firms, Int. J. Prod. Res., 52, 2085–2107.

39.

Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P., Raj, T., 2010, Modeling the barriers of green supply chain practices: an Indian perspective, Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag., 7, 81–107.

40.

Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A., Kannan, D., Geng, Y., 2013, Role of behavioral factors in green supply chain management implementation in Indian mining industries, Resour. Conserv. Recy., 76, 50–60.

41.

Olugu, E. U., Wong, K.Y., Shaharoun, A. M., 2011, Development of key performance measures for the automobile green supply chain, Resour. Conserv. Recy. 55 567–579.

42.

Ramesh B. B., Parande, A. K., Raghu, S., Prem K., T., 2007, Cotton Textile Processing: Waste Generation and Effluent Treatment, J. Cotton Sci

11, 141–153.

43.

Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005, Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 25, 898–916.

32


44.

Ravi, V., Shankar, R., 2005, Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 72, 1011–1029.

45.

Revell, A., Rutherfoord, R., 2003, UK Environmental policy and the small firm: broadening the focus, Bus. Strateg. Environ., 12, 26–35.

46.

Revell, A., 2007, The Ecological Modernisation of Small Firms in the UK’s Construction Industry, Geoforum, 38, 114–126.

47.

Sarkis, J., 2003, A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management, J. Clean. Prod., 11, 397–409.

48.

Sharma, S., 2000, Management interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy, Acad. Manag. J., 43, 681– 697.

49.

Shen, L. Y., Tam, W. Y. V., 2002, Implementing of environmental management in the Hong Kong construction industry, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 20, 535–543.

50.

Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W., Myhr, N., 1998, An empirical investigation into supply chain management: A perspective on partnerships, Supply Chain Manag., 3, 53–67.

51.

Srivastava, P., 1995, Environmental technologies and competitive advantage, Strategic Manage J., 16, 183–200.

52.

Styles, D., Schoenverger, H., Martos, J., 2012, Environmental Improvement of product Supply chains: European Retailers performance, Resources, Conserv. Recy., 65, 57–78.

53.

Sushil, 2012, Interpreting the Interpretive Structural Model, Glob. J. Flex. Sys. Manag., 13, 87–106.

54.

Theyel, G., 2000, Management practice for environmental innovation and performance, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 20, 249–266.

55.

Valeur, C. C., 2013, Report on The Potential for Green Textile sourcing from Tirupur On the path to more sustainable global textile chains, Danish Federation for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:702345/FULLTEXT01.pdf (last access 07.01.2016)

56.

Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008, Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors, J. Purch. Supply Manag., 14, 69–85.

33


57.

Warfield, J.N., 1974, Developing subsystem matrices in structural modeling, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cyber., 4, 51–81.

58.

Williams, H., Van Hooydonk, A., Dingle, P., Annandale, D., 2000, Developing tailored environmental management systems for small businesses, Eco-Magmt. Aud., 7, 106–113

59.

Yadav, D.K., Barve, A., 2015, Analysis of critical success factors of humanitarian supply chain: An application of Interpretive Structural, Modeling. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 12, 213–225.

60.

Yusof, Z., Jamaludin, M., 2014, Barriers of Malaysian Green Hotels and Resorts, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 153, 501–509.

61.

Zabbi, S., Dhaheri, N., Diabat, A., 2013, Analysis of interaction between the barriers for the implementation of sustainable supply chain management, Int. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 68, 895–905.

62.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K. H., Geng, Y., 2008, The role of organizational size in the adoption of green supply chain management in China, Corp. Soc Resp. Env. Ma., 15, 322–337.

63.

Zhu, Q., Zeng, Y., 2013, Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for energy saving and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers, J. Clean. Prod. 40, 6–12.

34


Highlights
Barriers of green textile supply chain management in south-east Asian countries have been identified and analyzed.
Complexity of green process and system design (technology barrier) is the most powerful driving barrier.
Market, legal and economic barriers also have strong driving power.
Lack of green suppliers is the barrier which is influenced by most of the other barriers.