Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

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

Research article

An analysis of barriers affecting the implementation of e-waste

management practices in India: A novel ISM-DEMATEL approach
Ashwani Kumar *, Gaurav Dixit
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India

article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: Today, e-waste management practices are gaining momentum because of the global environmental
Received 29 August 2017 regulations, but the presence of barriers makes the implementation of e-waste management difficult.
Received in revised form 28 December 2017 Moreover, e-waste contains valuable metals as a well as hazardous substance that has more deceptive im-
Accepted 5 January 2018
pacts on the ecosystem. This study aims to identify ten barriers based on the literature and the perceptions
Available online 31 January 2018
of experts involved in e-waste management issues. In this paper, we employed an interpretive structural
modeling (ISM) and Decision Making Trail and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) for understanding the
Keywords:
e-waste management hierarchal and contextual relationship structure among the barriers of e-waste management. The study
Barriers shows that no autonomous barriers are present in the course of study. The result suggests that the lack of
ISM public awareness about e-waste recycling and the lack of policies addressing e-waste issues are the root
DEMATEL cause barriers as depicted by the novel ISM-DEMATEL based methodology. This present novel model helps
the policy and decision maker’s to find out the mutual relationship and interlinking among the barriers.
© 2018 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the present scenario, electronic market is one of the ag-
gressively expanding markets in the developing nation. The aug-
mented demand and consumption of electronics products are
caused owing to the rapid pecuniary growth. The growth is clubbed
with urbanization, rapid change in technologies, drop in pricing
trends, and replenishment of electronic gadgets with the new one
as per consumer’s habits. This has aggravated the manufacture
of electronics products, thus resulting in the enormous increase
of hazardous electronic waste (Dwivedy and Mittal, 2010). This
hazardous waste contains some rare earth metals and toxic met-
als that dangerously affect human lives and ecosystem. Inappro-
priate treatment of the waste leads to the loss of resources as
well as develop severe environmental and economic problems
(Menikpura et al., 2014; Chaturvedi et al., 2007; Srinivasan and
Bhambri, 2009; Wath et al., 2010; Rajesh, 2011). Acknowledging
the importance and impact of e-waste stream, the developed na-
tions have designed obligatory regulations for handling e-waste.
Hence, these wastes are exported to the developing nations for
recycling, as these nations have weak policies for environmen-
tal issues, availability of cheap labor, etc. (Bhutta et al., 2011;
Wath et al., 2010; Garlapati, 2016; Wakolbinger et al., 2014;
Yeh and Xu, 2013; Kumar et al., 2017). In the developing na-
tions, there are indefinable remedial measures, vague adhoc roles
of stakeholders, and investment of inadequate resource in the
e-waste management sector. These challenges are compounded
by social, economic, legal, financial, knowledge, and technologi-
cal weaknesses (Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013; Konteh, 2009).
As per the report of the associated chamber of commerce (AS-
SOCHAM), India is an emerging country that occupies fifth po-
sition among the developing countries in the world and second
position in Asia and generates e-waste with an annual growth
of 25%; which is 18.5 lakh MT of electronic waste by 2016 as
compared to the current level of 12.5 lakh MT annually. On the
basis of research, some cities (see Table 1) are found to be the
leader of e-waste producer as per the yearly generation of e-
waste (Nisa, 2014). In India, the deficient infrastructure for e-waste
management and lack of proper information about the quantity of
e-waste, which is s recycled, disposed, and dumped in land-
fills every year, has caused a risky environment for humans.
This e-waste stream is raising serious concern with regard
to the dumping and processing of waste in the developing
nation.
1.1. Research motives

India is one of the fastest emerging economies in the world

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ashwani.983@gmail.com, ashkr.ddm2016@iitr.ac.in and the second nation in Asia. In India, e-waste is gener-
(A. Kumar), gauravdixit.fdm@iitr.ac.in (G. Dixit). ated with an annual growth of 25%. The massive rise of the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.01.002
2352-5509/© 2018 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52
Table 1
Top E-waste producer cities in India.
Source: Author.
Cities E-waste (MT/Year)
Mumbai 1.2 Lakh
Delhi-NCR 0.98 Lakh
Bangalore 0.92 Lakh
Chennai 0.67 Lakh
Kolkata 0.55 Lakh
Ahmedabad 0.36 Lakh
e-waste stream and the presence of countless hazardous material
within it (e.g., mercury, lead, cadmium, polybrominated diphenyl
esters) have made the safe management of e-waste a major con-
cern for practitioners and researchers (Awasthi et al., 2016; Liu et
al., 2006; Townsend, 2011; Garlapati, 2016). For solving the issues
related to e-waste management, many developing nations are not
taking any initiative toward establishing an appropriate frame-
work for e-waste management, which will enable better handling
of e-waste as well as lead to reduction of the huge generation of e-
waste and recovering of valuable resources. In India, the ministry of
environment and forest climate change (MoEF) provides a frame-
work for establishing and implementing the e-waste management
system. Nonetheless, most waste management authorities are un-
able to mitigate the cause and effect of the issues related to e-waste
management and other urban environmental challenges. India is
a global manufacturing hub and dumping yard for the developed
countries. However, India is still at an infancy stage of implement-
ing e-waste management practices (Wang et al., 2012; Wath et
al., 2010; Garlapati, 2016). In 2016, the ministry of environment
and forest climate change (MoEF) has reported about managing e-
waste and handling law as well as introducing extended producers
responsibility (EPR) amendments. Further, the safe management of
e-waste continues to be poor, and the gap between the policy
guidelines and its implementation is more evident (Garlapati,
2016). The greatest challenge for the government and other stake-
holders is the safe management of e-waste because it consists
of toxic, expensive, and rare earth materials (He et al., 2006).
But the extraction process for obtaining rare and valuable metals
from the e-waste results in the harmful impact on environment
and human health (Nnorom et al., 2009; Godfrey et al., 2013;
Welfens et al., 2016). For instance, the government aims to have
a stringent policy framework, which is effective, efficient, and fi-
nancially sustainable in its execution. Several studies have pointed
out that e-waste management in India is currently dealing with
the emerging informal sector, non-adoption of basel ban amend-
ment, inadequate infrastructure, lack of CSR initiatives, poorly
designed electronic product, and lack of funds for e-waste recy-
cling. The recovery of material from e-waste, sustainable treat-
ment, and waste disposal is based on the e-waste polices and
framework; yet more than 95% of e-waste is treated in informal
ways and finally disposed in the open dump yards (Ravi and
Shankar, 2005; Van Rossem et al., 2006; Hung Lau and Wang,
2009; Wath et al., 2010; Garlapati, 2016). The management of
e-waste is a strategic issue, which is influenced by sev-
eral resources such as capable infrastructure, real-time sup-
port, good governance, consumer awareness, and many other
aspects.
As mentioned earlier, several studies address the potential
barriers associated with e-waste management and product re-
turn management issues; however, these studies are limited to
the developed countries only (Hung Lau and Wang, 2009; Jindal
and Sangwan, 2011; Tseng, 2011; Tseng and Lin, 2011; Chuang
et al., 2013; Shumon et al., 2014; Yin et al., 2014; Welfens et
al., 2016; Ravi, 2015). Further, very limited research has been
carried out on the barriers of implementing e-waste manage-
ment practices in the context of developing countries like India,
37
China, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam; and majority of these stud-
ies are not empirically tested (Awasthi and Li, 2017; Dou and
Sarkis, 2013; Garlapati, 2016; Milovantseva and Fitzpatrick, 2015;
Shumon et al., 2014; Sthiannopkao and Wong, 2013; Wath et
al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2012). The previously conducted studies
have not focused on the inter-relationship among the barriers
affecting the implementation of e-waste management. Further,
no model has been found that identifies the root cause behind
the influential barriers and those barriers that are influenced by
others. The presence of multiple criteria and the experts’ opinion
generally give rise to complexity in the evaluation of the critical
barriers (Tseng, 2009; Chauhan et al., 2016; dos Muchangos et al.,
2015). This has been a topic of major concern for research scholar
and practitioners, who are directly involved in e-waste handling
issues. Thus, the present study aims to assess the barriers for
fulfilling this gap and promoting the development of a sustainable
e-waste management culture with the assistance of planned ap-
proach. Moreover, it is expected that this study will lead to a better
understanding of the importance of e-waste management, which
is still in its infancy stage of implementation in the Indian context.
1.2. Research goals
In this study, we aim to identify the ten barriers that hinder the
successful implementation of e-waste management in the Indian
context. The rationale of this research is to provide better under-
standing of these barriers as well as to assist the policy makers
in clarifying the interrelationship among the barriers and their
influence in the implementation of e-waste management. If the
barriers are not hierarchically structured, the interrelations among
the barriers make the analysis more complex and difficult. Several
methodologies have been developed to solve the discrepancy that
emerges as a consequence of the failure to include the interrelation
among the barriers in the decision making process. These method-
ologies are Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), Analytical Net-
work Process (ANP) and the Decision Making Trail and Evaluation
Laboratory (DEMATEL) (Mandic et al., 2015). Wu (2008) in his
study reported that Analytical Network Process (ANP) has been
successfully applied in several studies, but the interrelations in
those ANP studies are not ideal and exact because of the difficulty
to eliminate the chances of interrelationship within the criteria.
Therefore, it is very much essential to identify the appropriate
approach for solving this problem. Both Interpretive Structural
Modeling (ISM) and the Decision Making Trail and Evaluation Lab-
oratory (DEMATEL) seem to be appropriate techniques for enabling
clear hierarchical and relationship structure strategically. Further,
both the techniques enable clear representation of barriers within
the system, as they are complementing and powerful structural
modeling tool for solving multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
issues (Chauhan et al., 2016; dos Muchangos et al., 2015; Raeesi et
al., 2013; Wang et al., 2018). There are lots of similarities in both
the methodologies, such as both express causal relationship among
several decision variables, for example, driving/dependence power
in ISM and the prominence/relation value in DEMATEL as well
as visualize the relationship in a structured diagram. Nonethe-
less, ISM categorize the barriers into four possible relationships,
while DEMATEL examine the intensity of cause–effect relationship
among the barriers with more convoluted assessment (i.e., from
0–4 scale). The advantages of ISM and DEMATEL are: First, ISM is
macro-oriented and is used to decompose a complicated system
into sub-systems; and second, DEMATEL is more micro-oriented
that helps in determining the intensity of direct and indirect re-
lationship among the barriers as well as in visualizing the causal
structure through the use of diagraphs. To the best of our knowl-
edge, very limited studies have used ISM and DEMATEL for ana-
lyzing the barriers in the implementation of e-waste management
38 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52
system. Further, this study is one of the few studies conducted in
the Indian context. The main contribution of this study is to deter-
mine the hierarchal and causal relationship structure among the
barriers by employing novel hybrid ISM-DEMATEL methodology.
The proposed ISM-DEMATEL based model can serve as a robust tool
in the decision making process along with the successful imple-
mentation of e-waste management. This study will provide better
insights for future research by developing effective strategies for
effective quantification of the barriers as per the Indian context in
the implementation of e-waste management.
The study is organized in several sections as the following: Sec-
tion 2 provides brief literature review and discusses the identified
ten barriers. Section 3 represents detailed discussion of solution
methodology. Section 4 provides the results and sensitivity anal-
ysis of the study. Section 5 provides the discussion of the study.
Finally, in Section 6, the conclusion and limitation of the study is
presented.
2. Literature review
2.1. Background of e-waste management in developing nations
On the basis of the recent studies, it has been observed that
the developing nations are larger producers of e-waste, and it
will become twice than that of the developed nations within the
next six to eight years. It has also been evaluated that by the end
of 2030, the developed and developing nations will dispose of
200–300 million and 400–700 million obsolete computers, respec-
tively (Sthiannopkao and Wong, 2013). Predictions made through
computer modeling state that the developing countries will be
more responsible for dumping computer systems rather than the
developed countries by 2016 (Devi et al., 2004; Wath et al., 2010).
Furthermore, the OECD nations export their e-waste to the non-
OECD nations like China, Malaysia, Thailand, and India. Further-
more, the dumping of the e-waste is raising severe concerns, even
though the OECD countries are having the permission to export the
unnecessary goods to poor nations for reuse or remanufacturing.
However, it is observed that this is leading to an erroneous classi-
fication of the non-functional goods as ‘‘used goods’’. A substantial
quantity of e-waste exports are administered outside European
countries as well as Western African countries. This is because of
the hasty recycling processes in these regions, which is leading
to considerable environmental pollution and health hazards for
the local people. Furthermore, the failure of recovering rare earth
minerals has created problem related to the production of future
electronic equipments (Ramesh and Joseph, 2006; Duan et al.,
2015; Garlapati, 2016).
According to Zaccaï (2008), consumer’s behavior plays a crucial
role in the environmental activities like purchasing green elec-
tronic products, keeping and employing electronic items to reduce
hazardous impact on environment, and chastising disposal prac-
tices. Solomon (2010) analyzed that environmental education, en-
vironmental laws, and ethics are the three crucial disciplines that
play vital role in the enhancement and protection of environment;
and out of these three disciplines, environmental ethics acts as an
intermediate for the other two disciplines. Nnorom et al. (2009)
explained the initiative of consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP)
for greener product purchasing and developed a model depicting
consumers’ awareness and attitude toward environment protec-
tion. Saphores et al. (2012) further evidenced that gender, marital
status, awareness about toxic waste, recycling convenience, and
previous e-waste recycling experience are the most important
factors behind the explication of household’s willingness to pay
for e-waste recycling in USA. Dwivedy and Mittal (2013) deter-
mined that consumer’s attitude toward recycling, demographic,
household income, and other economic profits has substantially
influenced consumer’s willingness to take part in the process of
recycling of e-waste in India. Sarkhel et al. (2016) examined the
pre and post payment made by consumers for meliorated waste
management in Bally Municipality in India. For the appropriate
management of the environmental concerns, the establishment of
the following setups, that is, installation of adequate infrastructure
such as transport facilities, storage centers, recycling plants, metal
recovery, and disposal of electronic waste both at regional as well
as national levels is essential (Cucchiella et al., 2015). Hence, to
facilitate the management of e-waste, the regulatory authorities
need to provide these services and associate incentives for en-
hanced performance. The administration needs to encourage the
manufacturers and non-governmental organization (NGO) for es-
tablishing electronic waste collection centers, exchange programs,
and recycling facilities at different levels (i.e., district, state, and
national). Therefore, the development of suitable skill and proper
training of recycling processes will be required to acquire en-
vironmentally sound recycling of e-waste (Hung Lau and Wang,
2009; Wath et al., 2010; Yeh and Xu, 2013). As a prerequisite
for recycling, professionals are required to screen the noxious
and wanted elements from the intricate electronic waste, and to
subsequently adopt the different eco-friendly recycling treatment
for both the noxious and wanted elements, separately (Zhang
et al., 2012). Therefore, the usage of obsolete gadgets should be
prohibited and stringent environmental standards must be main-
tained for minimizing the negative effects of environment on the
recycling personnel. The air pollution control strategies need to be
adopted for the escape and point source emissions for facilitating
the recycling process. In the current scenario, both private sectors
as well as public sectors are coming together to find a new way of
environment friendly recycling process, as it is the source of wealth
for the private firms (Garlapati, 2016; Kasper et al., 2015).
2.2. Application of multi-criteria decision making techniques
In the last two decades, e-waste management has become a
complicated issue and needs to be deeply analyzed; hence, several
multi criteria decision making (MCDM) models have been devel-
oped. Satapathy (2017) used the ISM methodology to investigate
the interrelationship among the barriers, which determines the as-
sociated problems or issues. Srivastava and Sharma (2015) formu-
lated the association among the identified e-waste management
variables and even evaluated variables that influence the driving
barriers as well as those that are influenced by the dependable vari-
able using ISM to develop mutual association among these vari-
ables. Janse et al. (2010) employed the ISM methodology for evalu-
ating the barriers and for managing the reverse logistics in the elec-
tronics industries. Sharma et al. (2011) employed the ISM approach
to analyze the barriers that hinder the adoption of reverse logistics
and to determine the relationship among them. Garlapati (2016)
analyzed that the initiative related to the extended producer re-
sponsibility has been demonstrated in a transparent way, and this
initiative is the fundamental factor in achieving effective e-waste
management. Welfens et al. (2016) analyzed the key enablers and
barriers that affect the returning and recycling of mobile phones
through the use of the ISM approach. Yin et al. (2014) analyzed
that most of the consumers receive no payment for the recycling of
electronic products, and the reasons identified are education of the
consumers and their monthly income. Ravi (2015) examined the
interaction among the barriers of eco-efficiency in electronic pack-
aging industries by using the ISM methodology. Chandramowli
et al. (2011) employed ISM to evaluate the barriers related to
the development of landfill communities. Unlike the conventional
MCDM approaches, DEMATEL has the ability to understand the
interdependence among the barriers and to visualize the causal–
effect relationship among those barriers. The DEMATEL method-
ology has been applied in several studies for conducting research
 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52
on sustainable management of low-carbon (Shieh et al., 2010).
The DEMATEL framework has been employed for the following
aspects:
• To identify the decisive factors in green supply chain
management (GSCM) practices under the fuzzy environ-
ment (Wu et al., 2015)
• To develop a carbon management model of supplier selec-
tion in GSCM (Hsu et al., 2013)
• To analyze the cause and effect relation of municipal solid
waste management in Manila (Tseng and Lin, 2009)
• To investigate the barriers behind implementing the restric-
tion on hazardous substances (RoHS) regulation (Dou and
Sarkis, 2013)
• To evaluate the influence of occupational risks with the aid
of cause–effect relationship on the construction sites (Seker
and Zavadskas, 2017).
MCDA approaches such as ELECTRE III and PROMETHEE have
been used for the evaluation of site selection to develop e-waste
recycling plants in accordance with sustainable aspects (Achillas
et al., 2010; Queiruga et al., 2008; Walther et al., 2008). In the past
few years, the hybrid multi-criteria decision making (HMCDM)
methods have been widely employed for providing assistance in
the decision making process related to the different domains of
sustainability (Zavadskas et al., 2016). Tseng (2009) used inte-
grated ANP and DEMATEL techniques to evaluate the effective
solution for managing different solid waste on the basis of multiple
criteria. Mehregan et al. (2014) employed ISM-FDEMATEL model
to determine the interaction among the sustainability criteria in
the supplier selection process. Liou et al. (2016) applied hybrid
gray COPRAS and MADM framework to determine the selection
criteria for suppliers in the GSCM. Yazdani et al. (2016) introduced
WASPAS to rank the supplier on green abilities. Turskis et al.
(2017) used the hybrid AHP-EDAS method to rank the heritage
buildings for renovation projects. dos Muchangos et al. (2015)
analyzed the structural relationship of the barriers with the pol-
icy and enhanced the planning of waste management. Bagočius
et al. (2014) integrated a WASPAS-MCDM model to assess the
criteria behind the selection of the best location for wind farm
in the Baltic Sea. Gigović et al. (2017a, b) integrated a GIS and
multi-criteria model to select the location of wind farms in Serbia.
Similarly, Pamučar et al. (2017) used a GIS-MCDM hybrid model
to assess the sustainability of the location for wind farm. Gigović
et al. (2017a, b) combined interval rough analytical hierarchical
process (IR-AHP) with GIS to assess the criteria that are crucial
for causing flood in the local community of Palilula. Dimić et al.
(2016) used SWOT-DANP with the aim of eliminating subjectivity
during the process of mapping, quantifying their relative influence,
and prioritizing strategic transport options. In spite of these hybrid
MCDM techniques, the applicability of ISM-DEMATEL has become
a widespread approach that involves the utilization of ISM for the
decomposition of a complicated system into hierarchical structure.
This takes place prior to the adoption of DEMATEL for analyzing
the degree of influence among the influential barriers of a specific
complex problem through the graph theory in a given decision
making process. The contribution of various researchers and prac-
titioners in the use of ISM and DEMATEL methods is highlighted in
Table 2.
Literature reveals that various barriers and obstacles in the field
of waste management not only affect the environment, but also
influence the human lives. Identification of the barriers of e-waste
management and mutual relationship among them must be given
special focus. This can serve as an important insight for policy mak-
ers or decision makers to successfully implement e-waste man-
agement. Previous studies on e-waste management have focused
on life cycle assessment of the waste, and little attention is given
39
for analyzing these barriers independently. The sole objective of
this study is to determine the structure and the interdependence
among the identified barriers of e-waste management by using the
hybrid ISM-DEMATEL approach and to finally draw the managerial
implication.
2.3. A theoretical model for e-waste management implementation
barriers
In the last few decades, it has been observed that the growth
in world’s population and the changing trends of electronic goods
have increased the demand and supply of the electronic items such
as mobiles, TVs, computers, music gadgets, etc. The scenario is also
same in India; however, environmental consciousness has become
a more pertinent issue in India. Therefore, the concentration and
attention of all stakeholders is crucial for building environmentally
sound process for e-waste management. The loss of valuable rare
metals, eco-environment, and legislative justification has raised
the need of an effective e-waste management in the developing
nations (Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Wath et al., 2010; Bhutta et al.,
2011; Chauhan et al., 2016; Garlapati, 2016). The implementation
of e-waste management in India was quite challenging because of
consumers’ lack of awareness about e-waste recycling, less knowl-
edge about environmental protection, lack of policies and regu-
lation defined e-waste and price sensitive market. Additionally,
the formal e-waste recycling and handling were often considered
as cost centric and were mostly practiced in an informal manner
(Jindal and Sangwan, 2011). The successful implementation of
e-waste management is possible only if these practices have eco-
nomic and social viability and support along with the coordina-
tion from various stakeholders and government. Legal policies
and regulations are considered as the most effective instrument
for the successful implementation of e-waste management but
are not greeted well by electronic industries (Ravi and Shankar,
2014). The current Indian e-waste handling law is ambiguous,
and the legal framework is vaguely defined (Dutta et al., 2006).
The delay of proper framework and legislation as well as the
illegal transboundary movement of e-waste from developed nation
have made it difficult to implement e-waste management prac-
tices in India (Hung Lau and Wang, 2009; Dwivedy and Mittal,
2010; Godfrey et al., 2013). Therefore, it was much desirable that
the policy makers and various stakeholders develop an effective
strategy for e-waste management through proper disposal and
by controlling the growth in the informal sector (Srivastava and
Sharma, 2015). One of the major challenges faced while practicing
environmentally sound management is the less supportive tax
subsidies and economic benefits for the unorganized sector as
well as less coordination among the supply chain partners. Hence,
there would be a need to redesign the framework for tax subsidies
policies (Wath et al., 2010). Less advanced technology system, in-
adequate infrastructure, and lack of green practices are key issues
that need to be addressed for the adoption of e-waste manage-
ment (Kumar et al., 2017). Lack of adequate technology system for
monitoring the return and lack of collaboration with third-party
logistics partners are the crucial barriers behind the adoption of
e-waste management in the Indian context (Ravi and Shankar,
2005). Hence, there is an urgent need to explore and identify the
responsible barriers that hinder the implementation of e-waste
management and to determine the mutual relationship among
them. From the literature review, some of the barriers obstructing
the implementation of e-waste management in the Indian con-
text have been identified. We conducted a workshop in which
different experts from electronic industries, NGO, waste recycling
experts, academician, and policy makers were invited. After the
brainstorming session with experts and the different stakeholders
directly involved in the waste management problem, ten relevant
40 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52

Table 2
List of various researcher by making use of hybrid ISM-DEMATEL approach.
S. No. Authors ISM DEMATEL Contribution
√ √
1 dos Muchangos et al. (2015) Analyzed the structure of barriers to municipal solid waste
management
√ √
2 Hou and Zhou (2011) Investigated the influence of factors of distributed energy system

√ √
3 Chuang et al. (2013) Investigated the complex multidimensional and dynamic nature of
member engagement in sustainable ecotourism
√ √
4 Mehregan et al. (2014) Evaluated the interaction among selection criteria for sustainable
supplier
√ √
5 Wu et al. (2010) Analyzed the influencing factors on expressway work zone
√ √
6 Xiao-yan (2011) Analyzed the causal relationship among the factors influencing
qualitative education system
√ √
7 Su et al. (2011) Investigated the impact of factors on mine safety management
√ √
8 Song et al. (2015) Established a structural model of social risk causes of rail transit
construction
√ √
9 Bag (2017) Investigated the intensity of influence of green procurement drivers

√ √
10 Lin et al. (2012) Analyzed the hierarchical structure of factors influencing co-opetition
of petroleum firms
√ √
11 Wang et al. (2018) Analyzed the factors influencing the safety in coal mine production

√ √
12 Ashtianipour and Zandhessami (2015) Evaluated the impact of technological innovation capabilities on the
competitiveness of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs)
√ √
13 Safdari Ranjbar et al. (2014) Established integrated hybrid model to analyze the interactions among
intra-organizational factors effective in successful strategy
implementation

barriers were identified. The barriers related to the implemen-
tation of e-waste management in the Indian context are lack of
public awareness about e-waste recycling, non-adoption of Basel
ban amendment, lack of policies and regulation addressing the e-
waste problem, lack of knowledge sharing among firms for green
recycling practices, lack of extended producer responsibility (EPR)
approaches, lack of funds for e-waste recycling practices, lack of
CSR initiatives, growing informal sector, lack of implementation
of green practices in designing electronic product, and inadequate
infrastructure. These barriers are explained in detail in the table
below (see Table 3).
3. Solution methodology
The ISM and DEMATEL have lot of similarities such as both
investigate the cause and effect relationship among multiple crite-
ria. The main advantage of the integrated ISM-DEMATEL method
is significant, because both ISM and DEMATEL methods are ef-
fective and powerful tool that assists the decision making group.
The methodological procedure for the ISM method can fill the
comparison matrix by binary numbers such as (0, 1) among the
barriers to investigate the causal relationship, whereas, the DE-
MATEL method can use more options such as (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4)
among the barriers to investigate the cause–effect interrelation-
ship. Till date, the published studies on integrated ISM-DEMATEL
methodology are few, particularly in the e-waste management
domain. There are some accountable examples for the integrated
approach; Chuang et al. (2013) suggested that the integrated ISM-
DEMATEL method provides the relationship among the criteria in
the most convenient way. Hou and Zhou (2011) used the integrated
ISM-DEMATEL methodology to study the influence of distributed
energy system factors. Wu et al. (2010) employed the integrated
ISM-DEMATEL methodology for investigating the safety factors on
expressway work region. De-Qun and Ling (2008) used the hybrid
ISM-DEMATEL method to establish a hierarchal structure in the
complex system. Therefore, to obtain valuable results, a combina-
tion of ISM and DEMATEL method has been employed in this study.
Finally, the results of both the methods have been compared to
determine the most influential barriers in the implementation of e-
waste management in India. The detailed explanation of both ISM
and DEMATEL methodologies is given in the next section.
3.1. ISM
ISM methodology was formulated as a mediating channel for
complicated problems among the barriers (Warfield, 1974; Sage,
1977). Fig. 1 represents the solution methodology followed in this
research. ISM has been widely used in operation research and
management problems (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994; Ravi and
Shankar, 2005; Kannan and Haq, 2007; Govindan et al., 2010;
Diabat and Govindan, 2011; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Patil and
Warkhedkar, 2016). Some examples include a study of Liao and
Chiu (2011), where ISM is employed to understand the interaction
among the problems of municipal solid waste management. Singh
and Kant (2008) applied ISM methodology to evaluate the knowl-
edge management barriers for developing the relationship among
them.
The ISM methodology has several steps as follows:
Step 1: Ten different barriers are considered for the system to be
used.
Step 2: A contextual relationship is established among the barriers
depending on the sole objective of the study.
Step 3: Construction of a structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM)
in four ways depending on the interrelationship among the barriers
‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’.
Step 4: Developing the reachability matrix from the SSIM matrix
and checking it for transitivity. The transitivity of the interrelation
among the barriers is a basic assumption in the ISM model. The
transitivity principle states that if barrier A is linked to barrier B and
barrier B is linked to barrier C, then barrier A is inevitably linked to
barrier C.
 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52 41

Table 3
Barriers for adoption e-waste management.
Barrier code Barriers Barriers description Supporting references
B1 Lack of public awareness for Most of the time general public is not aware Min and Galle, 2001; Hung Lau and Wang,
e-waste recycling of policies and guidelines for e-waste 2009; Nnorom et al., 2009; Godfrey et al.,
recycling of their products which leads to 2013; Welfens et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2016
informal recycling of these products which
causes harmful impacts on environment.
B2 Lack of polices and regulation Delay in law enforcement is one the major Chaturvedi et al., 2007; Srinivasan and
addressing e-waste problem setback for India to manage e-waste and has Bhambri, 2009; Wath et al., 2010; Rajesh,
no particular law addressing the e-waste 2011
issues and problems.
B3 Non-adoption of Basel Ban Basel ban amendment is a global agreement Tong and Wang, 2004; Hicks et al., 2005;
Amendment framed for eliminating the transboundary Selin and VanDeveer, 2006; Robinson, 2009;
movement of toxic and hazardous waste; Bisschop, 2012; Zhang et al., 2012
especially minimize the movement of
hazardous waste from developed to
developing nations.
B4 Growing informal sector Growing informal sector becomes one of the Medina, 2000; Williams et al., 2008;
major hurdles for e-waste management. Due WorldBank, 2010; Chi et al., 2011
to improper way of e-waste recycling arise
lot of environmental implication and health
hazard for workers those are directly
involved in recycling activities.
B5 Lack of implementation of green The goal of green design practices is to reduce Tojo, 2001; Gottberg et al., 2006; Van Rossem
practices in design of electronic the environmental impact of the usage of et al., 2006; Ravi and Shankar, 2014
product electronic goods. Eliminate or reduce product
packaging requirement.
B6 Lack of funds for e-waste recycling Funds are very important to manage e-waste. Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Shi et al., 2008;
practices Due to lack of financial support no proper Chauhan et al., just-in press
training and testing for restriction on
hazardous substances and e-waste recycling
startups.
B7 Lack of CSR initiatives Organization can spent minimal profits and Sinha-Khetriwal et al., 2005; Thiel et al.,
work toward sustainability by recycling their 2009; Mudgal et al., 2010; Mulliner et al.,
waste in an environmental friendly way. 2013
B8 Lack of knowledge sharing Lack of knowledge sharing between formal Expert input
between firms for green recycling and informal recycling sector to handle and
practices evolve effective e-waste practices.
B9 Inadequate infrastructure E-waste management practices are hampered Hung Lau and Wang, 2009; Wath et al., 2010;
due to lack of updated technologies for Kumar et al., 2016, 2017
recycling, lack of collection and storage
center and effective transport facilities.
B10 Lack of Extended Producer In this approach manufacturer and producer Manomaivibool, 2009; Wath et al., 2010;
Responsibility (EPR) approaches can take the whole responsibility of end of Zhao et al., 2010; Manomaivibool and
life (EOL) of the electronic item or product Vassanadumrongdee, 2011; Kiddee et al.,
including collection, recycling activity and 2013; Garlapati, 2016
disposal of e-waste.

Step 5: The level partition is done with the help of the obtained
reachability matrix.
Step 6: Based on the partition level, a resultant graph is generated
and the transitive links are removed by taking into account the
transitivity’s rule.
Step 7: The final digraph is converted into an ISM hierarchical
structure by replacing the barrier nodes with statements.
3.2. DEMATEL
DEMATEL method was developed by the Geneva research
centre of the Battelle Memorial Institute between 1972 and
1976. The DEMATEL is a mathematical method, which can
be used to analyze the causal interdependence and associa-
tion among the dimensions in complex management problem
to resolve the issue efficiently (Tzeng et al., 2007). DEMA-
TEL method recognizes the interaction among the barriers by
categorizing them into cause and effect group and contribut-
ing to the identification of feasible solutions in a hierar-
chical structured manner (Hsu et al., 2013; Lin, 2013; Wu,
2008). The DEMATEL method is summarized in the following
steps:
Step 1: Establish an initial direct-relation matrix (A): In this step,
each experts were asked to rate the barriers and to form a pairwise
matrix on the basis of the comparison scale. The scale designed
has five levels: ‘‘0 (No influence), 1 (Very low influence), 2 (Low
influence), 3 (High influence), 4 (Very high influence)’’. The initial
data can be obtained as the pairwise matrix, that is, (n × n) non-
negative matrix can be established as X k = [xkij ]. To incorporate
all the responses from H respondent, the initial or average direct
relation matrix ‘aij ’ is developed by using Eq. (1) as follows:
H
1 ∑
aij = xkij (1)
H
K =1
where, K = number of respondent with 1 ≤ ik ≤ H
N = number of barriers criteria.
Step 2: Composition of the normalized direct-relation matrix (D):
The normalization of direct relation matrix is carried out in this
step through Eq. (2):
D = A × λ,
42 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52

Fig. 1. The framework for proposed research methodology.

[ ]
1 1 group and effect group. Generally, if (ri − cj ) is positive, then the cri-
λ = Min ∑n , ∑n . (2) teria are grouped under the cause group, but if (ri − cj ) is negative,
max j=1 aij max i=1 aij
then the criteria are grouped under the effect group (Tseng, 2009).
Step 3: Computing the total relation matrix (T ): The total relation 4. Application of proposed framework
matrix (T ) is computed by using Eq. (3).
This section introduces the study plan, which included research
T = D(I − D)−1 (3)
design, data collection, and data analysis by using the hybrid ISM
where, ‘I’ represents the identity matrix. and DEMATEL methodologies.
Step 4: Compute prominence (r + c) and relation (r − c) value for
4.1. Research design
each barrier using Eqs. (4) and (5).
n The member of environmental protection, policy makers, and
∑
rsum = [ tab ]n×1 (4) various stakeholders exert a multi-function dynamic, complex
b=1 decision making, multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) is em-
∑n ployed to gain insights when concerned with the relationships.
csum =[ tab ]1×n . (5) This study employs the ISM and DEMATEL methods for solving
a=1 real-life applications of MCDM problems, which provide a com-
plete understanding of the procedures of MCDM tools. Fig. 1 shows
Step 5: Developing a causal diagram: The sum of rows [ri ]n×1 and a flowchart of our proposed research methodology in the study.
sum of columns [cj ]1×n represent the vectors of the total relation
matrix, respectively. Subsequently, the horizontal axis vector (ri + 4.2. Data collection
cj ) named as ‘‘Prominence’’ exhibits the overall effect contributed
and experienced by barrier ‘i’. Similarly, the vertical axis vector In this study, the field survey has been conducted in major cities
(ri − cj ) named as ‘‘Relation’’ may be divided by factors ‘i’ into cause such as Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Pune, and Bangalore to have an
 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52 43

Table 4
SSIM for barriers to implement e-waste management.
Barriers code B10 B9 B8 B7 B6 B5 B4 B3 B2 B1
B1 V V V V V V V V A
B2 V V V O V V V V
B3 O O V A V A V
B4 V A O V V V
B5 A O A O O
B6 A O A O
B7 O O V
B8 O O
B9 O
B10

Table 5
Initial reachability matrix.
Barriers code B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10
B1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
B2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
B3 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
B4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
B5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
B6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
B7 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
B8 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
B9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
B10 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

in-depth understanding of the e-waste disposal and management
system in India. The solution methodology uses experts’ opinion
with the help of various management and scientific techniques
such as brainstorming, interviews, etc., for the development of
interrelation matrix among the barriers. In this study, a total of 10
experts participated, which include three experts from electronic
industries, three experts from waste recycling firms, one from non-
governmental organization (NGO), two government experts from
Central pollution control board (CPCB), and one from academia.
All of the experts have an average of 10 years of experience in
waste management domain. For analyzing the barriers, experts
were asked to rate the barriers. Based on the experts’ rating, the
judgment matrix between the barriers is developed.
4.3. ISM analysis
4.3.1. Development of Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM)
In developing Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM), the fol-
lowing four symbols have been employed to refer to the direction
of relationship between the two barriers, A and B.
V—Barrier A will facilitate to attain Barrier B;
A—Barrier B will facilitate to attain Barrier A;
X—Barriers A and B will facilitate to attain each other;
O—Barriers A and B have no relation.
SSIM matrix has been developed on the basis of mutual rela-
tionship among the barriers. The SSIM matrix is discussed with
stakeholders and experts. On the basis of their responses, barrier
‘‘B1’’ (i.e., lacks of public awareness about e-waste recycling) leads
to barrier ‘‘B7’’ (i.e., lack of CSR initiatives) and is denoted by
the symbol ‘V’. Barrier ‘‘B5’’ (i.e., lack of implementation of green
practices in designing electronic product) will help barrier ‘‘B3’’
(i.e., lack of policies and regulation addressing e-waste problem)
the desired goal, so symbol ‘A’ is allocated. Further, barrier ‘‘B8’’
(i.e., lack of knowledge sharing between firms for green recycling
practices) and barrier ‘‘B2’’ (i.e., .on-adoption of Basel Ban Amend-
ment) are unrelated and denoted by symbol ‘O’ and so on (refer
Table 4).
4.3.2. Reachability matrix
In this step, the SSIM matrix is converted into an initial reacha-
bility matrix by replacing V, A, X, O with binary digits (0’s and 1’s)
as per the requirement of the study. The replacement is done by
following the rules mentioned below:
• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM matrix is denoted by symbol V,
then the (i, j) entry in the initial reachability matrix becomes
‘‘1’’ and the (j, i) cell entry becomes ‘‘0’’.
• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM matrix is denoted by A, then the
(i, j) entry in the initial reachability matrix becomes ‘‘0’’ and
the (j, i) cell entry becomes ‘‘1’’.
• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM matrix is denoted by X, then the
(i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes ‘‘1’’ and the (j,
i) cell entry becomes ‘‘1’’.
• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM matrix is denoted by O, then the
(i, j) entry in the initial reachability matrix becomes ‘‘0’’ and
the (j, i) cell entry becomes ‘‘0’’.
Based on this replacement, the initial reachability matrix for
barriers is developed and represented in Table 5. After the initial
reachability matrix, final reachability is derived by incorporating
the transitivity in the matrix through consideration of the transi-
tivity rule, which proposes that if barrier ‘‘A’’ is associated to barrier
‘‘B’’ and barrier ‘‘B’’ is associated to barrier ‘‘C’’ then barrier ‘‘A’’ is in-
evitably associated to barrier ‘‘C’’. Table 6 contains the dependence
power (represented by column) and driving power (represented
by row) of each barrier. The calculation of dependence power and
driving barriers is based on the final reachability matrix. The final
reachability matrix is further used for level partitioning of the
barriers for building ISM hierarchical structure, while both driving
and dependence power of the barrier is used to help in conducting
the MICMAC analysis.
4.3.3. Level partitions
The reachability and antecedent set for each barrier is deter-
mined from the final reachability matrix based on the suggestions
of Warfield (1974). The reachability set for a particular barrier
consists of the barrier itself and other barrier, which it may help
to achieve. The antecedent set consists of the barrier itself and the
other barriers, which may help in achieving them. After finding
44 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52

Table 6
Final reachability matrix.
Barriers code B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 Driving power Rank
B1 1 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 I
B2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 10 I
B3 0 0 1 1 1* 1 0 1 0 1* 6 IV
B4 0 1* 1* 1 1 1 1 1* 0 1 8 II
B5 0 1* 1 0 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 0 7 III
B6 0 0 0 1* 0 1 0 1* 1* 1* 5 V
B7 0 1* 1 1* 1* 0 1 1 0 1* 7 III
B8 0 0 1* 1* 1 1 1* 1 1* 0 7 III
B9 0 0 1* 1 1* 1* 0 1* 1 1* 7 III
B10 0 1* 0 1* 1 1 1* 0 0 1 6 IV
Dependence power 2 6 8 9 9 9 7 9 6 8
1* entry included to incorporate transitivity.

Table 7
Priority level of barriers Iteration-I.
Barriers code Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
B1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2 1,2
B2 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,4,5,7,10 1,2,4,5,7,10
B3 3,4,5,6,8,10 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9 3,4,5,8
B4 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10 2,3,4,6,7,8,10
B5 2,3,5,6,8,9 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 2,3,5,8,9
B6 4,6,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10 4,6,8,9,10 I
B7 2,3,4,5,7,8,10 1,2,4,5,7,8,10 2,3,4,7,8,10
B8 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 I
B9 3,4,5,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 5,9
B10 2,4,5,6,7,10 1,2,3,4,6,7,9,10 2,4,6,7,10

the reachability and antecedent set, the intersections of both these
sets are obtained for each barrier. The barrier for which both the
reachability set and the intersection set are found identical is con-
sidered to be in level-I and is given the position of top barrier in the
hierarchy of the ISM model (Kannan and Haq, 2007). After level-
I achieved, iteration 1 is completed and the barriers involved in
forming the level-I are removed from the remaining other barriers.
Similarly, iterations are continued for determining the levels of
each barriers.
From Table 7, it is observed that lack of funds for e-waste
recycling practices (B6) and lack of knowledge sharing between
firms for green recycling practices (B8) are placed at level-I in the
ISM based hierarchal model.
Table 8 implies that the barrier ‘‘B5’’ (i.e., Lack of implementa-
tion of green practices in design of electronic product) is positioned
at level-II in the ISM hierarchy. Barrier ‘‘B4’’ (i.e., growing informal
sector) and barrier ‘‘B10’’ (i.e. lack of extended producer respon-
sibility approaches) are placed at level-III; barrier ‘‘3’’ (i.e., non-
adoption of Basel Ban amendment) and barrier ‘‘B9’’ (i.e., Inade-
quate infrastructure) are placed at level-IV; barrier ‘‘B2’’ (i.e., lack
of policies and regulation addressing e-waste problem) and barrier
‘‘B7’’ (i.e., lack of corporate social responsibility initiatives) are
placed at level-V and barrier ‘‘B1’’ (i.e., lack of public awareness
about e-waste recycling) is placed at level-VI (refer Tables 8–12).
The final iteration level of each barrier is given in Table 13.
4.3.4. Building ISM model
From the final level of partition (Table 13), the hierarchical
structure model is generated and is given in Fig. 2. The repre-
sentation of interdependence between the barriers ‘‘j’’ and ‘‘i’’ is
indicated by an arrow pointing from ‘‘i’’ and ‘‘j’’. The resulting
graph known as digraph is finally converted into the ISM model.
The transitivity is eliminated by taking into consideration the
transitivity rule as reported in the ISM methodology. To illustrate,
from Table 13, it is clearly evident that lack of funds for e-waste
recycling practices (B6) and lack of knowledge sharing between
firms for green recycling practices (B8) are found at level-1 in the
ISM hierarchy model. From Fig. 2, it is seen that lack of public
awareness about e-waste recycling (B1) is positioned at the rock
bottom level in the ISM model based on its high driving power and
weak dependence in the ISM structure. The detailed ISM model for
all barriers is shown in Fig. 2.
4.4. MICMAC analysis
The MICMAC (Cross-Impact Matrix Multiplication Applied to
the Classification analysis) principle is based on multiplication
properties of matrices (Sharma and Gupta, 1995). The main ob-
jective is to analyze the driving power and dependence power
of the identified barrier with the help of MICMAC analysis. In
this research study, the barriers are categorized into four sec-
tors. The following four categories are autonomous barrier, dom-
inated/dependent barrier, relay/linkage barrier, and independent
barrier. From Table 6, the driving power and dependence power
for each of the barrier are estimated. The barriers under sector-I
have weak driving and dependence power, hence are known as
autonomous barriers. These autonomous barriers are not linked
with the overall system. The barriers under sector-II have high
dependence power but low driving power, hence are considered
as dependent barriers. In sector-III, barriers have high dependence
and driving power, so these barriers are considered as linkage
barriers. Barriers that have high driving power but low depen-
dence power come under sector-IV and are called independent
barrier (Raghuvanshi et al., 2017). The driving and dependence
power diagram constructed on the basis of MICMAC analysis is
shown in Fig. 3.
• Sector-I: Autonomous barriers have weak driving and de-
pendence power. These barriers have no link with the over-
all system because of their weak linkage with the other bar-
riers or owing to their zero influence on the entire system.
Based on Fig. 3, no autonomous barriers are present in this
study. An empty sector of autonomous barrier group sug-
gests that all identified barriers are significantly influencing
or hindering the implementation of e-waste management.
 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52 45

Table 8
Priority level of barriers Iteration-II.
Barriers code Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
B1 1,2,3,4,5,7,9,10 1,2 1,2
B2 1,2,3,4,5,7,9,10 1,2,4,5,7,10 1,2,4,5,7,10
B3 3,4,5,10 1,2,3,4,5,7,9 3,4,5
B4 2,3,4,5,7,10 1,2,3,4,7,9,10 2,3,4,7,10
B5 2,3,5,9 1,2,3,4,5,7,9,10 2,3,5,9 II
B7 2,3,4,5,7,10 1,2,4,5,7,10 2,3,4,7,10
B9 3,4,5,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,7,9 3,5,9
B10 2,4,5,7,10 1,2,3,4,7,9,10 2,4,7,10

Table 9
Priority level of barriers Iteration-III.
Barriers code Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
B1 1,2,3,4,7,9,10 1,2 1,2
B2 1,2,3,4,7,9,10 1,2,4,7,10 1,2,4,7,10
B3 3,4,10 1,2,3,4,7,9 3,4
B4 2,3,4,7,10 1,2,3,4,7,9,10 2,3,4,7,10 III
B7 2,3,4,7,10 1,2,4,7,10 2,4,7,10
B9 3,4,9,10 1,2,3,4,7,9 3,9
B10 2,4,7,10 1,2,3,4,7,9,10 2,4,7,10 III

Table 10
Priority level of barriers Iteration-IV.
Barriers code Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
B1 1,2,3,7,9 1,2 1,2
B2 1,2,3,7,9 1,2,7 1,2,7
B3 3 1,2,3,7,9 3 IV
B7 2,3,7 1,2,7 2,7
B9 3,9 1,2,3,7,9 3,9 IV

Table 11
Priority level of barriers Iteration-V.
Barriers code Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
B1 1,2,7 1,2 1,2
B2 1,2,7 1,2,7 1,2,7 V
B7 2,7 1,2,7 2,7 V

Table 12
Priority level of barriers Iteration-VI.
Barriers code Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
B1 1 1 1 VI

Table 13
Final iteration-level partition of barriers.
Barrier code Barriers Level
B1 Lack of public awareness for e-waste recycling VI
B2 Lack of polices and regulation addressing e-waste problem V
B3 Non-adoption of Basel Ban amendment IV
B4 Growing Informal sector III
B5 Lack of implementation of green practices in design of electronic product II
B6 Lack of funds for e-waste recycling practices I
B7 Lack of CSR initiatives V
B8 Lack of knowledge sharing between firms for green recycling practices I
B9 Poor infrastructure IV
B10 Lack of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approaches III

• Sector-II: Dependent barriers with very weak driving power
are the ones that are influenced by the independent barriers.
In this study, two barriers lack of funds for e-waste recycling
practices (B6) and lack of CSR initiatives (B7) are observed to
have strong dependence but weak driving power. These bar-
riers are unfavorable and need special attention to handle.
• Sector-III: The relay or linkage barriers have strong driving
as well as dependence power in the MICMAC analysis. In
this study, barriers such as lack of polices and regulation
addressing the e-waste problem (B2), non-adoption of Basel
ban amendment (B3), growing informal sector (B4), lack of
implementation of green practices in designing electronic
product (B5), lack of knowledge sharing among firms for
green recycling practices (B8) and poor infrastructure (B9)
and Lack of EPR approaches (B10). These barriers are un-
stable in nature, so any action taken on these barriers will
affect other barriers, and may also have closed loop impact
on them.
• Sector-IV: Independent barriers have strong driving power
and weak dependence power in the MICMAC analysis. In this
46 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52
Fig. 2. ISM based model of e-waste management barriers.
study, lack of public awareness about e-waste recycling (B1)
falls under this category and is treated as a key barrier. With
having strong driving power and weak dependence power,
barrier (B1) is placed at the bottom of the ISM hierarchy
model (Fig. 2). Thus, policy makers and practitioners should
tackle the barriers under this category on high priority
basis.
Fig. 3. Representation of MICMAC analysis.
4.5. DEMATEL analysis
In this section, DEMATEL method has been employed to under-
stand the cause and effect relationship among the identified bar-
riers that are relevant to the implementation of e-waste manage-
ment in India. In this methodology, the barriers are rated by experts
based on the scale of 0–4 depending upon the impact of one barrier
over the other barriers. On the basis of the experts’ response, a
pair-wise comparison matrix is constructed. The computation of
average matrix (A) is constructed from the aggregation of expert’s
response pair-wise matrix as shown in Table 14. Subsequently, the
normalized initial direct-relationship matrix is computed by using
Eq. (2). The value of each barrier in normalized direct relationship
matrix lies between 0 to 1 (see Table 15).
In the next step, the total relationship matrix (T ) of each barrier
is computed by using the formula T = D(I − D), as shown in
Table 16. With respect to the ‘prominence’ values (i.e., r + c)
show the total effect of each critical barrier on the entire man-
agement system. Based on the (r + c) values, the preference or
relative importance order for these identified barriers is given as
non-adoption of Basel ban amendment (B3) > lack of knowledge
sharing among firms for green recycling practices (B8) > lack of
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approaches (B10) > lack of
implementation of green practices in designing electronic product
(B5) > lack of CSR initiatives (B7) > lack of public awareness for e-
waste recycling (B1) > growing informal sector (B4) > inadequate
infrastructure (B9) > lack of policies and regulation addressing e-
waste problem (B2) > lack of funds for e-waste recycling practices
(B6) as shown in Table 17. In contrast to the importance of each
barrier, non-adoption of Basel ban amendment (B3), lack of knowl-
edge sharing among firms for green recycling practices (B8) and
lack of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approaches (B10)
are ranked first, second, and third with the highest (r + c) values.
Likewise, the ‘relation’ values (i.e. r − c) are used to categorized the
barriers into cause and effect groups depending on the positive (net
cause) and negative (net receive) values attained in the total rela-
tionship matrix. Subsequent to this, we computed the threshold
value (0.5266) of the identified barriers by using the values of total
relationship matrix (Table 16). Further, according to the causal
diagram, lack of public awareness about e-waste recycling (B1),
lack of policies and regulation addressing e-waste problem (B2),
lack of implementation of green practices in designing electronic
product (B5), and lack of knowledge sharing between firms for
green recycling practices (B8) come under the cause-group and
further indicated that lack of public awareness about e-waste
recycling (B1) is considered as the most crucial barrier that has
critical impact on other barriers. Similarly, barriers (B3), (B4), (B6),
(B7), (B9), and (B10) belong to the effect-group that represents
 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52 47

Table 14
Average direct-relationship matrix (A).
Barriers code B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10
B1 0.0000 3.0000 3.5000 3.0000 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500 2.0000 1.5000 3.2500
B2 2.0000 0.0000 3.0000 4.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 2.5000 2.2500 3.0000
B3 3.7500 1.7500 0.0000 2.0000 3.2500 3.0000 3.0000 3.5000 2.7500 3.0000
B4 2.2500 2.0000 3.5000 0.0000 1.0000 1.5000 3.0000 3.7500 3.0000 3.7500
B5 3.7500 2.2500 2.0000 2.0000 0.0000 2.7500 4.0000 3.0000 4.0000 3.0000
B6 2.0000 2.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.0000 0.0000 2.0000 1.5000 3.0000 1.7500
B7 2.7500 3.0000 2.7500 4.0000 3.0000 1.0000 0.0000 2.2500 2.0000 3.5000
B8 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500 3.5000 2.2500 3.5000 3.5000 0.0000 2.7500 4.0000
B9 1.7500 1.7500 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.5000 1.7500 2.7500 0.0000 3.2500
B10 1.5000 1.5000 3.0000 2.7500 4.0000 1.7500 2.2500 2.0000 3.5000 0.0000

Table 15
Normalized direct-relationship matrix (D).
Barriers code B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10
B1 0.0000 0.1025 0.1196 0.1025 0.1111 0.1111 0.1111 0.0680 0.0510 0.1111
B2 0.0680 0.0000 0.1025 0.1367 0.1025 0.0342 0.0680 0.0854 0.0760 0.1025
B3 0.1282 0.0598 0.0000 0.0680 0.1111 0.1025 0.1025 0.1196 0.0940 0.1025
B4 0.0760 0.0680 0.1196 0.0000 0.0342 0.0510 0.1025 0.1282 0.1025 0.1282
B5 0.1282 0.0760 0.0680 0.0680 0.0000 0.0940 0.1367 0.1025 0.1367 0.1025
B6 0.0680 0.0680 0.0854 0.0680 0.0342 0.0000 0.0680 0.0510 0.1025 0.0598
B7 0.0940 0.1025 0.0940 0.1367 0.1025 0.0342 0.0000 0.0760 0.0680 0.1196
B8 0.1111 0.1111 0.1111 0.1196 0.0760 0.1196 0.1196 0.0000 0.0940 0.1367
B9 0.0598 0.0598 0.1025 0.0342 0.0680 0.1196 0.0598 0.0940 0.0000 0.1111
B10 0.0510 0.0510 0.1025 0.0940 0.1367 0.0598 0.0800 0.0680 0.1196 0.0000

Table 16
Total-relationship matrix (T ).
Barrier code B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10
B1 0.3905 0.4401 0.5512 0.5012 0.4925 0.4612 0.5200 0.4591 0.4695 0.5755
B2 0.4142 0.3105 0.4925 0.4868 0.4444 0.3601 0.4415 0.4365 0.4481 0.5226
B3 0.5085 0.4085 0.4478 0.4737 0.4954 0.4625 0.5168 0.5037 0.5078 0.5730
B4 0.4320 0.3864 0.5221 0.3788 0.4012 0.3879 0.4816 0.4824 0.4814 0.5592
B5 0.5124 0.4279 0.5197 0.4807 0.4015 0.4595 0.5499 0.4952 0.5489 0.5813
B6 0.3324 0.3036 0.3877 0.3441 0.3053 0.2529 0.3520 0.3232 0.3825 0.3869
B7 0.4562 0.4228 0.5094 0.5103 0.4669 0.3778 0.3998 0.4487 0.4628 0.5623
B8 0.5302 0.4850 0.5940 0.5596 0.5049 0.5083 0.5704 0.4371 0.5497 0.6491
B9 0.3700 0.3351 0.4500 0.3603 0.3792 0.4031 0.3928 0.4016 0.3387 0.4813
B10 0.3915 0.3510 0.4799 0.4368 0.4631 0.3765 0.4413 0.4113 0.4765 0.4166
Threshold value—0.5265

Table 17
Degree of influence.
Barriers code r +c r −c Rank
B1 9.1986 0.5230 6
B2 8.2280 0.4864 9
B3 9.8521 −0.0567 1
B4 9.0453 −0.0194 7
B5 9.3313 0.6226 4
B6 7.4204 −0.6791 10
B7 9.2830 −0.0492 5
B8 9.7872 0.9895 2
B9 8.5780 −0.7538 8
B10 9.5523 −1.0633 3

are characterized by experts. These barriers affect the effective

implementation of e-waste management in the Indian perspective.
Fig. 4. Overall degree of influence of e-waste management barriers.

4.6. Sensitivity analysis

the opposite polarity, with (r − c) values of (−0.0567), (−0.0194),
(−0.6791), (−0.0492), (−0.7538), and (−1.0633), respectively as
shown in Fig. 4. The barriers belonging to the cause-group should
be addressed immediately by the waste management policy mak-
ers to figure out the barriers under the effect-group.
With respect to the different barriers, their priority, and their
relative weight in the total relationship matrix, the listed barriers
Sensitivity analysis can be conducted in a variety of ways, either
by varying the weight given to various barriers or by varying the
weight given to a specific expert. In a study by Xia et al. (2015),
the sensitivity analysis was carried out to understand the variation
in the cause–effect relationship by varying the weight given to a
specific expert. from 1 to 4 separately to assess the robustness of
48 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52

Table 18
Varying weights of experts in sensitivity analysis.
Scenario-1 Scenario-2 Scenario-3 Scenario-4
Expert 1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
Expert 2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2
Expert 3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2
Expert 4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4

Fig. 6. Diagraph obtained on sensitivity analysis showing degree of influence among

barriers by giving highest weight for expert 2 (Scenario-2).

Fig. 5. Diagraph obtained on sensitivity analysis showing degree of influence among

barriers by giving highest weight for expert 1 (Scenario-1).

the model. Sensitivity analysis is also useful in determining any

personnel biasness of a particular expert, which may influence the
results obtained in our study. Hence, we have used the approach
of altering weights of the experts in each scenario, as presented
in Table 18 and this provides insights into the results. Finally, the
Fig. 7. Diagraph obtained on sensitivity analysis showing degree of influence among
total relationship matrices were computed for each scenario on the barriers by giving highest weight for expert 3 (Scenario-3).
basis of sensitivity analysis as displayed in Table 19. The cause–
effect relationship obtained after carrying out sensitivity analysis
is plotted in diagraphs, which is depicted in Figs. 5, 6, 7, and 8. The
results demonstrate that the prominence-causal relations, which
are consistent with the overall degree of influence, as shown in
Fig. 4. The figure shows no significant changes in the results and
confirms the robustness of the model used in this study.

5. Discussions

In this article, an attempt has been made to explore

the different barriers associated with the implementation of
e-waste management. Few research articles are available on the e-
waste management barriers, and no study can conclude the struc-
tured relationship among the barriers of e-waste management. In
this study, emphasis is given to few of the key barriers and those
barriers are included in the structured hierarchical model. Further,
Fig. 8. Diagraph obtained on sensitivity analysis showing degree of influence among
analysis of the interdependence of these barriers is carried out with barriers by giving highest weight for expert 4 (Scenario-4).
the help of ISM and DEMATEL analysis. From Fig. 2, it is evident that

Table 19
Degree of influence obtained from sensitivity analysis.
Barrier code Scenario-1 Scenario-2 Scenario-3 Scenario-4
r +c r −c Ranking r +c r −c Ranking r +c r −c Ranking r +c r −c Ranking
B1 9.0619 0.5749 6 8.8876 0.4852 4 9.2735 0.3611 6 9.0530 0.6112 5
B2 8.1472 0.3649 9 7.9702 0.3452 9 7.9846 0.2584 9 7.8158 0.3752 9
B3 9.6915 −0.0903 1 9.4726 −0.0684 2 10.1254 −0.1160 1 9.5676 0.0672 2
B4 8.7823 −0.1434 7 8.7157 −0.0663 7 8.9986 0.0356 7 8.7479 −0.0619 7
B5 9.2242 0.6174 5 8.8426 0.5824 6 9.3141 0.7939 5 9.1633 0.7855 4
B6 7.3438 −0.6461 10 7.1711 −0.5741 10 7.3565 −0.6651 10 7.3822 −0.7526 10
B7 9.2521 −0.0521 4 8.8520 −0.0758 5 9.4326 0.0908 4 8.9825 −0.0845 6
B8 9.6131 1.0352 2 9.4821 0.9721 1 9.7986 0.9938 2 9.6918 0.8796 1
B9 8.4578 −0.6753 8 8.1326 −0.6506 8 8.4986 −0.6502 8 8.4033 −0.6389 8
B10 9.4901 −0.9852 3 9.2404 −0.9496 3 9.5268 −1.1024 3 9.3360 −1.1808 3
 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52
the lack of public awareness about e-waste recycling (B1) is one of
the most influential barriers with high driving power and weak de-
pendence power; hence, this barrier is crucial for the implementa-
tion of e-waste management in the Indian context. This barrier fo-
cuses on the lack of policies and regulations related to the handling
of e-waste problem (B2) and lack of CSR initiatives (B7) toward
handling of e-waste in an ecofriendly way (Chaturvedi et al., 2007;
Wath et al., 2010; Garlapati, 2016). Lack of policies and regulation
addressing e-waste problem (B2) has strong driving power and
moderate dependence power; hence, it is also considered as an
influential barrier. Fig. 3 reveals that lack of implementation of
green practices in designing electronic product (B5) is an impera-
tive barrier in the implementation of e-waste management and has
strong driving as well as dependence power. Hence, from the ISM
analysis, it can be said that each acknowledged barrier significantly
affect the implementation procedure owing to the absence of au-
tonomous barriers. Based on the MICMAC analysis, the dependence
power and the driving power of the key barriers provide various
fruitful insights regarding their relative significance, which further
focus on the relationship among these barriers.
From the DEMATEL analysis, it is observed that lack of pub-
lic awareness about e-waste (B1), lack of policies and regula-
tion addressing e-waste problem (B2), lack of implementation
of green practices in designing electronic product (B5), and lack
of knowledge sharing among firms for green recycling practices
(B8) come under the cause-group and are considered as the most
influential barriers. The emphasis on e-waste handling policies
and public awareness enhances the understanding of the im-
portance of e-waste management. More importantly, the use of
knowledge sharing for green recycling practices strengthens the
basic concept of ecosystem conservation and sustainable devel-
opment. Lack of public awareness about e-waste recycling (B1)
and lack of policies and regulation addressing e-waste problem
(B2) are found to be the most influential barrier in both ISM and
DEMATEL methods. These influential and cause group barriers
can be considered as the root cause of dependent or affected
group barriers. Therefore, for the effective implementation of
e-waste management, the barriers that belong to the cause or
influential group should be taken into consideration on prior-
ity basis. Thus, for reducing the impact or resolving the influ-
ential barriers, decision makers must ensure that the frame-
work for determining the barriers is robust and under con-
trol. Hence, the results obtained from ISM and DEMATEL
methods are consistent to some extent. The combined ISM-
DEMATEL results not only develop the framework for the
e-waste management barriers but also determine the interrela-
tionship among these barriers.
Inadequate knowledge and poor consumer awareness about
environmental consciousness affect the implementation of e-
waste management in the Indian context (Wath et al., 2010;
Mudgal et al., 2010; Garlapati, 2016). Owing to the lack of strict
government framework in the adoption of environmental policies,
the growing informal sector and illegal trans-boundary movement
of e-waste from the developed nation are of vital concern for India
(Srinivasan and Bhambri, 2009; Chaturvedi et al., 2007; World
Bank, 2010). Indian e-waste management regulation and policies
need to be redesigned by taking into consideration the policies
of the developed nations. Therefore, consumer awareness about
e-waste needs to be increased and policies should be properly
implemented for monitoring and controlling the increase of e-
waste in future (Verma and Agrawal, 2014). There exists the ne-
cessity of ascertaining the most suitable environmentally sound
recycling and disposal options for handling e-waste containing
toxic and hazardous substances. Further, there is a need to adopt
public–private partnership (PPP) in designing policies related to
the e-waste management for developing environmentally sound
e-waste recycling process in India (Wath et al., 2010; Chauhan et
al., 2016).
49
5.1. Combination of ISM and DEMATEL
Although majority of the results obtained from the ISM and
DEMATEL overlap, in this section, we evaluated the existing dis-
crepancies. For example, barriers (B5) and (B8) are classified as
relay or linkage barrier in ISM, but in the case of DEMATEL, both
of them belong to the cause barriers. Similarly, barriers (B3) and
(B10) are categorized as affected barriers in DEMATEL, whereas
these barriers are located close to the border between relay and de-
pendent barrier groups in the ISM methodology. Again, barrier (B2)
is located close to the border between the relay and independent
barrier groups of the ISM model, whereas, in the DEMATEL analysis,
barrier (B2) has positive (r − c) value (i.e., 0.4864) and comes under
the cause group barrier. These finding suggest that barrier (B2) is
considered as relay or linkage barrier and its position in the degree
of influence diagram indicates that (B2) influenced other barriers
marginally. As previously mentioned, the barrier belonging to the
cause/influential group must be tackled on high priority basis. In
addition, no disconnected or autonomous barrier is found in the
ISM methodology.
5.2. Research implications
In India, e-waste management guidelines have progressed
along the years, particularly in the last decade because of the global
pressure of RoHS and environmental regulations. The current situ-
ation is quite far from intended e-waste management and handling
guidelines. According to the study outcomes, there are ten barriers
related to the e-waste management practices. After analyzing the
type of relationship among the barriers, it is observed that the
applied framework is worthy because it helps in providing the
clarification of the nature of the relationship among the barriers.
Finally, policy makers can design effective framework and strate-
gies for e-waste management practices based on the novel ISM-
DEMATEL results.
From the empirical analysis, the barriers are categorized into
two groups: cause/influential group and affected/dependent group
as shown in Fig. 4. The barriers categorized under cause/influential
group can highly influence the implementation of e-waste man-
agement practices and therefore require immediate attention from
policy makers. The cause group barriers consist of lack of public
awareness for e-waste recycling, lack of policies and regulation
addressing e-waste problem, lack of implementation of green prac-
tices in design of electronic product, and lack of knowledge sharing
between firms for green recycling practices; these barriers are
considered as the root cause of the dependent/affected barriers.
Thus, to eliminate the influence of the dependent/affected barriers,
the policy makers must ensure that the mechanism of resolving
the cause/influential barriers is under control. This will enable the
policy makers to avoid the discrepancies in the overall system. The
government and other stakeholders work as a team and come up
with common strategies as well as develop a robust framework
to deal with the issues related to e-waste management (Chauhan
et al., 2016). Finally, the results of this research model may pro-
vide fruitful insights for policy makers related to the designing
of flexible decision strategies for the implementation of e-waste
management practices in an environmental friendly way and to
subsequently achieve the goal of economic and social sustainabil-
ity.
6. Conclusions and limitations
Presently, e-waste management is the most complex issue
in metropolitan cities, particularly in the developing nations. To
address this issue, an e-waste management and handling policy
50 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52
is broadly used, which explicitly considers the MCDM environ-
ment. For complying with global environmental norms, there is
high demand for e-waste management. Hence, we identified ten
critical barriers that need to be evaluated; these barriers were
evaluated by framing long-term flexible decision making strategies
using ISM and DEMATEL methods. The combined ISM-DEMATEL
based methodology not only helps in converting the unclear and
poorly articulated models of systems into structural model but also
helps in establishing the inner-dependence among the barriers by
categorizing them into the cause and effect group barriers. The
proposed methodology used for solving the MCDM problems is the
construction of value functions.
Depending on the above reasons, it is noticed that the present
study focuses on overcoming these gaps. Therefore, we employed
a novel ISM-DEMATEL based model to solve a real life problem
that involves MCDM for the effective implementation of e-waste
management.
The barriers that affects the implementation of e-waste man-
agement are quite complex in nature with hierarchical structure.
The finding of the research shows that the lack of public awareness
about e-waste recycling (B1) and lack of policies and regulation ad-
dressing e-waste problem (B2) are the most influential and causal
barriers in both the ISM and DEMATEL methods. Hence, there is
the need to be more focused at the successful implementation of
e-waste management in the Indian context. The barriers under the
cause or influential group are vital and have a tendency to affect
the overall system. On the contrary, the barriers under the effect or
dependent group tend to be easily affected by cause or influential
barriers.
The present ISM-DEMATEL based model obtained from the
iterated approach plays a vital role in understanding the impact
and structure of the barriers. Further, it offers valuable insights to
the policy makers and stakeholders with more sensible portrayal
of the issue while putting forth the logical cooperation among the
barriers. Furthermore, these research implications are significant
to the Indian e-waste management system as well as other devel-
oping nations with similar context and barriers.
Despite the significance of these outcomes, the present
work still has some limitations. In the current work, the
ISM-DEMATEL methodology has been developed as an interrela-
tionship model with just ten barriers related to the implementa-
tion of e-waste management in the Indian context. This method-
ology has its own limitation, and the model is extremely reliant
upon the verdict of the proficient panel. Further, the study can
explore more barriers and validate this model statistically by using
structural equation modeling.
References
Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Banias, G., 2010. Decision support
system for the optimal location of electrical and electronic waste treatment
plants: A case study in Greece. Waste Manage. 30 (5), 870–879.
Ashtianipour, Z., Zandhessami, H., 2015. An integrated ISM-DEMATEL model for
evaluation of technological innovation capabilities’ impact on the competitive-
ness of small & medium size enterprises (SMEs). In: 2015 Portland International
Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. (PICMET), IEEE,
pp. 322–334.
Awasthi, A.K., Li, J., 2017. Management of electrical and electronic waste: A com-
parative evaluation of China and India. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 76,
434–447.
Awasthi, A.K., Zeng, X., Li, J., 2016. Relationship between e-waste recycling and
human health risk in India: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (12),
11509–11532.
Bag, S., 2017. Comparison of green procurement framework using fuzzy TISM and
fuzzy DEMATEL methods. Int. J. Procurement Manag. 10 (5), 600–638.
Bagočius, V., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., 2014. Multi-person selection of the best
wind turbine based on the multi-criteria integrated additive-multiplicative
utility function. J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 20 (4), 590–599.
Bhutta, M.K.S., Omar, A., Yang, X., 2011. Electronic waste: a growing concern in
today’s environment. Econ. Res. Int. 2011.
Bisschop, L., 2012. Is it all going to waste? Illegal transports of e-waste in a European
trade hub. Crime Law Soc. Change 58 (3), 221–249.
Chandramowli, S., Transue, M., Felder, F.A., 2011. Analysis of barriers to develop-
ment in landfill communities using interpretive structural modeling. Habitat
Int. 35 (2), 246–253.
Chaturvedi, A., Arora, R., Khatter, V., Kaur, J., 2007. E-waste Assessment in India–
Specific Focus on Delhi, MAIT-GTZ Study.
Chauhan, A., Singh, A., Jharkharia, S., 2016. An ISM and DEMATEL method approach
for the analysis of barriers of waste recycling in India. J. Air Waste Manag
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2016.1249441.
Chi, X., Streicher-Porte, M., Wang, M.Y., Reuter, M.A., 2011. Informal electronic
waste recycling: a sector review with special focus on China. Waste Manage.
31 (4), 731–742.
Chuang, H.M., Lin, C.K., Chen, D.R., Chen, Y.S., 2013. Evolving MCDM applications us-
ing hybrid expert-based ISM and DEMATEL models: an example of sustainable
ecotourism. Sci. World J. 2013.
Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Koh, S.L., Rosa, P., 2015. Recycling of WEEEs: An economic
assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev. 51, 263–272.
De-Qun, Z., Ling, Z., 2008. Establishing hierarchy structure in complex systems
based on the integration of DEMATEL and ISM. J. Manag. Sci. China 11 (2), 20–26.
Devi, B.S., Shobha, S.V., Kamble, R.K., 2004. E-waste: the hidden harm of technolog-
ical revolution.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K., 2011. An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementa-
tion of green supply chain management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (6), 659–
667.
Dimić, S., Pamučar, D., Ljubojević, S., Ðorović, B., 2016. Strategic transport manage-
ment models—the case study of an oil industry. Sustainability 8 (9), 954.
dos Muchangos, L.S., Tokai, A., Hanashima, A., 2015. Analyzing the structure of
barriers to municipal solid waste management policy planning in Maputo city,
Mozambique. Environ. Dev. 16, 76–89.
Dou, Y., Sarkis, J., 2013. A multiple stakeholder perspective on barriers to imple-
menting China RoHS regulations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 81, 92–104.
Duan, H., Wang, J., Huang, Q., 2015. Encouraging the environmentally sound man-
agement of C&D waste in China: An integrative review and research agenda.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 43, 611–620.
Dutta, S.K., Upadhyay, V.P., Sridharan, U., 2006. Environmental management of
industrial hazardous wastes in India. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 48 (2), 143.
Dwivedy, M., Mittal, R.K., 2010. Estimation of future outflows of e-waste in India.
Waste Manage. 30 (3), 483–491.
Dwivedy, M., Mittal, R.K., 2013. Willingness of residents to participate in e-waste
recycling in India. Environ. Dev. 6, 48–68.
Garlapati, V.K., 2016. E-waste in India and developed countries: Management, recy-
cling, business and biotechnological initiatives. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev. 54, 874–881.
Gigović, L., Pamučar, D., Bajić, Z., Drobnjak, S., 2017a. Application of GIS-interval
rough AHP methodology for flood hazard mapping in urban areas. Water 9 (6),
360.
Gigović, L., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., Ljubojević, S., 2017b.
Application of the GIS-DANP-MABAC multi-criteria model for selecting the
location of wind farms: A case study of Vojvodina, Serbia. Renew. Energy 103,
501–521.
Godfrey, L., Scott, D., Trois, C., 2013. Caught between the global economy and local
bureaucracy: the barriers to good waste management practice in South Africa.
Waste Manag. Res. 31 (3), 295–305.
Gottberg, A., Morris, J., Pollard, S., Mark-Herbert, C., Cook, M., 2006. Producer
responsibility, waste minimization and the WEEE Directive: Case studies in eco-
design from the European lighting sector. Sci. Total Environ. 359 (1), 38–56.
Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Noorul Haq, A., 2010. Analyzing supplier development
criteria for an automobile industry. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 110 (1), 43–62.
He, W., Li, G., Ma, X., Wang, H., Huang, J., Xu, M., Huang, C., 2006. WEEE recovery
strategies and the WEEE treatment status in China. J. Hazard. Mater. 136 (3),
502–512.
Hicks, C., Dietmar, R., Eugster, M., 2005. The recycling and disposal of electrical and
electronic waste in China—legislative and market responses. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 25 (5), 459–471.
Hou, J., Zhou, D., 2011. Study on influence factors of distributed energy system based
on DEMATEL and ISM. Int. J. Nonlinear Sci. 12 (1), 36–41.
Hsu, C.W., Kuo, T.C., Chen, S.H., Hu, A.H., 2013. Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon
management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. J.
Cleaner Prod. 56, 164–172.
Hung Lau, K., Wang, Y., 2009. Reverse logistics in the electronic industry of China: a
case study. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 14 (6), 447–465.
Janse, B., Schuur, P., de Brito, M.P., 2010. A reverse logistics diagnostic tool: the case
of the consumer electronics industry. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 47 (5–8), 495–
513.
Jindal, A., Sangwan, K.S., 2011. Development of an interpretive structural model of
barriers to reverse logistics implementation in Indian industry. In: Glocalized
Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Chicago, pp. 448–453.
 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52
Kannan, G., Haq, A.N., 2007. Analysis of interactions of criteria and sub-criteria for
the selection of supplier in the built-in-order supply chain environment. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 45 (17), 3831–3852.
Kasper, A.C., Gabriel, A.P., de Oliveira, E.L.B., de Freitas Juchneski, N.C., Veit, H.M.,
2015. Electronic waste recycling. In: Electronic Waste. Springer International
Publishing, pp. 87–127.
Kiddee, P., Naidu, R., Wong, M.H., 2013. Electronic waste management approaches:
An overview. Waste Manage. 33 (5), 1237–1250.
Konteh, F.H., 2009. Urban sanitation and health in the developing world: reminisc-
ing the nineteenth century industrial nations. Health & Place 15 (1), 69–78.
Kumar, A., Dixit, G., Prabhakar, D., 2016. Analyzing the Factors Affecting the Sus-
tainable Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM). Indian J. Sci. Technol.
9 (47).
Kumar, A., Holuszko, M., Espinosa, D.C.R., 2017. E-waste: an overview on generation,
collection, legislation and recycling practices. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122, 32–
42.
Liao, C.H., Chiu, A.S., 2011. Evaluate municipal solid waste management problems
using hierarchical framework. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 25, 353–362.
Lin, R.J., 2013. Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain manage-
ment practices. J. Cleaner Prod. 40, 32–39.
Lin, Y., Yu-jie, J., Xiao-zhong, Y., 2012. Analysis on factors influencing co-opetition
strategy of petroleum enterprises based on ISM and DEMATEL technology.
In: Oil Forum, Vol. 1. p. 009.
Liou, J.J., Tamošaitienė, J., Zavadskas, E.K., Tzeng, G.H., 2016. New hybrid COPRAS-
G MADM model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain
management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (1), 114–134.
Liu, X., Tanaka, M., Matsui, Y., 2006. Electrical and electronic waste management in
China: progress and the barriers to overcome. Waste Manag. Res. 24 (1), 92–
101.
Mandal, A., Deshmukh, S.G., 1994. Vendor selection using interpretive structural
modelling (ISM). Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 14 (6), 52–59.
Mandic, K., Bobar, V., Delibašić, B., 2015. Modeling interactions among criteria in
MCDM methods: A review. In: International Conference on Decision Support
System Technology. Springer, Cham, pp. 98–109.
Manomaivibool, P., 2009. Extended producer responsibility in a non-OECD context:
The management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in India. Resour.
Conserv. Recy. 53 (3), 136–144.
Manomaivibool, P., Vassanadumrongdee, S., 2011. Extended producer responsibil-
ity in Thailand. J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (2), 185–205.
Marshall, R.E., Farahbakhsh, K., 2013. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste
management in developing countries. Waste Manage. 33 (4), 988–1003.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A., Geng, Y., 2013. An ISM approach for
the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Cleaner
Prod. 47, 283–297.
Medina, M., 2000. Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America. Resour. Con-
serv. Recy. 31 (1), 51–69.
Mehregan, M.R., Hashemi, S.H., Karimi, A., Merikhi, B., 2014. Analysis of interactions
among sustainability supplier selection criteria using ISM and fuzzy DEMATEL.
Int. J. Appl. Decis. Sci. 7 (3), 270–294.
Menikpura, S.N.M., Santo, A., Hotta, Y., 2014. Assessing the climate co-benefits from
waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) recycling in Japan. J. Cleaner
Prod. 74, 183–190.
Milovantseva, N., Fitzpatrick, C., 2015. Barriers to electronics reuse of transboundary
e-waste shipment regulations: An evaluation based on industry experiences.
Resour. Conserv. Recy. 102, 170–177.
Min, H., Galle, W.P., 2001. Green purchasing practices of US firms. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 21 (9), 1222–1238.
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P., Raj, T., 2010. Modelling the barriers of green
supply chain practices: an Indian perspective. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 7 (1),
81–107.
Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K., Maliene, V., 2013. An assessment of sustainable housing
affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method. Omega 41 (2),
270–279.
Nisa, M., 2014. E-waste management. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2 (1), 766–768.
Nnorom, I.C., Ohakwe, J., Osibanjo, O., 2009. Survey of willingness of residents
to participate in electronic waste recycling in Nigeria–A case study of mobile
phone recycling. J. Cleaner Prod. 17 (18), 1629–1637.
Pamučar, D., Gigović, L., Bajić, Z., Janošević, M., 2017. Location selection for wind
farms using GIS multi-criteria hybrid model: An approach based on fuzzy and
rough numbers. Sustainability 9 (8), 1315.
Patil, N.Y., Warkhedkar, R.M., 2016. Knowledge management implementation in
Indian automobile ancillary industries: An interpretive structural model for
productivity. J. Model. Manag. 11 (3), 802–810.
Queiruga, D., Walther, G., Gonzalez-Benito, J., Spengler, T., 2008. Evaluation of sites
for the location of WEEE recycling plants in Spain. Waste Manage. 28 (1), 181–
190.
51
Raeesi, R., Dastrang, M., Mohammadi, S., Rasouli, E., 2013. Understanding the in-
teractions among the barriers to entrepreneurship using interpretive structural
modeling. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 8 (13), 56.
Raghuvanshi, J., Ghosh, P.K., Agrawal, R., Gupta, H., 2017.
Hierarchical structure for enhancing the innovation in the MSME sector of India.
Int. J. Bus. Excell. 13 (2), 181–199.
Rajesh, P., 2011. Manufacturers targeted by India’s e-waste laws. Chemistry World;
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/July/13071101.asp. (Accessed
on 23.05.17).
Ramesh, S., Joseph, K., 2006. Electronic waste generation and management in an
Indian city. J. Indian Assoc. Environ. Manag. 33 (2), 100–105.
Ravi, V., 2015. Analysis of interactions among barriers of eco-efficiency in electron-
ics packaging industry. J. Cleaner Prod. 101, 16–25.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., 2005. Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse
logistics. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72 (8), 1011–1029.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., 2014. Reverse logistics: insights from sectoral analysis of Indian
manufacturing industries. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 17 (2), 234–259.
Robinson, W.S., 2009. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Int. J.
Epidemiol. 38 (2), 337–341.
Safdari Ranjbar, M., Akbarpour Shirazi, M., Lashkar Blooki, M., 2014. Interaction
among intra-organizational factors effective in successful strategy execution:
An analytical view. J. Strategy Manag. 7 (2), 127–154.
Sage, A., 1977. Interpretive structural modeling: methodology for large-scale sys-
tems, 91–164.
Saphores, J.D.M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2012.
Willingness to engage in a pro-environmental behavior: An analysis of e-waste
recycling based on a national survey of US households. Resour. Conserv. Recy.
60, 49–63.
Sarkhel, P., Banerjee, S., Banerjee, S., 2016. Willingness to pay before and after
program implementation: the case of Municipal Solid Waste Management in
Bally Municipality, India. Environ. Dev. Sustainability 18 (2), 481–498.
Satapathy, S., 2017. An analysis of barriers for plastic recycling in the Indian plastic
industry. Benchmarking: Int. J. 24 (2), 415–430.
Seker, S., Zavadskas, E.K., 2017. Application of fuzzy DEMATEL method for analyzing
occupational risks on construction sites. Sustainability 9 (11), 2083.
Selin, H., VanDeveer, S.D., 2006. Raising global standards: hazardous substances and
e-waste management in the European Union. Environ.: Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev.
48 (10), 6–18.
Sharma, H.D., Gupta, A.D., 1995. The objectives of waste management in India: a
futures inquiry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 48 (3), 285–309.
Sharma, S.K., Panda, B.N., Mahapatra, S.S., Sahu, S., 2011. Analysis of barriers for
reverse logistics: an Indian perspective. Int. J. Model. Optim. 1 (2), 101.
Shi, H., Peng, S.Z., Liu, Y., Zhong, P., 2008. Barriers to the implementation of cleaner
production in Chinese SMEs: government, industry and expert stakeholders’
perspectives. J. Cleaner Prod. 16 (7), 842–852.
Shieh, J.I., Wu, H.H., Huang, K.K., 2010. A DEMATEL method in identifying key
success factors of hospital service quality. Knowl.-Based Syst. 23 (3), 277–282.
Shumon, M.R.H., Ahmed, S., Islam, M.T., 2014. Electronic waste: present status and
future perspectives of sustainable management practices in Malaysia. Environ.
Earth Sci. 72 (7), 2239–2249.
Singh, M.D., Kant, R., 2008. Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive struc-
tural modeling approach. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 3 (2), 141–150.
Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Kraeuchi, P., Schwaninger, M., 2005. A comparison of electronic
waste recycling in Switzerland and in India. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25 (5),
492–504.
Solomon, U.U., 2010. A detailed look at the three disciplines, environmental ethics,
law and education to determine which plays the most critical role in environ-
mental enhancement and protection. Environ. Dev. Sustainability 12 (6), 1069–
1080.
Song, S., Zuo, Z., Cao, Y., Wang, L., 2015. Analysis of social risk causes of rail transit
construction projects based on DEMATEL-ISM. In: ICTE 2015, pp. 1868–1875.
Srinivasan, S., Bhambri, V., 2009. Article on environmentalists seek new law on E-
waste recycling’. http://www.indiaenews.com/technology/20090605/201797.
asp. (Accessed on 28.06.17).
Srivastava, R., Sharma, D., 2015. Factors affecting e-waste management: an in-
terpretive structural modeling approach. In: 2015 Fifth International Confer-
ence on Communication Systems and Network Technologies. (CSNT), IEEE,
pp. 1307–1312.
Sthiannopkao, S., Wong, M.H., 2013. Handling e-waste in developed and develop-
ing countries: Initiatives, practices, and consequences. Sci. Total Environ. 463,
1147–1153.
Su, T.Y., Sun, Z.Q., Yang, N., 2011. The analysis of coal mine safety management
evaluation system based on the DEMATEL and ISM model. In: 2011 IEEE 18Th
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Manage-
ment. (IE&EM), IEEE, pp. 1299–1303.
52 A. Kumar, G. Dixit / Sustainable Production and Consumption 14 (2018) 36–52
Thiel, D.V., Neeli, M., Raj, S., 2009. Plastic circuit reliability and design for recycling.
In: Electronics Packaging Technology Conference, 2009. EPTC’09. 11th. IEEE,
pp. 858–862.
Tojo, N., 2001. Extended producer responsibility for electrical and electronic
equipment–approaches in Asia and Europe. In: 3rd Asia Pacific Roundtable on
Cleaner Production.
Tong, X., Wang, J., 2004. Transnational flows of e-waste and spatial patterns of
recycling in China. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 45 (8), 608–621.
Townsend, T.G., 2011. Environmental issues and management strategies for waste
electronic and electrical equipment. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 61 (6), 587–610.
Tseng, M.L., 2009. Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-making
of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environ. Monit. Assess.
156 (1), 181–197.
Tseng, M.L., 2011. Importance–performance analysis of municipal solid waste man-
agement in uncertainty. Environ. Monit. Assess. 172 (1), 171–187.
Tseng, M.L., Lin, Y.H., 2009. Application of fuzzy DEMATEL to develop a cause and
effect model of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 158 (1), 519–533.
Tseng, M.L., Lin, Y.H., 2011. Modeling a hierarchical structure of municipal solid
waste management using interpretive structural modeling. WSEAS Trans. En-
viron. Dev. 7 (11), 337–348.
Turskis, Z., Morkunaite, Z., Kutut, V., 2017. A hybrid multiple criteria evaluation
method of ranking of cultural heritage structures for renovation projects. Int.
J. Strategic Prop. Manag. 21 (3), 318–329.
Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.W., 2007. Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning
programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL.
Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (4), 1028–1044.
Van Rossem, C., Tojo, N., Lindhqvist, T., 2006. Extended producer responsibility: an
examination of its impact on innovation and greening products.
Verma, D.S., Agrawal, S., 2014. E-waste management in India: Problems and legis-
lations. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. Res. 3 (7).
Wakolbinger, T., Toyasaki, F., Nowak, T., Nagurney, A., 2014. When and for whom
would e-waste be a treasure trove? Insights from a network equilibrium model
of e-waste flows. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 154, 263–273.
Walther, G., Spengler, T., Queiruga, D., 2008. Facility location planning for treatment
of large household appliances in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 8 (4),
405–425.
Wang, L., Cao, Q., Zhou, L., 2018. Research on the influencing factors in coal mine
production safety based on the combination of DEMATEL and ISM. Saf. Sci. 103,
51–61.
Wang, W.C., Lin, Y.H., Lin, C.L., Chung, C.H., Lee, M.T., 2012. DEMATEL-based model
to improve the performance in a matrix organization. Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (5),
4978–4986.
Warfield, J.N., 1974. Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling.
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. (1), 81–87.
Wath, S.B., Vaidya, A.N., Dutt, P.S., Chakrabarti, T., 2010. A roadmap for development
of sustainable E-waste management system in India. Sci. Total Environ. 409 (1),
19–32.
Welfens, M.J., Nordmann, J., Seibt, A., 2016. Drivers and barriers to return and
recycling of mobile phones. Case studies of communication and collection
campaigns. J. Cleaner Prod. 132, 108–121.
Williams, E., Kahhat, R., Allenby, B., Kavazanjian, E., Kim, J., Xu, M., 2008.
Environmental, social, and economic implications of global reuse and recycling
of personal computers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (17), 6446–6454.
World Bank, 2010. Establishing Integrated Solid Waste Management in the Large
Cities of Pakistan Multan: Comprehensive Scope Evaluation Report.
Wu, W.W., 2008. Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined
ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 35 (3), 828–835.
Wu, K.J., Liao, C.J., Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S., 2015. Exploring decisive factors in green
supply chain practices under uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 159, 147–157.
Wu, B., Xu, H., Dai, T., 2010. Identifying Safety Factors on Expressway Work Zone
Based on DEMATEL and ISM. J. Transp. Syst. Eng. Inf. Technol. 5, 130–136.
Xiao-yan, L.I.A.N.G., 2011. Complementary of DEMATEL method and ISM method in
the education analysis system. J. Inner Mongolia Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 6,
015.
Xia, X., Govindan, K., Zhu, Q., 2015. Analyzing internal barriers for automotive parts
remanufacturers in China using grey-DEMATEL approach. J. Cleaner Prod. 87,
811–825.
Yazdani, M., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Zavadskas, E.K., 2016. New integration of
MCDM methods and QFD in the selection of green suppliers. J. Bus. Econ. Manag.
17 (6), 1097–1113.
Yeh, C.H., Xu, Y., 2013. Sustainable planning of e-waste recycling activities using
fuzzy multicriteria decision making. J. Cleaner Prod. 52, 194–204.
Yin, J., Gao, Y., Xu, H., 2014. Survey and analysis of consumers’ behavior of waste
mobile phone recycling in China. J. Cleaner Prod. 65, 517–525.
Zaccaï, E., 2008. Assessing the role of consumers in sustainable product policies.
Environ. Dev. Sustainability 10 (1), 51–67.
Zavadskas, E.K., Govindan, K., Antucheviciene, J., Turskis, Z., 2016. Hybrid multiple
criteria decision-making methods: a review of applications for sustainability
issues. Ekonomska Istraživanja 29 (1), 857–887.
Zhang, K., Schnoor, J.L., Zeng, E.Y., 2012. E-waste recycling: where does it go from
here? Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (20), 10861–10867.
Zhao, W., Leeftink, R.B., Rotter, V.S., 2010. Evaluation of the economic feasibility
for the recycling of construction and demolition waste in China—The case of
Chongqing. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 54 (6), 377–389.