Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies: Identifying the Hierarchy and Interdependence of Barriers

Abstract
The application of new, resource efficient
Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs) has
become crucial for both development and the
environment. Technology transfer is most
fundamentally complex process of learning and the
effective transfer is not possible until all the factors
related to transfer process is well understood. Present
paper aims to understand Hierarchy and inter-
relationship among barriers to the process of adoption
of environmentally sound technologies using an
interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique. The
paper will reveal how ISM supports policy planners
and implementing agencies in recognizing and
exploring interdependencies among barriers to EST.
The main findings of the paper contain the
development of Hierarchy and inter-relationship of
barriers to EST adoption with ISM model. The
identified barriers are divided into five blocks of
Hierarchy that display their inter-relationship depicting
the driving-dependence relationship. This academic
exercise of ISM model development is expected to
direct a way forward to the policy planners, makers
and implementers to leverage their resources
optimally with effective adoption of EST.
77
Keywords: Interpretive structural modeling,
Environmental Sound Technology, Barriers
Manju Singh and Abhishek Behl
Symbiosis International University, Pune, India
E-mail: manjusinghajm@gmail.com,
abhishekbehl27@gmail.com
JOURNAL OF GENERAL
MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies
Identifying the Hierarchy and Interdependence of Barriers
ISSN 2348-2869 Print
© 2014 Symbiosis Centre for Management
Studies, Noida
Journal of General Management Research, Vol. 1,
Issue 1, January 2014, pp. 77-90.

78
Journal of General Management Research
INTRODUCTION
Green Technology is increasingly seen as a
major agent of environmental management
and improvement. The “green technology”
has become a topic of growing discussion in
light of the environmental crisis. The “green
technology” is not a concept that has yet to
enjoy widespread agreement among
economists or environmentalists or an
international consensus. It is an extremely
complex concept and it is unlikely there can
be a consensus on its meaning, use and
usefulness and policy implications, in the
short term. A “green technology” gives the
impression of a technology that is
environmentally-friendly, sensitive to the
need to conserve natural resources,
minimizes pollution and emissions that
damage the environment in the production
process, and produces products and services
the existence and consumption of which do
not harm the environment.
It is against such a background that the use
of environmentally sound technologies was
recognized by the United Nations
Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) as crucial in
achieving sustainable development. Chapter
34 of Agenda 21 which deals with
environmentally sound technology stresses
the ‘need for favorable access to and transfer
of environmentally sound technologies, in
particular to developing countries, through
supportive measures that promote
technology co-operation and that should
enable transfer of necessary technological
know-how as well as building up of
economic, technical, and managerial
capabilities for the efficient use and further
development of transferred technology’.
The basic technical possibilities for making
this transition already exist. Whether these
options are adopted will depend largely on
the policies and practices as well as the
range of incentives available in these
countries to promote technological
development. In the 1990s, and particularly
with impetus from Our Common Future as
well as the results of UNCED, the world
community has recognized the importance of
technological innovation in responding to
environmental problems. This has made it
possible for the private sector, to engage in
the promotion of the sustainable
development agenda. Technological
innovation, which used to be seen largely as
a threat to the environment, now offers new
opportunities for reducing environmental
degradation and promoting sustainable
development. In the 1970s technology
transfer was seen as a potential threat to the
environment, thereby requiring regulation
and control. In the 1990s technology transfer
is being seen as a source of opportunities for
promoting sustainable development. The
challenge, therefore, is how to move from
the traditional control of technological flow
to new approaches of technology assessment
that take environmental concerns into
consideration. The transition towards greater
application of environmentally sound
technologies is being mediated mainly
through research-and-development (R&D)
activities.
The consumption of perishable natural
resources in highly sustainable manner and
release of toxic emissions has led to a great
degradation to the environment. The
pollution and degradation has also affected
environment, economy and society as a
whole (Sangwan, 2011). The rising world
population and the improving living

Journal of General Management Research 79
standards in developing countries have put
pressure on the technology industry to grow
and transform into a sustainable and green
technology which will be at par with the
efficiency and will has a low impact on the
degradation of environment parallely. There
is a strong need, particularly, in emerging
and developing economies to improve
technological performance so that there is
less pollution, less material and energy
consumption, less wastage, etc. One such
potential system is environmentally sound
technology (EST). It consists of methods and
tools to achieve sustainable technology
through process optimizations with
environmental costs in mind (IEA, 2007).
This paradigm shift to newer technology
alternatives is urgently required in emerging
countries like India to balance their
economic growth vis-a`-vis ecological
balance. The society is well aware of its
responsibility toward environment but there
are some factors that hinder the adoption of
EST (Singh, 2010).
This study aims at finding EST barriers and
developing a structural model to obtain
hierarchy and inter-relationship among these
barriers. These relationships are expected to
help in mitigating these barriers strategically
within limited resources. In this paper,
twelve barriers to EST, found from
literature, are modeled using interpretive
structural modeling (ISM) technique to
establish the hierarchy and inter-relationship
among these barriers for successful adoption
of EST.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Environment Sound Technology has
emerged as one of the most researched area
in recent past. The rational for seeking
attention not only limit to deleterious
consequences caused to Mother Nature but
also the inclusion of interest of making
environment a sustainably secure place to
live in (Alibeli and Johnson, 2009; Nyberg
and Sto, 2001; Mondejar et al., 2011;
Dasgupta et al., 2002;Uzzell and Rathzel,
2008). The ecological ecosystem has been
under constant purview of ecologist and
economist. The interests of both the set of
researchers have dwelled in making
environment a self sustainable entity.
Researches with the central theme of
environment protection has pointed out
factors like role of corporate houses,
infusion of sustainable technology, customer
usage behavior etc as some of the prime
factors for the growth and development of a
sustainably developed ecosystem.
A large number of intense researches have
been initiated in the area of sustainable
development and EST most which have
pointed out technical glitches as key issues
in the implementation. The issues also point
to policy related problems and lack of
incentives spent on developing and
implementing EST across varied boundaries.
The impetus provided by UNCED and it’s
goals have added a sense of thrust in
exploring technological innovations in
environmental sciences thereby leading to
sustainable development. Studies have also
indicated the role of private and public
sector firms to jointly venture projects to
improve efficiency and smoothen the
regulatory process while developing and
implementing EST. The innovation of
technology which was seen as a threat
towards environment has gradually shifted
its regime towards sustainable development.
The incubation of new and environmentally
safe technologies have not only tried to
replace the existing conventional

80
technologies but also attracted policy makers
to implement them across different
geographic boundaries. Studies indicate that
EST has contributed largely towards
sustainable development in the recent past
and there is a rise of a lot of industries which
have been contributing towards developing
innovative products which are environment
friendly.
The challenge which these upcoming
industries face is not limited to execution
and development of such green technologies
but to make them acceptable in the market.
The challenge becomes double folded when
the technology transfer needs to be done in a
rural area. Technology adoption studies in
rural areas have always been a challenge for
researches because of the demographic split.
Most of the studies points out literacy and
awareness as key issues while technology
diffusion is being studied. It is therefore
interesting to explore the barriers of adoption
of EST especially in a developing economy
like India.
Although all these studies were region
specific, time centric and found out barriers
at various phases of EST, none of them
focused on creating a model of relationship
among the barriers. This research paper
focuses on the issue of building the model
which can help in understanding the exact
linkage of barriers. Interpretative Structral
Modelling is one such approach of building
a model. ISM provides a framework for
delineation of a hierarchy amongst variables,
influencers or elements of any project under
consideration (Warfield 1974; Sage 1977).
This kind of modelling is seen as a useful
tool that helps logical thinking and carefully
approaching complex issues and then
communicating the results of that thinking to
others. It would thus enable the policy
makers and the implementing authorities to
understand the proper hierarchy and
dependence of each barrier on other. These
barriers to EST are identified through a
review of literature on EST barriers as
shown in Table I.
Table I: Description of Barriers of EST :
adopted from " Mittal and Sangwan 2013
Barriers Description
Budget Cost involved in buying the new technology
Uncertainty in Benefits
Uncertainty in gaining the benefits from launching and using
the new technology
Perceived Risk Risk involved while using and implementing EST
Commitment from Stakeholders
Stakeholders involvement in adopting and implementing any
particular EST
Lack of organizational resources
Limited technical and human resources affect the ability of
firms to adopt new practices like environmentally conscious
manufacturing
Lack of awareness/ information
Insufficient information about the available technology choices
and limited access to green literature or the information

diffusion
Regulatory Concerns
Insufficiency in standard and uniform laws for adopting and
developing EST.
Implementing Issues Lack of work force and taskforce to implement technology
Uncertain future legislation
Possibility of upcoming legislations with unforeseen impacts on
the huge investments on newer technologies
Trade-offs between developers
and users
Outsourcing of dirty manufacturing work to developing or
emerging markets where environmental laws are less stringent
which reduces company’s share of emissions
Lack of Peer pressure Pressure from colleagues and other relatives to use EST
Demand and Supply Trade Off Imbalance between the demand and supply tradeoff of EST
METHODOLOGY AND MODEL
DEVELOPMENT
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)
enables the individual or a group of them to
manage the interrelations between two or
more elements at a time without
compromising and deviating from the
actual properties of the original
elements/issues (Morgado et al. 1999).
Term “interpretive structural modeling”
(ISM) connotes systematic application of
elementary notions of graph theory in such a
way that theoretical, conceptual, and
computation leverage is exploited to
efficiently construct a directed graph, or
network representation, of the complex
pattern of a contextual relationship among a
set of elements (Malone 1975). ISM is much
more flexible than many conventional
quantitative modeling approaches that
require variables to be measured on ratio
scales. It offers a qualitative modeling
language for structuring complexity and
thinking on an issue by building an agreed
structural model (Morgado et al. 1999).
ISM as a tool is interpretive because it is
based on interpretation and judgment of
group members on whether and how
elements are related and it is structural as it
extracts overall hierarchy form a complex set
of variables. It has a mathematical
foundation, philosophical basis and a
conceptual and analytical structure. It
provides the means to transform unclear and
poorly articulated mental hierarchies into
visible, well-defined models for better
planning of strategies (Barve et al. 2007;
Faisal et al. 2006; Hasan et al. 2007; Kumar
et al. 2008). Unlike a conventional
questionnaire requiring respondents to
merely rate the importance of key issues,
Interpretive Structured Modeling (ISM)
forces the managers to consider various
linkages among key issues (Morgado et al.
1999).
ISM allows handling of several elemental
classes under various structural types and
varied relationships amongst those elements.
It helps in understanding of several ill-
defined elements that are related in systems
(Bolan et al. 2005). It also helps in

82
summarizing relationships among specific
items and imposing an order and direction
on the complex relationship among elements
of the system (Thakkar et al. 2007).
Details of various steps involved in ISM are
as follows
a) Identify and list elements/variables
relevant to the problem under
consideration, through a literature
review, field survey or any group
activity for the purpose.
b) Use expert opinion or group
techniques to determine contextual
relationships amongst identified
variables, in line with the objectives
of the study.
c) Develop a Structural Self Interaction
Matrix (SSIM) for variables,
indicating pair-wise relationships
among variables being studied.
d) Convert the SSIM developed into a
reachability matrix.
e) Test the reachability matrix for
transitivity (if A depends on B and B
depends on C, then by principle of
transitivity, A depends on C), make
modifications to satisfy the
transitivity requirements and derive
the final reachability matrix.
f) Delineate levels by iterative
partitioning of the final reachability
matrix.
g) Translate the relationships of
reachability matrix into a diagraph
and convert it into an ISM
(Interpretive Structural Model).
h) Review the model for conceptual
inconsistencies and make
modifications in SSIM if necessary.
i) Use the driving power and
dependency of each influencer to
map the driver-dependency grid for
better insight into interdependencies.
Structural self-interaction matrix
For development of Structural Self
interaction Matrix (SSIM) mentioned in
Table II, ISM methodology suggests that
experts’ views are used for defining
contextual relationship among variables, in
line with objectives of the study. In this
research, entire list of influencers,
barriers/hurdles identified from literature
survey was presented to a group of eighty
participants of ‘Executive MBA Program’.
Executives selected had 6~10 years of work
experience in different fields were chosen.
Group was explained the background of
study and was asked to deliberate whether
the list of barriers adequately covered all
factors influencing EST or there was a need
to include any other factor(s).
Four symbols were used to denote the type
and direction of relationship between a pair
of barriers ‘i’ and ‘j’ (referring to serial
number of a barrier in row and column
respectively).
V – barrier ‘i’ needs to be addressed before
barrier ‘j’
A – barrier ‘j’ needs to be addressed before
barrier ‘i’
X – both barriers ‘i’ and ‘j’ need to be
addressed simultaneously and
O – barriers ‘i’ and ‘j’ can be addressed
independent of each other

Table II: Structural Self Interaction Matrix (SSIM) for EST barriers : adopted from " Mittal
and Sangwan 2013
Sr.
No.
Brief Description of Barrier 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
1
Budget V V X V V X V X V V A
2
Uncertainity in Benefits
O A O V A V A V V A
3
Perceived Risk
A O V A V A V V A
4
Commitment from Stakeholders V V X V X V V A
5
Lack of organizational resources V A V A V V A
6
Lack of awareness/ information
A X A X V A
7
Regulatory Concerns
V X V V A
8
Implementing Issues A X V A
9
Uncertain future legislation
V V A
10
Trade-offs between developers and users
V A
11
Lack of Peer pressure A
12
Demand and Supply Trade Off
For enablers/drivers, the group was asked to
deliberate a reinforcing/ameliorating type of
contextual relationships amongst the factors.
For instance, the group agreed that ‘weak
legislation’ would be influenced by ‘Lack of
organizational resources’ and ‘Trade-offs’
but would not impact those factors. These
relationships are marked as “A”.
Reachability Matrix
SSIM developed from contextual
relationships were converted into binary
matrices called initial reachability matrices
as shwn in Table III, by
replacing V, A, X and O by a combination of
1s and 0s in accordance with the VAXO
rules.
If entry (i,j) in SSIM = ‘V’, enter element
(i,j) as ‘1’ and (j. i) as ‘0’ in initial
reachability matrix
If entry (i,j) in SSIM = ‘A’, enter element
reachability matrix
If entry (i,j) in SSIM = ‘X’, enter element
reachability matrix
If entry (i,j) in SSIM = ‘O’, enter element
reachability matrix

84
Table III: Initial reachability matrix for EST barriers: adopted from " Mittal and Sangwan
2013
Sr.
No.
Brief Description of Barrier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Budget 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
2 Uncertainity in Benefits 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
3 Perceived Risk 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
4 Commitment from Stakeholders 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
5 Lack of organizational resources 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
6 Lack of awareness/ information 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
7 Regulatory Concerns 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
8 Implementing Issues 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
9 Uncertain future legislation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
10 Trade-offs between developers & users 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
11 Lack of Peer pressure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
12 Demand and Supply Trade Off 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Final reachability matrix was then obtained
for barriers (Table IV) by incorporating the
changes necessary to satisfy transitivity
requirements detailed in step 5 of Structural
modeling methodology. Driving power is
defined as total number of variables, which it
impacts including itself (equals the count of
1’s in a row) and dependency is total number
of variables, which have an impact on it
including itself (equals the count of 1’s in a
column).
Table IV: Final reachability matrix for m-banking barriers/hurdles: adopted from " Mittal
and Sangwan 2013
Sr.
No.
Brief Description of Barrier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Driving
Power
1 Budget
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11
2 Uncertainity in Benefits
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 5
3 Perceived Risk
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 5
4 Commitment from Stakeholders
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11

5 Lack of organizational resources
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 5
6 Lack of awareness/ information
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 4
7 Regulatory Concerns
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11
8 Implementing Issues
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 4
9 Uncertain future legislation
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11
10
Trade-offs between developers
and users 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 4
11 Lack of Peer pressure
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
12 Demand and Supply Trade Off
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
Dependency 5 6 6 5 6 11 5 11 5 11 12 1 84
Level partitions and ISM Modelling
Final reachability matrix obtained after
incorporating transitivity requirements is
used for level partitioning. It involves
comparing the ‘recahability’ and
‘antecedent’ sets of variables and delineating
levels on the basis of intersection sets. It
leads to a reachability set for a variable by
considering the variable itself and other set
of variables that causes an impact, whereas
antecedent set comprises of the variable and
a set of all those variables that have an
impact on the primary variable. The
hierarchy in ISM is decided by the level of
similarity in reachability and intersection
sets (Table V). These variables would not
impact any other variables
Table V: Matrix of Reachability and Intersection Set: adopted from " Mittal and Sangwan
2013
Iteration Barrier
Reachability
set
Antecedent set
Interaction
set
Level
1 11 11 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 11 V
2 6 6,8,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 6,8,10 IV
2 8 6,8,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 6,8,10 IV
2 10 6,8,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 6,8,10 IV
3 2 2 1,2,4,7,9,12 2 III
3 3 3 1,3,4,7,9,12 3 III
3 5 5 1,4,5,7,9,12 5 III
4 1 1,4,7,9 1,4,7,9,12 1,4,7,9 II
4 4 1,4,7,9 1,4,7,9,12 1,4,7,9 II
4 7 1,4,7,9 1,4,7,9,12 1,4,7,9 II
4 9 1,4,7,9 1,4,7,9,12 1,4,7,9 II

86
5 12 1,4,7,9,12 12 12 I
Figure 1: Hierarchy of Barriers of EST: adopted from " Mittal and Sangwan 2013
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The developed ISM model consists of five
levels of hierarchy as shown in Fig 1. The
base level comprises of Lack of information
and appropriate awareness among public and
government agencies. It showcases that
awareness plays a key role in problem
solving. It indirectly affects four further
levels. The next level of the pyramid then
comprises of top management commitment,
pressures from the peers, demand of the
technology by the customers and structure of
the legislation who implements these
technologies. These four parameters strongly
point out a public private mismatch in terms
of expectations and deliverables. These
barriers also point out the imbalance
between land and lab ie. whether the
technology generated is useful for the target
audience or not. The feasibility of the
technology and the usefulness has been a
mismatch at this level of pyramid. Strangely
these barriers have a weak dependency and a
strong driving power. The inter-relationship
between the two levels can be understood by
the fact that Scarcity of general awareness
enhances pressure from the public to demand
for the right technology required for them.
The lethargic approach by the end users give
a chance to the government officials to
produce and deliver the technologies in
whatever form they have built. This
indirectly causes a mismatch between the
expectations and usefulness of the currently
available EST in the market. The next upper

level of the pyramid consists of three more
levels named escalated short-term cost, low
level of enforcement, and uncertainaity of
legislation in the future. Short Term Costs
involved in switching from the
contemporary technology to the newer set of
technology are generally high and usually
the officials do not like to invest in this
transition. The uncertainity amongst the
producers and distributors of this new form
of technology also forms a parallel level of
concern. The resources available for
generation of new efficient technology in
terms of engineers, researchers and
technology promoters are very few in the
country. Thus a lack of trade off in terms of
financial and technological factors creeps a
new issue in this area. Lack of benefits and
proper management of available resources
forms the next cadre of the pyramid which is
one of the least related factors yet are
equally important. Any technology which is
launched newly in the market brings along a
set of risks depending upon its target
audience and maturity level. This forms the
apex of the pyramid.
Driver-Dependency map
A further insight into the hierarchy generated
by ISM, variables can be classified using
Cross-Impact Matrix Multiplication Applied
to the Classification analysis (MICMAC)
analysis into following four categories, viz.
autonomous, independent, dependent and
linkage. Such a juxtaposition of two plots
brings all the barriers of autonomous and
dependent types closer to dependency axis
and puts independent and linkage variables
on the extremes of driving power axis (Fig
2).
Figure 2: MICMAC Analysis of Barriers of
EST: adopted from " Mittal and Sangwan
2013
Although, three barriers, lies in autonomous
cluster, but these barriers lie exactly on the
line dividing the clusters 1 and 2, so these
barriers have properties of the barriers of
cluster 2 also. Higher value of “dependence”
for a barriers means that other barriers in the
network are to be addressed first. High value
of “driving force” of a barriers means that
these barriers are to be addressed before
taking up the other barriers.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper includes compilation of 12
barriers and enablers of EST which were
derived from literature. The study
incorporated ISM technique to build the
model for these variables. The model was
also followed by MIC MAC analysis to
distinguish and segregate the variables in the
four categories. These five levels have been
further classified into three categories –
internal, economy, and policy barriers. The
developed ISM model is expected to provide
a direction to the policy makers in the

88
government and industry and the top
management of the organizations to mitigate
the barriers by focusing on few root barriers
which directly or indirectly mitigate other
barriers.
ISM uses the opinions of the experts which
may be judgmental thus it is required to
carefully choose the list of expets while
finalizing the model. The concept of plotting
drivers and barriers on a common driver-
dependency map, to gain strategic insights
for implementation can be extended to
projects/programs in any field/area.
The model used has taken the nitty gritties of
the research model and has carefully
designed the model. This would pave the
path to test these barriers with real time data
from the fields. It can also be implemented
in various sectors of rural India.
REFERENCES
[1] Cooray, N. (1999), “Cleaner production
assessment in small and medium industries
of Sri Lanka”, Global Competitiveness
through Cleaner Production, Proceedings of
the Second Asia Pacific Cleaner Production
Roundtable, Brisbane, April 21-23, pp. 108-
114.
[2] Del Rı´o, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. and
Ko¨nno¨la¨, T. (2010), “Policy strategies to
promote eco-innovation”, Journal of
Industrial Ecology, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 541-
557.
[3] Del Rı´o Gonza´lez, P. (2005), “Analysing
the factors influencing clean technology
adoption – a study of the Spanish pulp and
paper industry”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-37.
[4] Dwyer, J. (2007), “Unsustainable measures”,
IET Manufacturing, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 14-
19.
[5] Herren, A. and Hadley, J. (2010), “Barriers
to environmental sustainability facing small
businesses in Durham, NC”, Masters Project,
Duke University, Durham, NC.
[6] IEA (2007), “Tracking industrial energy
efficiency and CO2-emissions – in support
of the G8 plan of action”, available at:
www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/tracki
ng_emissions.pdf (accessed July 1, 2011).
[7] Ioannou, K. and Veshagh, A. (2011),
“Managing sustainability in product design
and manufacturing”, in Hesselbach, J. and
Herrmann, C. (Eds), Globalized Solutions
for Sustainability in Manufacturing –
Proceedings of the 18th CIRP International
Conference on LCE, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 213-218.
[8] Jharkharia, S. and Shankar, R. (2005), “IT-
enablement of supply chains: understanding
the barriers”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp.
11-27.
[9] Kaebernick, H. and Kara, S. (2006),
“Environmentally sustainable
manufacturing: a survey on industry
practices”, Proceeding of LCE 2006, May
31-June 2, KU Leuven, pp. 19-28.
[10]Koho, M., Torvinen, S. and Romiguer, A.T.
(2011), “Objectives, enablers and challenges
of sustainable development and sustainable
manufacturing: views and opinions of
Spanish companies, assembly and
manufacturing (ISAM)”, 2011 IEEE
International Symposium, Tampere
University of Technology, Tampere, May
25-27, pp. 1-6, available at: http://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumbe
r¼5942343 (accessed April 28, 2012).
[11]Luken, R. and Van Rompaey, F. (2008),
“Drivers for and barriers to environmentally
sound technology adoption by
manufacturing plants in nine developing
countries”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 16 No. S1, pp. 67-77.
[12]Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S. and
Haleem, A. (2011), “Barriers to implement
green supply chain management in
automobile industry using interpretive
structural modeling technique – an Indian
perspective”, Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 231-257.
[13]Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994),
“Vendor selection using interpretive
structural modelling (ISM)”, International

Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 52-59.
[14]Massoud, M.A., Fayad, R., Kamleh, R. and
El-Fadel, M. (2010), “Environmental
management system (ISO 14001)
certification in developing countries:
challenges and implementation strategies”,
Environment, Science and Technology, Vol.
44 No. 6, pp. 1884-1887.
[15]Mitchell, C.L. (2006), “Beyond barriers:
examining root causes behind commonly
cited cleaner production barriers in
Vietnam”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 14 No. 18, pp. 1576-1585.
[16]Mittal, V.K. and Sangwan, K.S. (2011),
“Development of an interpretive structural
model of obstacles to environmentally
conscious technology adoption in Indian
industry”,
[17]Kumar Mittal, V., & Singh Sangwan, K.
(2013). Assessment of hierarchy and inter-
relationships of barriers to environmentally
conscious manufacturing adoption. World
Journal of Science, Technology and
Sustainable Development,10(4), 297-307.
[18]Proceeding of the 18th CIRP International
Conference on Life Cycle Engineering (LCE
2011), Technische Universita¨t,
Braunschweig, May 2-4.
[19]Mittal, V.K., Sangwan, K.S., Herrmann, C.
and Egede, P. (2013), “Comparison of
drivers and barriers to green manufacturing:
a case of India and Germany”, Proceeding of
the 20th CIRP International Conference on
Life Cycle Engineering (LCE 2013),
Singapore, April 17-19.
[20]Mittal, V.K., Sangwan, K.S., Herrmann, C.,
Egede, P. and Wulbusch, C. (2012), “Drivers
and barriers of environmentally conscious
manufacturing: a comparative study of
Indian and German organizations”,
Proceeding of the 19th CIRP Conference on
Life Cycle Engineering, Leveraging
Technology for a Sustainable World,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, May 23-25, pp.
97-102.
[21]Montalvo, C. (2008), “General wisdom
concerning the factors affecting the adoption
of cleaner technologies – a survey 1990-
2007”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.
16 No. 1, pp. 7-13.
[22]Moors, E.H.M., Mulder, K.F. and Vergragt,
P.J. (2005), “Towards cleaner production:
barriers and strategies in the base metals
producing industry”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 657-668.
[23]Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis
of interactions among the barriers of reverse
logistics”, International Journal of
Technological Forecasting & Social change,
Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 1011-1029.
[24]Sage, A.P. (1977), Interpretive Structural
Modeling: Methodology for Large-Scale
Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp.
91-164.
[25]Sangwan, K.S. (2006), “Performance value
analysis for justification of green
manufacturing systems”, Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 59-73.
[26]Sangwan, K.S. (2011), “Development of a
multi criteria decision model for justification
of green manufacturing systems”,
International Journal of Green Economics,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 285-305.
[27]Scho¨nsleben, P., Vodicka, M., Bunse, K.
and Ernst, F.O. (2010), “The changing
concept of sustainability and economic
opportunities for energy-intensive
industries”, CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 477-480.
[28]Seidel, M., Seidel, R., Des, T., Cross, R.,
Wait, L. and Ha¨mmerle, E. (2009),
“Overcoming barriers to implementing
environmentally benign manufacturing
practices – strategic tools for SMEs”,
Environmental Quality Management, Vol.
18 No. 3, pp. 37-55.
[29]Shi, H., Peng, S.Z., Liu, Y. and Zhong, P.
(2008), “Barriers to the implementation of
cleaner production in Chinese SMEs –
government, industry and expert
stakeholders’ perspectives”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 842-
852.
[30]Siaminwe, L., Chinsembu, K.C. and
Syakalima, M. (2005), “Policy and
operational constraints for the
implementation of cleaner production in
Zambia”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 13 Nos 10-11, pp. 1037-1047.
[31]Singh, A., Singh, B. and Dhingra, A.K.
(2012), “Drivers and barriers of green

90
manufacturing practices: a survey of Indian
industries”, International Journal of
Engineering Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 5-
19.
[32]Singh, M.D., Shankar, R., Narain, R. and
Agarwal, A. (2003), “An interpretive
structural modeling of knowledge
management in engineering industries”,
Journal of Advances in Management
Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 28-40.
[33]Singh, P.J. (2010), “Development of
performance measures for environmentally
conscious manufacturing”, PhD thesis,
Punjab University, Chandigarh.
[34]Singh, R.K., Garg, S.K. and Deshmukh, S.G.
(2007), “Interpretive structural modelling of
factors for improving competitiveness of
SMEs”, International Journal of Productivity
and Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp.
423-440.
[35]Studer, S., Welford, R. and Hills, P. (2006),
“Engaging Hong Kong businesses in
environmental change: drivers and barriers”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol.
15 No. 6, pp. 416-431.
[36]Veshagh, A. and Li, W. (2006), “Survey of
eco design and manufacturing in automotive
SMEs”,Proceeding of LCE 2006, May 31-
June 2, KU Leuven, pp. 305-310.
[37]Wang, G.H., Wang, Y.X. and Zhao, T.
(2008), “Analysis of interactions among
barriers to energy saving in China”, Energy
Policy, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1879-1889.
[38]Yu, J., Hills, P. and Welford, R. (2008),
“Extended producer responsibility and eco-
design changes: perspectives from China”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 111-124.
[39]Yuksel, H. (2008), “An empirical evaluation
of cleaner production practices in Turkey”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No.
S1, pp. S50-S57.
[40]Zhang, B., Bi, J. and Liu, B. (2009),
“Drivers and barriers to engage enterprises
in environmental management initiatives in
Suzhou Industrial Park, China”, Frontiers of
Environmental Science & Engineering in
China, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 210-220.
[41]Zhang, T.Z. (2000), “Policy mechanisms to
promote cleaner production in China”,
Journal of Environmental Science and
Health, Vol. 35 No. 10 Part A, pp. 1989-
1994.
[42]Zhu, Q. and Geng, Y. (2013), “Drivers and
barriers of extended supply chain practices
for energy saving and emission reduction
among Chinese manufacturers”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 40, pp. 6-12.

Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies: Identifying the Hierarchy and Interdependence of Barriers

More Related Content

What's hot (11)

Similar to Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies: Identifying the Hierarchy and Interdependence of Barriers (20)

More from scmsnoida5 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies: Identifying the Hierarchy and Interdependence of Barriers