Benchmarking: An International Journal: Article Information

Benchmarking: An International Journal
An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing Sustainable Practices: the Indian Oil and Gas
Sector
Rakesh Raut, Balkrishna Eknath Narkhede, Bhaskar B. Gardas, Huynh Trung Luong,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rakesh Raut, Balkrishna Eknath Narkhede, Bhaskar B. Gardas, Huynh Trung Luong, "An ISM approach for the barrier
analysis in implementing Sustainable Practices: the Indian Oil and Gas Sector", Benchmarking: An International Journal,
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2016-0073
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2016-0073
Downloaded on: 09 March 2018, At: 20:53 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 20:53 09 March 2018 (PT)
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:320271 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing Sustainable
Practices: the Indian Oil and Gas Sector
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of the present article is to identify and model critical barriers to sustainable
practices implementation in Indian oil and gas sectors by the interpretive structural modeling
(ISM) approach.
Design/methodology/approach – In this paper through exhaustive literature survey and experts
opinions, fourteen critical barriers were identified, and the interpretive structural modeling (ISM)
tool, which is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach was used to establish
interrelationship among the identified barriers and to determine the key barriers having high
driving power.
Findings –After analyzing, it was found that six barriers namely, market competition and
uncertainty (B7), shortage of resources (B8), governmental rules and regulations (B1),
knowledge and training (B2), financial implications (B3), management commitment and
leadership (B5) were found to have high influencing power. These barriers need the maximum
attention and organizations need to overcome these hindrances for the effective implementation
of sustainable practices. From the driving and dependence power diagram, two barriers namely,
management commitment and leadership (B5), knowledge and training (B2) were found to have
the highest driving power and two barriers namely lack of green initiatives (B9), and lack of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) (B14) were found to have highest dependence power.
Research limitations/implications –The developed hierarchical model is based on the experts
opinions, which may be biased, influencing the final output of the structural model. The research
implications of the developed model are to help managers of the organization in understanding
significance of the barriers, to prioritize or eliminate the same for the practical implementation of
sustainability.
Originality/value – This is for the first time an attempt has been made to apply the
ISM methodology to explore the interdependencies among the critical barriers for the Indian oil
and gas industries. This paper will guide the managers at various levels of an organization for
effective implementation of the sustainable practices.
Keywords – Sustainability, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), Critical barriers, Oil and gas
industry.
Paper type – Research paper
1. Introduction
Energy is an essential component of our daily life, yielding in an inseparable relationship
between energy demand and economic progress, driven by the two forces of population growth
and the development of economics. The global energy demand will continue to increase as
people are interested in pursuing higher standards of living. The demand for world energy is
expected to increase 50% by 2030 (IEA 2007a).The conventional fossil fuels are finite; shortage
of the same will be permanent and irreversible (Leder and Shapiro, 2008). There is a continuous
increase in the prices of crude oil over the years (Exxonmobil, 2007). The depletion of world
petroleum production would affect the world food production adversely as the modern
agriculture is entirely dependent on oil products (Bartlett, 2012).
Due to growing concern about green gas emissions, most countries are concentrating on
renewable energy sources, like solar, wind power, tidal, geothermal, and bio-fuels, these
resources are abundant, and self-reliance may fulfill the global energy demand, which can’t be
met by depleting fossil fuels (Nordhaus, 1979). But, the conventional oil is depleting at a very
faster rate, and the transportation sector depends on conventional fuels as the alternate fuel
sources produce higher carbon dioxide emissions as compared to conventional fuels per unit
production of energy (Grub, 2001). Also, most of the production techniques for alternate
energies are related to electricity generation. Hence, there is a limited impact of these sources on
transportation sector (De Almeida and Silva, 2009). 81 percent of the total energy consumption
in the world is from the conventional (fossil fuel) energy and transportation sector consumes 98
percent from it. It may be inferred from these figures that, we depend maximum on the
traditional power sources (De Almeida and Silva, 2009; IEA, 2007b). However, for the
extraction of energy from the renewable sources demands higher initial costs, severe competition
from incumbent fossil fuels and lack of social acceptance. Hence, renewable energy technologies
economically not feasible at current stage (Chang and Yong, 2007). Hence, the existing oil and
gas industries demand a lot of attention for the implementation of sustainable practices.
Across the globe, around 90 countries produce oil, yet only a few oil producers dominate world
oil production. The organization of the petroleum exporting countries (OPEC) account for
approximately 75 % of the global conventional oil reserves and 40 % of world’s oil production
(US EIA, 2006). Saudi Arabia’s production of oil is almost or near its maximum production rate,
which is likely to go into steep decline (Simmons, 2006). It may be noted that any economic
imbalance among these countries may affect the global economy as all the economies are
entirely dependent on the supply of oil and gas and other issues related to the same. These days,
many countries are planning to become self-sufficient and independent to make their economy
free from global oil and gas price fluctuations. The shale revolution helped the USA to become
world’s biggest producer of oil overtaking Saudi Arabia in 2014, whereas India has shown the
highest growth in the consumption of energy (7.1%) among the major countries. (The Economic
Times, 2015). Hence, it is the need of time for Indian industries to focus on exploring new oil
reserves, targeting shell gas, and implementing sustainable practices, which will serve the
purpose to a larger extent (Gardas et al., 2016).
There are three S’s of oil dependence, which are- savings (the transfer of wealth from oil
consumers to oil producers due to higher than competitive market prices), scarcity (loss of gross
domestic product (GDP) due to the increased economic poverty and higher oil and gas prices),
and shocks (economy disruptions due to fluctuations in the oil prices) (Sovacool, 2007). It may
be noted that the implementation of sustainable practices will increase savings, decrease scarcity,
and shocks.
From the above discussion, one can say that there is an immense need of sustainability in the oil
and gas industries. Also, this will solve major issues (benefits) related to environment,
economics, society, business, and organizations; some are listed below-
a) Reduced use of harmful/toxic substances (De Giovanni and Vinzi, 2012; Ninlawan et
al., 2010; Zailani et al.,2012; Zhu et al., 2010; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004).
b) Reduced environmental disasters (De Giovanni and Vinzi, 2012; Green et al., 2012;
Jalali et al.,2011;Ninlawan et al., 2010; Zailani et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2010; Zhu
and Sarkis, 2004).
c) Reduced energy consumption (Diabat and Kannan, 2011; Gonzalez et al., 2008; Holt
and Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj 2009; Rao and Holt, 2005).
d) Cost reduction of the final product (De Giovanni and Vinzi, 2012; Duber-Smith,
2005; Eltayeb et al., 2011; Green et al., 2012, Luthra et al., 2011; Mudgal et al.,
2009; Ninlawan et al., 2010; Stevels, 2002; Zhu et al., 2010; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004).
e) Reduction of fine for environmental disasters (Ninlawan et al., 2010).
f) Financial incentives (Ghazilla et al., 2015).
g) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) which provides positive brand image and helps
in increasing market share (Bhool and Narwal, 2013).
h) Environmental friendly final products (Bhool and Narwal, 2013; Reijonen, 2011).
i) Increased employability in the region (Dheeraj and Vishal, 2012; Hanna et al., 2000;
Lazuraz et al., 2011; Luthra et al., 2013; Mallidis and Vlochos, 2010; Tornatzky and
Fleischer 1990; Yu, 2007; Yu and Hui, 2008).
j) Positive brand image and increased market share (Andic et al., 2012; Bhool and
Narwal, 2013; De Giovanni and Vinzi, 2012; Diabat and Kannan, 2011; Green et al.,
2012; Lin, 2011; Mudgal et al., 2009; Narasimhan and Kim, 2002; Poksinska et al.,
2003; Rao and Holt, 2005; Zailani et al., 2012).
k) Competitive advantage (Bhool and Narwal, 2013; Chen et al., 2006; Dashore and
Sohani, 2013; Lee et al., 2015; Mudgal et al., 2009; Newman and Hanna, 1996;
Nimawat and Namdev, 2012; Rao and Holt, 2005).
l) Improved safety measures for the employees (Bhool and Narwal, 2013; Olugu et al.,
2011).
It may be noted that the implementation of sustainable practices may solve the ecological,
economic and social problems or reduce the same to a greater extent (Gardas et al., 2015). But,
their implementation is a difficult task to achieve. There are some hindrances in the successful
implementation process which were identified through an exhaustive literature survey and
opinions of experts. The objective of this research work is to investigate the critical hindrances or
factors and establish interrelationship between them so that organizations will know which
barrier needs maximum attention and which one needs least for the effective implementation of
sustainable practices.
The identified critical barriers need to get modeled by a suitable technique to study the structure
of the obstacles and the ISM tool was selected for the purpose. It is an approach that recognizes
and imposes the interrelationship between the identified factors or variables (Sage, 1977). This
technique helps in analyzing the effect of one factor over the other (Warfield, 1974). Researchers
use this methodology to understand the indirect and direct relations between the varieties of
factors of various industries (Hawthorne and Sage, 1975; Jolhe and Babu, 2015). The ISM
methodology converts ambiguous atrociously enunciated rational system models into noticeable,
definite models that are helpful for many applications. It functions as a mechanism for forcing
order and direction on the complicated relations between the factors (Sage, 1977). The past
research did not throw light on the identification and modeling the critical hindrances to the
sustainable practices implementation in the oil and gas sector using ISM approach (Gardas et al.,
2015; Raut et al., 2017). This study is intended to guide academicians, government regulators,
and practitioners to emphasize on the critical barriers and direct their efforts towards elimination
of the same for making the supply chain a genuinely sustainable entity.
2. Literature Review
Sustainability is the intersection between social, environmental and economic dimensions
(Elkington, 1998). A supply chain integrating these three dimensions is called a sustainable
supply chain (Carter and Rogers, 2008). The term sustainability in oil and gas industry doesn’t
refer to the indefinite production of oil and gas. But, delicately weighing social, economic, and
environmental assets in a constantly changing world (Arscot, 2004). The sustainable supply
chains consider three dimensions impact mentioned earlier in this section on the management of
raw materials and services offered from the vendors-manufacturers-clients. It includes the flow
in the return direction as well (Grzybowska, 2012; Zhu and Sarkis 2004).
2.1 Papers published in the sustainability segment

In the area of sustainability de Paula Dias et al. (2016) presented a framework for the scenario of
bio-diesel in Brazil by 2030. It was found that scenario storylines go through economic,
ecological, and social dimensions, supported by other elements such as political and territorial.
de Souza et al. (2016) assessed sustainability and prioritized e-waste management options using
multi-criteria decision approach in Brazil. Alam et al. (2016) examined the impact of energy
consumption, growth of population, and income on CO2 by using time series data of 1970 to
2012 of Brazil, China, India, and Indonesia. It was found that in all the four countries the carbon
emissions have increased significantly with the increase in the consumption of energy, and
income. The results also indicated that the relation between growth in population and carbon
emissions was found to be statistically significant for Brazil, and India, whereas it was
statistically insignificant for Indonesia, and China. Bhanot et al. (2017) employed integrated
methodology for analyzing the enablers and barriers of sustainable manufacturing by using
decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL), maximum mean de-entropy
algorithm, ISM, and structural equation modeling (SEM).
Gao et al. (2016) explored the sustainable supply chain innovation and its peculiar characteristics
were proposed. Some of the opportunities for the future research were also highlighted. Geng et
al. (2017) established positive relationship between green supply chain management practices
and the organizational performance in the manufacturing domain of Asian emerging economies
using meta-analysis. Luthra et al. (2016) utilized analytic hierarchy process for the evaluation of
barriers in the adoption of sustainable production and consumption initiatives for a plastic
manufacturing industry in India. It was found that a barrier namely government support and
policies was found to be the most significant among the fifteen barriers. Scur and Barbosa (2017)
identified and analyzed the GSCM practices adopted by manufacturers of home appliances in
Brazil. It was found that the waste management was the most widely used approach and life
cycle assessment practices, & green purchasing were less adopted by the participants.
Teixeira et al. (2016) analyzed the relationship between green training and green supply chain in
the Brazilian firms. The results revealed that the both the parameters are positively correlated. It
was also concluded that the green training improves collaboration with customers, and green
purchasing.
2.2 Overview of interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach

Many researchers established the relationship between the identified factors or variables using
ISM tool and also identified the factors or variables having maximum driving and dependence
power. Some of the papers published on ISM methodology are described in this section.
Raut et al. (2017) identified and modeled the 32 critical success factors (CSFs) of sustainable
supply chain practices in the Indian oil and gas industries using ISM methodology. The results
revealed that the global climatic pressure and ecological scarcity of resources was the most
significant CSF having the highest driving power. Prasad and Chalapathi, (2015) analyzed the
factors influencing occupational health safety assessment series (OHSAS) 18001 implementation
in Indian construction firms by using ISM approach. The management commitment was found to
have the highest driving power, whereas, safety culture, conducive working environment, and
sustainable construction have been identified as the factors having highest dependence power.
Zhang et al. (2015) employed the interpretative structural modeling (ISM) approach to formulate
the network reconfiguration problem to analyze the interrelationship among the factors having
impacts on the same and the speediness, and security of restoring generating units were
considered with priority. Luthra et al. (2015) modeled twenty six critical success factors for the
implementation of green supply chain management (GSCM) in Indian industries. It was found
that a factor namely scarcity of natural resources was having the highest driving power and three
factors namely firms competitiveness, economic benefit, & enhanced brand image were found to
have the highest dependence power. Ravi, (2015) analyzed ten barriers that affect eco-efficiency
in electronics packaging industries using ISM methodology. A barrier namely, lack of awareness
about environmental and sustainability issues was found to have the highest driving power and a
barrier namely, lack of proper disposal of products was found to have the highest dependence
power.
Balaji et al. (2014) explored ten barriers in the implementation of GSCM in the foundry sector. It
was found that a barrier namely lack of government regulation and legislation had the highest
driving power and a barrier namely lack of acceptance of advanced technology had the highest
dependence power. Kumar et al. (2014) identified the nine prime issues that underscore the
selection of a supplier based on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and was validated using an
ISM approach. It was found that safeguarding mechanism and underage labor had the highest
driving and dependence power. Ojo et al. (2014) identified drivers and barriers of GSCM
practices adoption in Nigerian construction firms by using the ISM approach. The study showed
that the lack of public awareness, lack of knowledge and environmental impacts, weak
commitment by the top management and lack of legal enforcement and government represented
the main barriers facing adoption of GSCM practices.
Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) analyzed the twenty six barriers to the implementation of GSCM
concepts. Four barriers were identified as the barriers possessing highest driving power namely
problem in maintaining the environmental awareness of suppliers, complex to measure and
monitor the environmental practice of vendors, the perception of out of responsibility zone and
high investments and less return on investments (ROI). The barriers having highest dependence
power were disbelief about the environmental benefits, lack of green system exposure
professionals, lack of customer awareness & pressure about GSCM, and poor supplier
commitment, unwilling to change information. Muduli et al. (2013) explored twelve behavioral
factors affecting the GSCM concepts implementation in the Indian mining industries. Top
management support was identified as a factor having highest driving power and a factor namely
green innovation was found to have highest dependence power. Kumar et al. (2013) established
interrelationship among ten factors for the effective customer involvement in green practices
implementation in a supply chain. It was found that a factor namely green labelling and use of
green packing material was having the highest driving power and two variables namely the
awareness level of customers & encouragement, and support of customers were having the
highest dependence power. Sandeep et al. (2013) identified fifteen essential enablers
implementing green concepts in the Indian automobile supply chain by using ISM approach.
Government support & regulation and relative advantage had the highest driving and dependence
power.
Luthra et al. (2012) identified ten factors important for implementing GSCM relevant to Indian
manufacturing industries. A contextual relationship among these factors was established using
the ISM technique. International environmental agreements was identified as a factor having
highest driving power and two factors namely innovative green practices and awareness level of
customers was found to have highest dependence power. Kannan et al. (2012) used ISM
methodology for identifying and summarizing the selection criteria for third-party reverse
logistics provider selection. It was concluded that attributes, namely reverse logistics functions,
organizational performance criteria, IT applications were having the highest driving power.
Attributes having highest dependence power were 3PL services, corporate role and impact of the
use of 3PL. Grzybowska (2012) identified sixteen enablers to sustainability in the supply chains
(SC) and explored their mutual relationships. The commitment from top management was found
to have the highest driving power and three enablers namely adequate adoption of reverse
logistic practice (environmental performance), collective development of labels, standards,
norms, best practices, cooperation with customers including environmental requirements were
found to have the highest dependence power.
Balasubramanian (2012) presented a hierarchical sustainability framework of barriers to the

adoption of GSCM practices in the UAE construction sector by using ISM technique. It was
found that a barrier namely shortage of resources had the highest driving power and two barriers
namely lack of understanding between stakeholders and lack of green initiatives were considered
to have the highest dependence power. Muduli and Barve (2012) identified potential obstacles
that hinder greening effort in the healthcare waste sector by using an ISM approach. Lack of top
management commitment, and waste management operational strategy had the highest driving
and dependence power.
Diabat and Kannan (2011) analyzed the driving forces influencing the process of implementing
GSCM practices using an ISM methodology. Government regulation and legislation and reverse
logistics were the drivers having highest driving power. Three drivers namely green design,
integrating quality, environmental management into planning and operation process reducing
energy consumption were having the highest dependence power. Luthra et al. (2011) presented a
hierarchy model of eleven barriers to GSCM implementation in the automobile sector of India.
Lack of government support policies was found to have the highest driving power and four
barriers namely market competition and uncertainty, lack of implementing green practices, cost
implications and unawareness of customers were found to have the highest dependence power.
Sharma et al. (2011) analyzed twelve barriers hindering the successful implementation of reverse
logistics (RL). One barrier namely lack of awareness about reverse logistics was having the
highest driving power and two barriers namely limited forecasting & planning, and cooperative
behavior of chain members were found to have the highest dependence power.
Faisal (2010) analyzed the relationship among the ten factors which convert a supply chain
ultimately into a sustainable one. Three factors having the highest driving power were the
consumer concern towards sustainable practices, regulatory framework, and awareness about
sustainable practices in a supply chain. A factor having highest dependence power was metrics to
quantify sustainability benefits in a supply chain. Kannan et al. (2009) prepared a model for the
selection of a third party reverse logistics service provider (3PRLSP) using ISM tool and fuzzy
technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The
technical/engineering criteria was found to have the highest driving power and a factor namely
reverse logistics cost had the highest dependence power. Mukherjee and Mandal (2009)
modelled nine issues relevant to managing the photocopier remanufacturing industry. Two
problems namely the impact of workplace environment & use pattern of returns, and matters
related to marketing were having the highest driving power. Four issues namely product design
issues, level of technology & tools for remanufacturing, issues relevant to successful disassembly
and reassembly planning, and role of skill and experience of workforce were having the highest
dependence power.
2.3 Barriers in implementing sustainable practices in oil and gas industries
For the identification of eighteen critical barriers that resist organizations from implementing
sustainable practices, an exhaustive literature survey was carried out. Also, a workshop was
conducted in which two professors from the petrochemical engineering department, two
professors from the logistics and supply chain management department, two experts from each
sector (Upstream, midstream, and downstream) of oil and gas supply chain and four research
scholars were invited. After conducting the Delhi technique out of eighteen barriers, four barriers
namely corruption, lack of strict supervision, change of regulations due to changing political
environment, poor inter-departmental communication were eliminated. The shortlisted fourteen
critical barriers are explained below-
1. Government rules and regulations

It means that neither the government is making industry-friendly policies to achieve
sustainability, nor it is giving special benefits and rewards to organizations for implementing the
same (Scupola, 2003; Balasubramanian, 2012; Walker et al., 2008). The government legislation
and regulation are the necessary tools for the appropriate management of the organizations.
(Porter and Van de Linde, 1995; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013), as the government sets
environmental regulations and standards for industries, it can either motivate or de-motivate for
the eco-friendly practices (Scupola, 2003).Time-consuming formalities, charges, tax structures
that twist incentives, etc. may de-motivate organizations. This barrier also involves lack of
proactive environmentalism, the governments tradition to encourage old practices and low
priority assigned to sustainable initiatives (Mudgal et al., 2010; AlKhidir and Zailani, 2009;
Luthra et al., 2011).
2. Knowledge and training
It includes the lack of awareness and expertise of the organizations manpower on sustainable
practices and the feeling of ‘too complicated' to implement sustainable practices
(Balasubramanian, 2012). Also, lack of training imparted to the employees of a company on the
efficient implementation and control of sustainable practices may discourage stakeholders for its
implementation. Education and training are the most significant parameters for the effective
implementation of sustainable practices, to maintain and monitor their growth (Bowen et al.,
2001; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Carter and Dresner, 2001; Holt, 1998). The management may
provide rewards for green employees and may motivate employees to learn ecological concepts
(Hsu and Hu, 2008).
3. Financial implications
Environmental management costs include direct and transaction cost. These two prices act as
significant barrier for the implementation of sustainable practices (AlKhidir and Zailani, 2009).
Adoption of latest technology, developing IT infrastructure, hiring well qualified and
experienced staff, imparting knowledge and training employees towards sustainability, green
design, IT enablement, advanced technology adoption, hiring good quality staff, training and
encouraging employees towards sustainability, green procurement, green design, green
manufacturing, green packaging, reuse and recycling of waste etc., demand massive initial
investment (Luthra et al., 2011). High initial investment, slow return on investment (ROI) and
low-profit margins are the main barriers (Balasubramanian, 2012; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013).
4. Acceptance of advanced technology
It emphasizes on up gradation of existing technologies of the organization (Holt and Ghobadian,
2009). The technology is an aid to share knowledge within the organization or outside the
organization (Gant, 1996) and organization may boost its capability by sharing knowledge
efficiently in the firm (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). The reluctance of organizations to adopt eco-
friendly practices and advanced technologies is the resistance to change. It includes not using
modern machinery and equipment’s to produce eco-friendly products (AlKhidir and Zailani,
2009; Luthra et al., 2011).
5. Management commitment and leadership
Top management support and commitment is very necessary and is a crucial factor for adoption,
implementation, and success of sustainable practices in any organization (Hamel and Prahalad,
1989). Top management can support newly implemented sustainable system by empowering
employees, giving rewards and incentives, imparting training and increasing communication
networks across the various departments of the organization, and encouraging teamwork (Ravi
and Shankar, 2005; Sarkis, 2009; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013 ).
6. Understanding among supply chain stakeholders
It includes lack of co-operation, communication, and information sharing among the
stakeholders of an organization (Balasubramanian, 2012).
7. Market competition and uncertainty
Due to global competition and constantly changing customers’ needs and demands, market
competition and risk is very high (Lin, 2007). It enables innovations and use of new technologies
in production, operation methodologies, waste management and energy management (Hosseini,
2007). This barrier includes high competition in the oil and gas sector, market uncertainty due to
delay, on hold, and cancellation of projects, global crisis, fluctuating oil prices in the global
markets, etc. (Balasubramanian, 2012; Mudgal et al., 2010).
8. Shortage of resources
It includes deficiency of consultants, green architects, green developers, contractors, and skilled
professionals in the various departments of an organization (Balasubramanian, 2012; Andrews-
Speed, 2004). A high-quality manpower provides creative ideas for the overall development of
the organization, learns advanced technologies, and they share knowledge effectively, which in
turn makes implementation of sustainable practices easy (Lin and Ho, 2008; Wang et al., 2008).
But, hiring quality manpower is a barrier due to financial constraints (Luthra et al., 2011). It also
includes lack of IT infrastructure systems (which are used for data and information exchange
process), lack of technology for the management of waste, reuse and recycling processes (Ravi
and Shankar, 2005; Alkhidir and Zailani, 2009; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). It is worth
mentioning that usage of IT infrastructure reduces a lot of paper usage and time wastage (Luthra
et al., 2011).
9. Lack of green initiatives
Green practices include collecting knowledge about sustainability, organizational encouragement
and improving the quality of manpower (Balasubramanian, 2012; Lin and Ho, 2008). It also
deals with hazardous solid and liquid waste disposal, conservation of energy and its
management, reusing and recycling of products, green design, green purchasing, green
manufacturing, etc. Green practices improve market potential and provide a positive brand
image. Because of competitive environment companies are trying hard to reduce the overall cost
of the service or product. Implementation of sustainable concepts demand a huge capital
investment and this parameter acts as a big barrier (Ravi and Shankar, 2005).To be competent in
the global market, organization focus on timely delivery of goods and services and the
environmental issues due to transportation are neglected. Lack of green initiatives include, lack
of knowledge and training imparted to the manpower, lack of certifications for the eco-friendly
practices like ISO 14001, lack of internal and external audits towards sustainability (internal
audits are within the organization and external audits are among the vendors & contractors, etc.)
(Balasubramanian, 2012; Luthra et al., 2011; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013).
10. Suppliers flexibility to change towards sustainability
It is the resistance of the suppliers to participate in sustainable practices. It is because of the
mindset of the supplier and interests being distinct from those of the organizations supply chain
(Mudgal et al., 2010). Having good bond with vendors result in reduced levels of inventory,
inventory costs, and improved accuracy, which gives a competitive advantage to the
manufacturer (Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Luthra et al., 2011).
11. Lack of customer’s awareness
It means customers are unaware of the eco-friendly products and their benefits (Luthra et al.,
2011). Customer demands are the most critical type of external pressures for any organization. If
a client requests eco-friendly products, the company has to change or upgrade the existing
infrastructure to meet the same (Chen et al., 2006; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Jose, 2008).
12. Fear of success
It involves the fear of success of implemented sustainable practices; if it fails, it may cause
financial loss to the company. It may also affect the brand image and competitiveness of the firm
(Rao and Holt, 2005; Revell and Rutherfoord, 2003; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013).
13. Tracing of carbon footprint difficult
Due to global sourcing, tracking the carbon footprint of goods or products is challenging. The
practice of requesting carbon footprint from vendors and development of emission minimization
models over the entire supply chain needs to be initiated (Cognizant white paper).
14. Lack of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
The main aim of CSR is to have a positive impact on ecology and stakeholders including
consumers, employees, investors, communities, and others. In CSR policy, company monitors
and makes sure its ongoing agreements are as per the law, ethical norms, national or
international standards. It goes beyond compliance and involves in activities for social good,
beyond concerns of the organization (Abagail and Donald, 2001; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013;
Mudgal et al., 2010; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999; Seuring, 2004).
3. Research Methodology
The objective the present research work is to prepare a new structured model of barriers to the
implementation of sustainable practices for Indian oil and gas supply chains. This is the first
research work in this area, and hence, the outcomes of this research will guide the organizations
to re-consider their framework towards sustainable programs. The ISM approach is used to
establish the interrelationships among the identified barriers and also to determine the barriers
having maximum driving and dependence power. The introduction to ISM methodology and
steps involved in the same are discussed in the following section.
3.1 Introduction to ISM Methodology
It is a methodology in which a collection of diverse and directly associated factors are structured
into a compendious well-organized model. It is an approach for identifying links amidst
particular elements (Sage, 1977).In the ISM methodology, a methodical utilization of some basic
concepts of graph theory is used to define a complicated pattern of the interrelationship between
a set of factors (Malone, 1975). It is primarily intended as a group learning method, however, can
also be practiced independently (Sage, 1977).
The advantages and disadvantages of this methodology are explained below.
Advantages of the ISM method-
1. It helps in presenting a complicated system in a simplified way
2. It provides an interpretation of the fixed object
3. It facilitates the identification of the structure within a system
Limitations of ISM methodology-
1. An ISM tool can be used only by the persons who possess knowledge about the ISM approach
and are trained to interpret the data
2. Use of computers is necessary, and the technique may be difficult to apply if computer
facilities are not available
3. The interpretation of links is partial, thereby exposing the model to multiple interpretations by
the user
4. It remains silent on the causality of relationships and, thus, poses limitations in answering why
in theory building (Sushil, 2012)
5. The relationship established among the variables depend on the knowledge and bias of the
person who is judging the variables (Kannan and Haq, 2007).
To overcome the limitations of this methodology and to get accurate solutions of a problem or
for the validation purpose, an integrated ISM method can be used (Gardas et al., 2017; Raut et
al., 2017).
The steps involved in the ISM approach (Kannan and Haq, 2007; Kannan et al., 2009) are given
below-
Step 1: The barriers to the sustainable practices implementation in Indian oil and gas industries
were identified and listed.
Step 2: A relationship was established between each pair of barriers identified in step 1.
Step 3: To establish a pair-wise relationship among barriers, a structural self – interaction matrix
(SSIM) was formulated.
Step 4: From the SSIM a reachability matrix was developed, and the same was checked for the
transivity. This is an underlying supposition in the ISM tool which states that if a barrier ‘X’ is
related to ‘Y’ and ‘Y’ is related to ‘Z’ then ‘X’ is similar to ‘Z’.
Step 5: The final reachability matrix obtained in step 4 is partitioned into different levels.
Step 6: Based on the relationships of the final reachability matrix a directed graph was drawn
(diagraph) and the transitive links were removed from the graph.
Step 7: The resulting digraph was transformed into an ISM model by replacing nodal elements
with the statements.
Step 8: The developed ISM model was reviewed and checked for any conceptual
inconsistencies. All the steps are shown in Figure 1.
List of the barriers in the implementation of Literature review
sustainable practices in Indian oil and gas sector.
Establish contextual relationship (Xij) between barriers (i j) Expert’s opinion
Develop a structural self-interaction matrix Develop reachability matrix
Partition the reachability matrix into different levels
Develop reachability matrix in its conical form
Remove transitivity from the diagraph Develop the diagraph

For necessary
modifications
Is there any Yes

Replace barrier nodes with relationship
conceptual
statements inconsistency?
No
Represent relationship statement into the model for the barriers in the
implementation of sustainable practices in Indian oil and gas sector
Figure 1. Flow chart for preparing the ISM model of barriers in the implementation of
sustainable practices (modified from Kannan and Haq, 2007; Kannan et al., 2009;
Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013).
4. Case Study
The environmental effect of petroleum is frequently negative because it is toxic to almost all
forms of life and its extraction has been implicated in climate change. Petroleum, commonly
referred to as oil, is thoroughly linked to virtually all aspects of the present society, especially for
transportation and heating for homes and for commercial and industrial activities.
The upstream activities in India comprise of land offshore and deep water E&P Coal Bed
Methane (CBM) and a National Gas Hydrate (NGHP). Currently, 40 companies are contributing
in the upstream E&P accomplishments in India, of which 23 are actually functioning. The
combinations consist of Public Sector Undertakings (Government majority Companies-PSUs),

private Indian companies and international oil companies. India has 26 sedimentary basins
spanning 3.14 million sq. km of which 1.35 million sq. km. is in deep water (beyond 200m
isobaths).
Till the late 1980s, all the upstream activities were conducted by the Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation (ONGC) and Oil India Limited (OIL), the two National Oil Companies (NOCs), and
the land was given to them on a nomination basis. In the 1990s, some unexplored as well as
discovered areas were opened for international competitive bidding. This led to the
pronouncement of the New Exploration and Licensing Policy (NELP) in 1998. Since then, the
practice of nomination has been stopped, and the entire land is given through competitive
bidding under NELP rounds.
XYZ is a fully integrated oil and gas company of international scale with strong presence across
the hydrocarbon value chain from exploration and production to refining and oil retail. XYZ has
a portfolio of onshore and offshore oil and gas blocks with about 1.7 billion barrels of oil
equivalent in reserves and resources. XYZ oils owns India’s fifth largest single site refinery at,
xxx, Western India, having a capacity of 20 million metric tons per annum (MMTPA). The
refinery is capable of processing some of the toughest crudes and produces high quality Euro IV
and V grade products. Due to environmental regulations, XYZ oil Company is committed to
implementing sustainable practices. In this paper, the critical barriers in the implementation of
the same were identified and modeled. The ISM methodology was applied to the sector being
studied. Various steps leading to the formulation of the ISM model are discussed below.
4.1 Identification of the critical barriers in the Oil and Gas Industries being studied
The significant barriers were identified through literature survey and opinions of experts from
the oil and gas sector. The identified critical barriers are explained in the literature review section
of this paper.
4.2 Development of structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM)
The structural self- interaction matrix was formulated from the interrelationship among the
fourteen critical barriers shown in Table 1.For interpreting, the relationship following four
symbols were used to understand the direction of relationship among the identified barriers.
Table 1 The structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of barriers

S.N Critical barriers 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
1 Governmental rules and regulations V V V O V V V V O O V V V
2 Knowledge and training V V V V V V A V V X V A
3 Financial implications V O V O V V V A V X V
4 Acceptance of advanced technology O O V O O V X A A A
5 Management commitment and leadership V V V O V V V V V
6 Understanding among supply chain stakeholders V O V O O V A V
7 Market competition and uncertainty V O V O V V V
8 Shortage of resources V O V A O V
9 Lack of green initiatives X V A A O
10 Supplier’s flexibility to change towards sustainability V O A O
11 Lack of customer’s awareness V V O
12 Fear of success V O
13 Tracing of carbon footprint difficult A
14 Lack of corporate social responsibility (CSR) --
O – no relation between the barriers
X – barrier i and j will help to achieve each other
V – barrier i will help to achieve barrier j.
A – barrier j will help to achieve barrier i.
4.3 Reachability matrix
The initial reachability matrix shown in Table 2 was developed from the SSIM using the
following rules-
a. If the entry of (i, j) in the SSIM is ‘V’ then the (i, j) value in the reachability matrix will
be ‘1’ and the (j, i) value becomes ‘0’.

b. If the entry of (i, j) in the SSIM is ‘A’ then the value of (i, j) in the binary matrix becomes
‘0’ and the value of (j, i) will be ‘1’.
c. If the entry of (i, j) in the SSIM is ‘X’ the value of (i, j) and (j, i) in the reachability
matrix will be ‘1’.
d. If the entry of (i, j) in the SSIM is ‘O’ then the value of (i, j) and (j, i) in the binary matrix
becomes ‘0’.
The final reachability matrix was obtained from the initial reachability matrix by adding
transitivity to the latter manually, which is shown in Table 3.
Table 2 The initial reachability matrix for the critical barriers

S.N Critical barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 Governmental rules and regulations 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
2 Knowledge and training 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 Financial implications 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
4 Acceptance of advanced technology 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
5 Management commitment and leadership 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
6 Understanding among supply chain stakeholders 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
7 Market competition and uncertainty 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
8 Shortage of resources 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
9 Lack of green initiatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
10 Supplier’s flexibility to change towards sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
11 Lack of customer’s awareness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
12 Fear of success 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
13 Tracing of carbon footprint difficult 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
14 Lack of corporate social responsibility (CSR) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Table 3 The Final reachability matrix for the critical barriers

Driving
S.N Critical barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Power
1 Governmental rules and regulations 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 11
2 Knowledge and training 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
3 Financial implications 0 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 11
4 Acceptance of advanced technology 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 4
5 Management commitment and leadership 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 12
6 Understanding among supply chain stakeholders 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 6
7 Market competition and uncertainty 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 8
8 Shortage of resources 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 7
9 Lack of green initiatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3
Supplier’s flexibility to change towards 2
10 sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
11 Lack of customer’s awareness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 5
12 Fear of success 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4
13 Tracing of carbon footprint difficult 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Lack of corporate social responsibility 3
14 (CSR) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Dependence
Power 1 5 4 8 3 5 6 8 12 7 2 9 7 12 89
4.4 Level Partitions
From the final reachability matrix shown in Table 3, the reachability and antecedent sets for each
critical barrier was obtained. The reachability set of an individual barrier consists of other
barriers and itself, which it may help to achieve and the antecedent set comprises of the barriers
themselves and the other barriers, which may assist in achieving it. The intersection of both these
sets is obtained for all other the critical barriers. A barrier having both reachability and
intersection sets same secures the top level in the hierarchy. This barrier is driven by all other
barriers and doesn’t affect other barriers (Kannan and Haq, 2007). The top level barriers are
separated from the remaining ones and this procedure is repeated for all other barriers to identify
the barriers falling in each level. These levels help in building the diagraph and the final ISM
model (Singh and Kant, 2008). Table 4 shows the reachability set, antecedent set, intersection
set, initial and final levels of all the barriers. The level evaluation process of all the fourteen
barriers was completed in nine iterations.
Table 4 Level partitions of the reachability matrix

Iteration I to Iteration IX
S.N Reachability Set Antecedent Set Intersection Level
1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10,12,13,14 1 1 IX
2 2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,5,8 2,5,8 IX
3 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,14 1,3,5,7 3,5 IX
4 4,8,9,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 4,8 V
5 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14 2,3,5 2,3,5 IX
6 4,6,7,9,12,14 2,3,5,6,7,8 6,7 VII
7 3,4,7,8,9,10,12,14 1,2,3,5,6,7 3,7 VIII
8 2,4,6,8,9,12,14 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,11 2,4,8 VIII
9 9,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,14 9,14 II
10 10,14 1,2,3,5,7,10,12 10 III
11 8,9,11,13,14 2,11 11 VI
12 9,10,12,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,12 12 IV
13 13 1,2,5,9,11,13,14 13 I
14 9,13,14 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12.,14 9,14 II
4.5 Formation of the ISM model
From the final reachability matrix (Table 3) a structural model was developed. For showing the
relationship between two barriers i and j, an arrow was shown from i to j and the generated
diagram is called as the initial diagraph. For drawing, the final diagraph, the transitivity’s from
the original diagraph were removed. The final diagraph is shown in Figure 2. Later, this final
diagraph is transformed into an ISM model as illustrated in Figure 3.
13
9 14
10
12
11
8 7
1 2 3 5
Figure 2 Final digraph depicting relationship among the barriers

Global sourcing of carbon footprint difficult
Lack of green initiatives Lack of CSR
Supplier’s flexibility to change towards sustainability

Fear of success
Acceptance of
advanced
technology
Lack of
customer’s
awareness
Understanding
among supply
chain stakeholders
Shortage of Market
resources competition and
uncertainty
Governmental Knowledge and Financial Management

rules and training implications commitment and
regulations leadership
Figure 3 ISM based model

4.6 MICMAC Analysis
In the present study MICMAC analysis was used to identify the critical barriers in the oil and gas
industries based on the driving and dependence power, which was calculated from the final
reachability matrix.
The identified critical barriers were classified into four clusters, which are explained below-
Autonomous- these are the barriers with a weak driving and dependence power.
Dependent- these are the barriers with a weak driving power and a high reliance power.
Linkage- these are the barriers with a great driving and dependence power.
Driving or independent- these are the barriers, with strong driving and weak dependence power
(Kannan and Haq, 2007; Sharma et al., 1995).The driving and dependence diagram (power
matrix) of the barriers is shown in Figure 4.
14
13
12 5 2
11 1 3 Cluster III
Linkage barriers
10 Cluster IV
Driving barriers
9
8 7
7 8
6 6
Cluster II
Dependent barriers
5 11
4 Cluster I 4 12
3 Autonomous barriers 9, 14
2 10
1
13
Dr.P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Dep. Power
Figure 4 The driving and dependence power diagram (Power matrix)

5. Results and Discussions
An ISM model of the fourteen criteria is shown in the Figure 3 indicating their levels. The top
three barriers of the structural model, namely, tracking of carbon footprint difficult (B13), lack of
green initiatives (B9) and lack of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (B14) were found to play
the least influential role as compared to the other eleven barriers. These barriers affect less in the
process of adoption of sustainability practices in Indian oil and gas industries. Hence, demand
the least attention. At the intermediate levels, from third to seventh iteration there were five
barriers, namely, supplier’s flexibility to change towards sustainability (B10) (at the third level),
fear of success (B12) (at the fourth level), acceptance of advanced technology (B4) (at the fifth
level), lack of customer’s awareness (B11) (at the sixth level), understanding among supply
chain stakeholders (B6) (at the seventh level).
It may be inferred that the barriers from iteration one to iteration seven are less important as
compared to the barriers that are below this level, as they have relatively less influencing
capability. From iteration eight to iteration nine there were six barriers, namely, market
competition and uncertainty (B7), shortage of resources (B8), governmental rules and regulations
(B1), knowledge and training (B2), financial implications (B3), management commitment and
leadership (B5)which were found to have significant influencing power to affect the barriers up
to seventh level. These barriers need the maximum attention and organizations need to overcome
these barriers in order to successfully implement sustainable practices. Figure 2 also indicates
that barriersB9 and B14 are dependent on barrier B10, which in turn is dependent on barrier B12
and so on.
The MICMAC analysis, shown in Figure 4, indicates that cluster 1 has four barriers (B6, B10,
B11, and B13) which have weak dependence and driving power. On the other hand, there are
four barriers (B4, B9, B12, and B14) that have strong dependence but a weak driving power
(cluster II). A barrier (B8) has a strong driving power and a high dependence power (cluster III).
The cluster IV (B1, B2, B3, B5, and B7) reflects the barriers with a strong driving power but
weak dependence power, these barriers demand the maximum attention.
6. Conclusion
In the present study, a structural model of fourteen critical barriers (Figure 2 and Figure 3) to the
implementation of sustainable practices was developed using ISM methodology based on the
exhaustive literature survey and opinions of the experts. The critical barriers were iterated in nine
levels. The five most influencing barriers having high driving power in the descending order are
knowledge and training (B2), management commitment and leadership (B5) both barriers having
the same driving power of the magnitude12. The Governmental rules and regulations (B1),
financial implications (B3) are also found to have the equal driving power of 11, followed by a
barrier namely market competition and uncertainty (B7) which has a driving power of 8.
It may be noted that not much of literature is available in the focused domain for the barrier
analysis in the implementation of the sustainable practices. Hence, the results of past research
activities of various sectors have been compared with present investigation. Balasubramanian
(2012) evaluated the barriers to the adoption of GSCM in the construction sector, it was found
that lack of knowledge and experience, market competition and uncertainty, lack of corporate
leadership and support, financial implications are the critical barriers having high driving power,
and lack of green initiatives and lack of technology & infrastructure were to have high
dependence power. Wang et al. (2008) analyzed the interactions between energy saving barriers
and it was found that the lack of awareness about the energy saving is found to have the highest
driving power, and lack of finance or financing difficulties is one among the most influencing
barriers. The lack of appropriate production technology was found to have the highest
dependence power. Muduli et al. (2013) analyzed the role of behavioral factors in the
implementation of green practices in mining industries, and it was found that the barrier namely
top management commitment played a most crucial role in the implementation process.
Muduli and Barve (2012) modeled the potential barriers to green practices in the health care
waste sector, and the lack of top management commitment is found to be the most critical
barrier. Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) examined the barriers to the implementation of GSCM
practices in Indian auto component manufacturing industries and found that the restrictions
namely lack of management commitment and lack of government support, lack of training and
knowledge, financial constraints were among the most influential barriers and lack of CSR, fear
of failure, lack of new technology were found to have high dependence power. Jalalifar and
Hafshejani (2013) used DEMATEL approach for identifying the critical barriers to the GSCM
implementation, and it was found that organization management has a significant role to play in
the same. Luthra et al. (2011) modeled barriers to GSCM implementation in Indian automobile
industries. It was found that lack of support government policies and lack of top management
commitment were found to be the key obstacles. These results are in very much parallel with the
results obtained in the present research.
Luthra et al. (2011) stated that cost implication and market competition and uncertainty are the
least critical barriers, which are contradicting to some extent with the results obtained in the
present work. One reason for this is the oil and gas supply chains, demand huge capital
investment and the second one is the difference in opinions of the experts in the case companies
as each organization has its individual policies and evaluation parameters for the implementation
of sustainable practices. Due to this, the weights of the criteria vary significantly from
organization to organization and the relevant results are valid only for the case company and
cannot be made generic for other businesses.
In recent years, the intricacy of implementation of sustainable practices has attracted many
researchers and practitioners to investigate the relevant criteria by using an MCDM approach
that helps in providing a vital perspective concerning the interrelationship among the variables to
form a guideline for the researchers and practitioners.
7. Future Scope and Limitations of the study

For developing the present case study only Indian oil and gas industries were considered. In
future, the same approach may be extended to other sectors for identifying and modeling the
barriers in the implementation of sustainable practices. An integrated ISM methodology along
with the ISM approach ((i) total interpretive structural modeling (TISM), (ii) analytic network
process (ANP), (iii) structural equation modeling (SEM), (iv) interpretive ranking process (IRP),
(v) technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) (vi) path analysis,
(vii) concept advanced ISM (CAISM), (Viii) analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and (ix)
decision- making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) may be used as these studies yield
better results as compared to the ISM methodology alone (Gardas et al., 2015; Gardas et al.,
2017; Raut et al., 2017; Sasananan et al., 2016).
In this study, only 14 critical barriers were considered; however, there may be other barriers that
were omitted in this model but may affect the implementation of sustainable practices. Inclusion
of more barriers in other studies will yield to better results. The present model was developed by
considering the judgments of the expert panel from the oil and gas field, which may be biased,
affecting the accuracy of the final results. In future, authors would like to validate this model
using a structural equation modeling methodology.
Managerial Implications
The climate change and its adverse effects on the earth and humankind are gaining momentum,
threatening the uprightness, safety of economies and the quality of survival of exposed
populations. The greenhouse gasses play a significant role in the global warming. Their
atmospheric concentrations have increased significantly (70 %) from 1970 and 2004 (on climate
change, 2007). Also, there is a great tension all over the globe about the sustainability of oil and
gas based economy (Greene et al., 2005). The two world oil disasters of the 1970s put energy
security at the top of the political agenda. These crises lead to unemployment and inflation (EU
Commission, 2003; 2005).
The effects of peak oil could be reduced by the implementation of sustainable practices such as
the use of technologies for efficient use, production, distribution of energy, recycling of waste,
etc. (CEC, 2007)). Peak oil could be a great challenge for humanity regarding meeting the
world’s energy demand, maintaining or improving present standards of living. It is worth
mentioning that if oil gets exhausted completely no renewable or alternate energy source would
be able to replace the oil resources totally (Hirsch et al., 2005). People prefer environmental
friendly fossil-fuelled industrial society to continue (Homer-Dixon, 2009). For mitigating
economic, social, and political shocks timely adequate technologies would be desperately
needed, and they must be initiated a decade in advance of the peaking of oil (Hirsch et al., 2005).
The sustainable practices play a vital role in the oil and gas sector regarding the socio- economic
and environmental segments. The proposed framework provides managers of the oil and gas
industries with a better understanding of the benefits of sustainable practices in the supply chains
of oil and gas. Also, the barriers or hindrances to the implementation of the same were identified
and modeled. The valuable insights were drawn from the ISM model (Figure 3) and the power
matrix (Figure 4). This model helps the managers at various levels in the organization in
identifying and overcoming the barriers to implementing sustainable practices efficiently.
Through the identification of the significant obstacles, developing proper strategies, the fear of
failure of sustainable practices implementation can be eliminated. The time frame for the same
and the tools and techniques required to remove them can be analyzed. The decisions may be
taken to resolve problems that the oil and gas industry is going through, in order to maintain
positive brand image, increase competitive advantage, secure loyalty of all the stakeholders,
increase market share, producing eco-friendly products, reduce consumption of hazardous
materials, reduce environmental disasters, reduce energy consumption, cost reduction of the final
product, increased employability in the region, improved safety measures for the employees.
Also, it will be helpful in getting rewards, awards, incentives, etc. through different
government’s environmental schemes.
In the present case study, five most critical barriers shown in Figure 3 which influence rest of the
barriers namely governmental rules and regulations, knowledge and training, financial
implications, management commitment and leadership, market competition, and uncertainty
should be eliminated, to implement sustainable practices effectively.
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Editor, Benchmarking: An International Journal Prof. Angappa
Gunasekaran, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments which helped in
improving quality of the paper.
References
Abagail, M. and Siegel, D. (2001), "Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm
perspective", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 117–127.
10.5465/amr.2001.4011987 (accessed December 29, 2015).
Alam, M. M., Murad, M. W., Noman, A. H. M. and Ozturk, I. (2016), “Relationships among
carbon emissions, economic growth, energy consumption and population growth:
Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and
Indonesia”, Ecological Indicators, Vol.70 No.1, pp. 466-479.
AlKhidir, T. and Zailani, S. (2009), “Going Green in supply chain towards Environmental
Sustainability”, Global Journal of Environmental Research, Vol.3 No.3,
pp. 246-251.
Andic, E., Yurt, A. and BaltacioAlu, T. (2012), “Green supply chains: Efforts and potential
applications for the Turkish market”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 58
No.1, pp. 50-68.
Andrews-Speed, P. (2004), “Energy policy and regulation in the People’s Republic of China”,
The Hague: Kluwer Law International, Vol. 19 No.1.
Arscot, L. (2004), “Sustainable development in the oil and gas Industry”, Journal of Energy
Resources Technology, Vol. 126 No.1, pp. 1-5.
Balaji, M., Velmurugan, V. and Prasath, M. (2014), “Barriers in green supply chain
management: an Indian foundry perspective”, International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 423-429.
Balasubramanian, S. (2012), “A hierarchical framework of barriers to green supply chain
management in the construction sector”, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 5,
No.10, p15.
Bartlett, A.A. (2012), The meaning of sustainability, Teachers clearing house for science and
society education, Newsletter, Vol. 31 No.1, pp.1-17.
Bhanot, N., Rao, P. V. and Deshmukh, S. G. (2017), “An integrated approach for analysing the
enablers and barriers of sustainable manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol.142 No.1, pp.4412-4439.
Bhool, R. and Narwal, M. (2013), “An analysis of drivers affecting the implementation of green
supply chain management for the Indian manufacturing industries”, International
Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2 No.11, pp. 242-254.
Bowen, F., Cousins, P., Lamming, R. and Faruk, A. (2001), “The role of supply management
capabilities in green supply”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp.174-189.
Carter, C.R. and Dresner, M. (2001), “Purchasing’s role in environmental management: cross-
functional development of grounded theory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 37 No.3, pp.12-26.
Carter, C. R. and Rogers, D. S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving toward new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-387.
CEC. (2007), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament: Renewable Energy Roadmap, Renewable Energies in the 21st Century:
Building a More Sustainable Future–COM (2006) 848, by Commission of the European
Communities, January 10, 2007.
Chang, Y. and Yong, J. (2007), “Differing perspectives of major oil firms on future energy
developments: An illustrative framework”, Energy Policy, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 5466-
5480.
Chen, Y., Lai, S. and Wen, C. (2006), “The influence of green innovation performance on
corporate advantage in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 331-339.
Cognizent white paper,
http://www.cognizant.com/InsightsWhitepapers/Creating_a_Green%20Supply_Chain_
WP.pdf (accessed December 29, 2015).
Dashore, K. and Sohani, N. (2013), “Green supply chain management - barriers & drivers: a
review”, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp.
2021-2030.
De Almeida, P. and Silva, P. D. (2009), “The peak of oil production—Timings and market
recognition”, Energy Policy, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1267-1276.
De Giovanni, P.D. and Vinzi, V.E. (2012), “Covariance versus component-based estimations of
performance in green supply chain management”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol.135 No. 2, pp. 907–916.
de Paula Dias, M. A., de Souza Vianna, J. N. and Felby, C. (2016), “Sustainability in the
prospective scenarios methods: A case study of scenarios for biodiesel industry in
Brazil, for 2030”, Futures, Vol.82 No.1, pp. 1-14.
de Souza, R. G., Clímaco, J. C. N., Sant’Anna, A. P., Rocha, T. B., do Valle, R. D. A. B. and
Quelhas, O. L. G. (2016), “Sustainability assessment and prioritisation of e-waste
management options in Brazil”, Waste Management, Vol.57 No.1, pp.46-56.

Dheeraj, N. and Vishal, N. (2012), “An overview of green supply chain management in India”,
Research Journal of Recent Sciences, Vol.1 No.6, pp. 77- 82.
Diabat, A and Kannan, G. (2011), “An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of
green supply chain Management”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55,
No.1, pp. 659–667.
Duber-Smith, D.C. (2005), “The green imperative”, Soap, Perfumery and Cosmetics, Vol. 78
No.8, pp. 24–26.
Elkington, J. (1998), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century.
Eltayeb, T.K., Zailani, S. and Ramayah, T. (2011), “Green supply chain initiatives among
certified companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: Investigating the
outcomes”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No.5, pp. 495-506.
Exxonmobil, (2007), Outlook for energy: A view to 2030.
EU Commission. (2003), DIRECTIVE 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the use of biofuels or
other renewable fuels for transport.
EU Commission. (2005), Biomass action plan SEC (2005) 1573.
Faisal, M. (2010), “Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No.3, pp. 508-529.
Gant, R. M. (1996), “Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational
capability as knowledge integration”, Organizational Science, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 375-387.
Gao, D., Xu, Z., Ruan, Y. Z. and Lu, H. (2016), “From a systematic literature review to
integrated definition for sustainable supply chain innovation (SSCI)”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol.142 No.4, pp. 1518-1538.
Gardas, B.B., Raut, R.D., Narkhede, B.E. and Mahajan V.B. (2015), “Implementation of
sustainable practices in Indian oil and gas industries”, Industrial Engineering Journal,
Vol. 8 No. 9, pp.13–18.
Gardas, B.B., Narkhede, B.E. and Raut, R.D. (2016), Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Review– MCDM approaches, in Karuna Jain, L. Ganapathy, Ashok K. Pundir,
Padmanav Acharya, Ruchita Gupta, eds., Enhancing National Competitiveness: Role of
Industrial Engineering and Technology Management, Mumbai, Excel India Publishers,
pp. 189-202.
Gardas, B.B., Raut, R.D. and Narkhede, B.E. (2017) “A state-of the-art survey of interpretive
structural modelling methodologies and applications”, Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol.
11 No.4, pp. 505-560.
Geng, R., Mansouri, S. A. and Aktas, E. (2017), “The relationship between green supply chain
management and performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian
emerging economies”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.183 No.1,
pp. 245-258.
Ghazilla, R., Sakundarini, N., Abdul-Rashid, S., Ayub, N., Olugu, E. and Musa S. (2015),
“Drivers and barriers analysis for green manufacturing practices in Malaysian SMEs: a
preliminary finding”, 12th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, Procedia
CIRP, Vol. 26 No.1, pp. 658 – 663.
Gonzalez. P., Sarkis, J, and Adenso-Diaz, B. (2008), “Environmental management system
certification and its influence on corporate practices: evidence from the automotive
industry”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.28
No.11, pp. 1021–41.
Greene, D.L., Hopson, J.L. and Li, J. (2005), “Have we run out of oil yet? Oil peaking analysis
from an optimist’s perspective”, Energy Policy, Vol. 34 No.5, pp. 515–531.
Green, Jr K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V.S. (2012), “Green supply chain
management practices: impact on performance”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol.17 No.3, pp. 290–305.
Grubb, M. (2001), “Who’s afraid of atmospheric stabilization? Making the link between energy
resources and climate change”, Energy Policy, Vol. 29 No.1, pp. 837–845.
Grzybowska, K. (2012), “Sustainability in the supply chain: analyzing the enablers”,
Environmental Issues in Supply Chain Management, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 25-
40
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), “Strategic Intent”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67
No.1, pp. 63-76.
Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R. and Johnson, P. (2000), “Linking operational and environmental
improvement through employee involvement”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp.148–165.
Hawthorne, R.W. and Sage, A.P. (1975) “On applications of interpretive structural modeling to
higher education program planning”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp.31–43.
Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1999), “The relationship between environmental commitment
and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 42 No.1, pp. 87-99.
Hirsch, R.L., Bezdek, R. and Wendling, R. (2005), Peaking of World Oil Production:
Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management, US Department of Energy. National Energy
Technology Laboratory.
Holt, D. (1998), “The perceived benefits of an environmental management standard”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 4 No.3, pp. 204-213.
Holt, D. and Ghobadian, A. (2009), “An empirical study of green supply chain management
practices amongst UK manufacturers”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Homer-Dixon, T. (2009), Carbon Shift: How the Twin Crises of Oil Depletion and Climate
Change will define the Future, Random House, New York.
Hosseini, A. (2007), “Identification of green management of system’s factors: - A

conceptualized model”, International Journal of Management Science and
Engineering Management, Vol. 2 No.3, pp. 221-228.
Hsu, C.W. and Hu, A.H. (2008), “Green supply chain management in the electronic industry”,
International Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 52, pp. 205-216.
IEA. (2007a), World Energy Outlook: China and India Insights.
IEA. (2007b), 2005 Energy Balances for World. International Energy Agency, Paris.
Jalali Naini, S.G., Aliahmadi, A.R. and Jafari-Eskandari, M. (2011), “Designing a mixed
performance measurement system for environmental supply chain management using
evolutionary game theory and balanced scorecard: a case study of an auto industry
supply chain”, Resources Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No.6, pp. 593-603.
Jalalifar, S. and Hafshejani, K. (2013), “Application of DEMATEL Method for Evaluation of the
Effective Barriers in GSCM implementation”, New York Science Journal, Vol. 6 No.11,
pp.77-83.
Jolhe, A.D. and Babu, S. (2015), “Modifications in interpretive structural modeling methodology
to enhance its applicability in group decision process and power of discrimination”,
International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 281-310.
Jose, P.D. (2008), “Getting serious about green”,Real CIO World, Vol. 3 No.8, pp. 26-28.
Kannan, G. and Haq, N.A. (2007), “Analysis of interactions of criteria and sub-criteria for the
selection of supplier in the built-in-order supply chain environment”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No.17, pp. 3831-3852.
Kannan, G., Pokharel, S. and Sasikumar, P. (2009), “A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy
TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 54 No.1, pp. 28–36.
Kannan, G., Palaniappan, M., Zhu, Q. and Kannan, D. (2012), “Analysis of third party reverse
logistics provider using interpretive structural modeling”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol.140 No.1, pp. 204-211.
Kumar, S., Luthra, S. and Haleem, A. (2013), “Customer involvement in greening the supply
chain: an interpretive structural modeling methodology”, Journal of Industrial
Engineering International, Vol. 9 No.6, pp. 1-13.
Kumar, D., Palaniappan, M., Kannan, D. and Shankar, K. (2014), “Analyzing the CSR issues
behind the supplier selection process using ISM approach”, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, Vol. 90 No.1, pp. 268-278.
Lazuraz, L., Ketikidis, P.H. and Bofinger, A.B. (2011), “Promoting green supply chain
management: The role of the human factor”, 15th Panhellenic Logistics Conference and
1st Southeast European Congress on Supply Chain Management Greek Association of
Supply Chain Management (EEL of Northern Greece), Thessaloniki, pp. 1–13.
Leder, F. and Shapiro, J. N. (2008), “This time it's different: An inevitable decline in world
petroleum production will keep oil product prices high, causing military conflicts and
shifting wealth and power from democracies to authoritarian regimes”, Energy Policy,
Vol. 36 No.8, pp. 2850-2852.

Lee, V.H., Ooi, K.B., Chong, A.Y.L. and Lin, B. (2015), “A Structural analysis of greening the
supplier, environmental performance and competitive advantage”, Production Planning
& Control, Vol. 26 No.2, pp.116-130.
Lin, C. Y. (2007), “Adoption of green supply chain practices in Taiwan’s logistics
industry”, Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 90-98.
Lin, C. Y. and Ho, Y. H. (2008), “An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention to
adopt green innovations”, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Vol. 3
No.1, pp. 17-26.
Lin, R.J. (2011), “Moderating effects of total quality environmental management on
environmental performance”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 20,
pp. 8088–8099.
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
Luthra, S., Garg, D., Kumar, S. and Haleem, A. (2012), “Implementation of the green supply
chain management in manufacturing industry in India using interpretive structural
modeling technique”, A Journal of Science, Technology & Management, Vol.1 No.1, pp.
1-17.
Luthra, S., Qadri, M.A., Garg, D. and Haleem, A. (2013), “Identification of critical success
factors to achieve high green supply chain management performances in Indian
automobile industry”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol.
18 No.2, pp.170-199.
Luthra, S., Garg, D. and Haleem, A. (2015), “An analysis of interactions among critical success
factors to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian
perspective”, Resources Policy. pp 1-14.
Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Xu, L. and Diabat, A. (2016), “Using AHP to evaluate barriers in
adopting sustainable consumption and production initiatives in a supply
chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.181 No.1, pp.342-349.
Mallidis, I. and Vlachos, D. (2010), “A framework for green supply chain management”, 1st
Olympus International Conference on Supply Chains, Katerini, Greece, pp. 1-16.
Malone, D.W. (1975), “An introduction to the application of interpretive structural modeling”,
Proceedings of IEEE, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp.397–404.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A. and Geng, Y. (2013), “An ISM approach for
the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 47 No.1, pp. 283-297.
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P. and Raj, T. (2009), “Greening the supply chain practices:
An Indian perspective of enablers’ relationships”, International Journal of Advanced
Operations Management, Vol.1 No. (2–3), pp. 151–176.
Mudgal, R. K., Shankar, R., Talib, P. and Raj, T. (2010), “Modelling the barriers of green supply
chain practices: an Indian perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and
Management, Vol. 7 No.1, pp. 81-107.
Muduli, K. and Barve, A. (2012), “Barriers to green practices in health care waste sector: an
Indian perspective”, International Journal of Environmental Science and Development
Vol. 3 No.4, pp.393-399.
Muduli. K., Kannan, G., Barve, A., Kannan, D and Geng, Y. (2013), “Role of behavioural
factors in green supply chain management implementation in Indian mining industries”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 76 No.1, pp. 50-60.
Mukherjee, K. and Mandal, S. (2009), “Analysis of issues relating to remanufacturing
technology – a case of an Indian company”, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 639–652.
Narasimhan, R. and Kim, S.W. (2002), “Effect of supply chain integration on the relationship
between diversification and performance: Evidence from Japanese and Korean firms”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No.3, pp. 303–323.
Newman, W.R. and Hanna, M.D. (1996), “An empirical exploration of the relationship between
manufacturing strategy and environmental management: Two complementary models”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No.4, pp. 69–
87.
Nimawat, D. and Namdev, V. (2012), “An overview of green supply chain management in
India”, Research Journal of Recent Sciences, Vol.1 No.6, pp. 77–82.
Ninlawan, C., Seksan, P., Tossapol, K. and Pilada, W. (2010), “The implementation of green
supply chain management practices in electronics industry”, The proceedings of the
International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. 3 No.1.
Nordhaus, W.D. (1979), The Efficient Use of Energy Resources, Yale University Press.
Ojo, E., Mbow, C. and Akinlabi, E. (2014), “Barriers in implementing green supply chain
management in construction industry”, Proceedings of the 2014 International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Bali, Indonesia, pp.
1974-1981.
Olugu, E.U., Wong, K.Y. and Shaharoun, A.M. (2011), “Development of key performance
measures for the automobile green supply chain”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 55 No.6, pp. 567–579.
on Climate Change, I.P. (2007), Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The AR4
Synthesis Report. Geneva: IPCC.
Paulraj, A. (2009), “Environmental motivations: a classification scheme and its impact on
environmental strategies and practices”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18
No.7, pp. 453–68.
Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J and Eklund, J. (2003), “Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden:
Motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000”, International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, Vol. 20, No.5, pp. 585–606.

Porter, M.E., Van de Linde, C. (1995), “Green and Competitive”, Harvard Business Review, pp.
120-134.
Prasad, S. R. and Chalapathi, P. V. (2015), “Factors Influencing Implementation of OHSAS
18001 in Indian Construction organizations: Interpretive Structural Modeling
approach”, Safety and Health at Work. pp. 1-6.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance?” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25
No.9, pp. 898-916.
Raut, R.D., Narkhede, B.E. and Gardas, B.B. (2017), “To identify the Critical Success Factors
of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices in the context of Oil and Gas
Industries: ISM Approach”, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 68 No.1,
pp. 33-47.
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.
Ravi, V. (2015), “Analysis of interactions among barriers of eco-efficiency in electronics
packaging industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.101 No.1, pp.16- 25.
Reijonen, S. (2011), “Environmentally friendly consumer: from determinism to emergence”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol.35 No.4, pp. 403–409.
Revell, A. and Rutherfoord, R. (2003), “UK environmental policy and the small firm: broadening
the focus”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol.12, No.1, pp. 26-35.
Sage, A.P. (1977), Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large-Scale Systems,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp.91–164.
Sandeep. K., Sanjay, K., Pardeep, G. and Abid, H. (2013), “Analysis of interdependence among
the enablers of green concept implementation in Indian automobile supply chain”,
Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, Vol. 4 No.2, pp. 5-11.
Sarkis, J. (2009), “A Boundaries and Flows Perspective of Green Supply Chain Management”,
GPMI working papers, No-7.
Sasananan, M., Narkhede, B.E., Gardas, B.B. and Raut, R.D. (2016), “Selection of third party
logistics service provider using a multi-criteria decision making approach for Indian
cement manufacturing industries”, Thammasat International Journal of Science and
Technology, Vol.21 No.3, pp. 70-81.
Scupola, A. (2003), “The adoption of internet commerce by SMEs in the South of Italy: an
environmental, technological and organizational perspective”, Journal of Global
Information Technology Management, Vol. 6 No.1, pp. 52-71.
Scur, G. and Barbosa, M. E. (2017), “Green supply chain management practices: Multiple case
studies in the Brazilian home appliance industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.
141 No.1, pp. 1293-1302.
Seuring, S. (2004), “Integrated chain management and supply chain management comparative
analysis and illustrative cases”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.12 No.8, pp. 1059-
1071.
Sharma, H.D., Gupta, A.D. and Sushil. (1995), “The objectives of waste management in India: a
futures inquiry”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.48 No.3, pp. 285-
309.
Sharma, S.K, Panda, B., Mahapatra, S.S. and Sahu S. (2011), “Analysis of barriers for reverse
logistics: an Indian perspective”, International Journal of Modeling and Optimization
Vol.1 No.2, pp. 101-106.
Simmons, M. R. (2006), Twilight in the desert: the coming Saudi oil shock and the world
economy, John Wiley & Sons.
Singh, M. and Kant R. (2008), “Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural
modeling Approach”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Management, Vol. 3 No.2, pp.141-150.
Sovacool, B. K. (2007), “Solving the oil independence problem: Is it possible?”, Energy
Policy, Vol.35 No.11, pp. 5505-5514.
Stevels, A. (2002), “Green supply chain management much more than questionnaires and IS0
14001. in: electronics and the environment”, IEEE International Symposium on Design
for Sustainability Programme, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, Vol. 2
No.1, pp. 96–100.
Sushil. (2012), “Interpreting the interpretive structural model”, Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management, Vol.13 No.2, pp. 87–106.
Teixeira, A. A., Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Latan, H. and de Oliveira, J. H. C.
(2016), “Green training and green supply chain management: evidence from Brazilian
firms”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.116 No.1, pp. 170-176.
The Economic Times, (2015), 10
June,http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/47616052.cms?utm_source=cont
entofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst (accessed December 29, 2015).
Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M. (1990), The process of technological innovation. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intra firm
networks”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No.4, pp. 464-476.
US EIA. (2006), OPEC Fact Sheet.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L. and McBain, D. (2008), “Drivers and barriers to environmental supply
chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors”, Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 14 No.1, pp. 69-85.
Wang, G., Wang, Y. and Zhao, T. (2008), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers to energy
saving in China”, Energy Policy, Vol. 36 No.6, pp. 1879-1889.
Warfield, J.W. (1974), “Developing interconnected matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE
Transcript on Systems, Men and Cybernetics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51–81.
Yu, L.C. (2007), “Adoption of green supply in Taiwan logistic industry”, Journal of
Management Study, Vol.2 No.2, pp. 90-98.
Yu, L.C. and Hui, H.Y. (2008), “An empirical study on logistics services provider, intention to
adopt green innovations”, Journal of Technology, Management and Innovation, Vol. 3
No.1, pp.17–26.
Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G. and Premkumar, R. (2012), “Sustainable supply
chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: A survey”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 140 No.1, pp. 330–340.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performance
among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese
manufacturing enterprises”, Journal of operations management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-
289.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Fujita, T. and Hashimoto, S. (2010), “Green supply chain management in
leading manufacturers: Case studies in Japanese large companies”, Management
Research Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 380–392.
Zhang, C., Sun, L., Wen, F., Lin, Z., Ledwich, G. and Xue, Y. (2015), “An interpretative
structural modeling based network reconfiguration strategy for power
systems”, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Vol. 65 No.1,
pp. 83-93.

Benchmarking: An International Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benchmarking: An International Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benchmarking: An International Journal

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

2.1 Papers published in the sustainability segment

2.2 Overview of interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach

Balasubramanian (2012) presented a hierarchical sustainability framework of barriers to the

2.3 Barriers in implementing sustainable practices in oil and gas industries

1. Government rules and regulations

sustainable practices in Indian oil and gas sector.

Establish contextual relationship (Xij) between barriers (i j) Expert’s opinion

Develop a structural self-interaction matrix Develop reachability matrix

Partition the reachability matrix into different levels

Develop reachability matrix in its conical form

Remove transitivity from the diagraph Develop the diagraph

Is there any Yes

combinations consist of Public Sector Undertakings (Government majority Companies-PSUs),

Table 1 The structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of barriers

be ‘1’ and the (j, i) value becomes ‘0’.

Table 2 The initial reachability matrix for the critical barriers

Table 3 The Final reachability matrix for the critical barriers

Table 4 Level partitions of the reachability matrix

Figure 2 Final digraph depicting relationship among the barriers

Lack of green initiatives Lack of CSR

Supplier’s flexibility to change towards sustainability

Governmental Knowledge and Financial Management

Figure 3 ISM based model

Figure 4 The driving and dependence power diagram (Power matrix)

7. Future Scope and Limitations of the study

management options in Brazil”, Waste Management, Vol.57 No.1, pp.46-56.

Hosseini, A. (2007), “Identification of green management of system’s factors: - A

Vol. 36 No.8, pp. 2850-2852.

and Reliability Management, Vol. 20, No.5, pp. 585–606.

You might also like