See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266221873

Drivers and Barriers of Green Manufacturing Practices Drivers and Barriers of

Green Manufacturing Practices Drivers and Barriers of Green Manufacturing
Practices Drivers and Barrie...

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

30 1,113

3 authors, including:

Bhim Singh Ashwani Dhingra

Sharda University Maharshi Dayanand University
16 PUBLICATIONS   559 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Heat and Mass Transfer Analysis for the Drying of Groundnuts View project

Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashwani Dhingra on 16 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012, ISSN: 2277-9698

Practices::
Drivers and Barriers of Green Manufacturing Practices
A Survey of Indian Industries
Ajay Singh1, Bhim Singh2 and Ashwani K. Dhingra3
1
Lecturer, Department of Mechanical Engineering, S.D. Institute of Technology & Management, Kurukshetra University
Kurukshetra, Israna (Panipat), PIN-132107, Haryana, India
mechanical_engineer1988@yahoo.co.in
2
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering & Technology, Galgotias University, Greater Noida,
PIN-201308, Uttar Pradesh, India
bhimsingh_ncce@rediffmail.com
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Institute of Engineering & Technology, Maharshi
Dayanand University, Rohtak-124001, Haryana, India
ashwani_dhingra1979@rediff.com

Abstract problems. To avoid these problems Green

Through this study an effort has been made to identify various
factors that act as “Drivers” and “Barriers” of green
manufacturing practices from the extant literature. With the
help of Identified drivers and barriers a structured
questionnaire is prepared and a pilot study is performed to
check the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.
Questionnaire is mailed to about 55 Indian industries and after
rigorous follow up 30 valid responses are received on a five
point Likert’s scale. To assess the penetration of identified
drivers and barriers of green manufacturing practices in Indian
Industries descriptive statistics is calculated. The relation
between drivers and barriers of green practices with green
performance parameters is obtained with the help of
correlation analysis and it is found that all the identified
drivers are positively correlated with green performance
parameters but all the barriers are negatively correlated with
green performance parameters. Finally the results of this study
are discussed with the practitioners working in the Indian
industries and after discussion, it is concluded that the results
of study represent the true scenarios of green practices in
Indian industries.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),
Environmental Management (EM), Environmental Health and
Safety (EHS), Green Manufacturing (GM), Green Supply
Chain Management (GSCM).
1. Introduction
In today’s fast growing field of industrial sectors
peoples are only concerned about the growth and profit
of the firm, whether these things are coming at any cost
of impacting the environment in a hazardous manner.
Only a very few mega public sector units are concerned
about the hazardous impact of the waste products on
environment. Various industrial firms are considered to
be the eminent source of most of these environmental
5
manufacturing (GM) comes out as life saving practice
that need to be adopted at various processing levels in
various manufacturing firms. Green manufacturing is a
combined set of harmless manufacturing processes that
collectively help to minimizes waste and pollution, to
provide pollution free environment to consumers,
employees and other members of the community. In
Green Manufacturing, environmental impact of
manufacturing processes is considered at all stages of
production. The manufacturers avoid the use of all
materials & manufacturing processes which are harmful
to the ecosystem, at the various stages of production
system. Various stages may include design, machining,
surface finishing, storage, disposal of wastes etc. GM
addresses a number of manufacturing practices
including recycling, waste management, green
purchasing & marketing, using a cleaner & renewable
source of energy, end-of-life management of products,
green logistics & GSCM etc. Adopting these green
practices under the strategy of green manufacturing for
the production of various goods is very beneficial in
alleviation of the problem of environmental pollution.
“Green manufacturing is not an option but a necessity
for our well-being and survival in today’s competitive
environment” [6].
Emphasis is given on extracting out the inside reality of
the firm by asking them some basic questions through
the medium of a structured survey questionnaire. Some
of these are stated in the following:-
• What drives your organization to adopt various green
practices?
• What are the barriers that your organization faces
during adoption various green practices?
• What is level of awareness of your firm, customers,
suppliers & shareholders about the existence of
IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012
various environmental standards and codes and
various green practices?
• What are the final outcomes and benefits of adopting
various green practices for green manufacturing?
1.1 GM Strategies
The main strategies for GM are to develop and
implement solutions for citizens, corporations, non-
profit organizations, and disadvantaged populations that
achieve positive outcomes for the environment and the
communities in which they live. Some of them are
discussed below:-
• Create products and systems those use fewer amounts
of material and energy.
• Substitute input materials that are non-toxic &
renewable.
• Reduce unwanted outputs.
• Convert outputs to inputs with recycling and all its
variants (zero waste).
• Changed structures of ownership and production.
• Green Transportation and logistics.
• Green purchasing & marketing.
1.2 Major Opportunities to GM
Green Manufacturing offers many useful opportunities
for its successful implementation including all future
energy, transport, medical, life style, lodging, defense
and water supply systems based on increasingly precise
elements and components. Green Manufacturing plays a
vital role in preserving our natural resources for future
generations. Some of them are illustrated as following:-
• Manufacturing for an energy and environmentally
aware consumer (autos, consumer products, buildings,
etc.)
• Manufacturing alternate energy supply systems.
• Designing the Machine tools using less energy,
materials, and space.
• Efficient factory operation.
• Comply with government regulations.
1.3 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the idea which
imparts information that corporations should be “fine
corporate citizens" and also take responsibility for their
environmental and social issues. There are some moral
duties and responsibilities that a firm should fulfill in
return of harming the environment day by day by their
hazardous production system. CSR is a form of
corporate self-regulation of various corporate actions
into a business model with having a goal to clinch the
responsibility for the company's actions and encourage a
positive impact through its activities on the
6
environment, consumers, employees, communities,
stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere.
2. Literature Outcomes
Factors that act as “Drivers” and “Barriers” of green
manufacturing practices are identified from the extant
literature, which are generally faced during
implementation of green practices in Indian industries.
2.1 Historical Background
The role of “Green Purchasing” in reducing and
eliminating waste was discussed by H. Min and W. Galle
[1]. Also effects of “green” purchasing on packaging
decisions are explored. Discussion is made on various
obstacles in implementation of green purchasing.
Murray[4] adopted the research methodology which
was the case study type in which the author discussed
green purchasing strategy, resource saving strategy,
waste removal and its management by taking the case of
paper utilization in office work. Pun et al. [7] advised the
adoption & implementation of Environmental
Management System (EMS) and the various effects and
factors that may affect EMS planning. Environmentally
Responsible Manufacturing (ERM) is also an advanced
technique for controlling the industrial pollution [8]. M.
Baxter [9] firstly explained the barriers and then the
successful ways to pass through these hurdles have been
proposed, to successfully implement EMS. The
renovated concept which later on proved as a most
existing driver of GM practices is Environmental,
Health and Safety (EHS) of the working employees in a
particular firm [10]. One more important concept of
SCM was presented by Paquette [12].
In the same sense the concept of “GREEN” in the pre-
existing field of supply chain management is evaluated
and described by Zhu et al [13], which resulted later on
in to GSCM that includes various Drivers, Green
practices and Performance parameters among various
manufacturing organizations. Further work in this field
of greening the manufacturing practices enhanced its
growth in to chemicals, mining and resource, oil, gas
and petroleum, transport and tourism, construction, food
and household sectors for their research to find
environmental sensitiveness [19]. Simpson et al. [21] had
introduced successfully C.S.R and also sound effect of
green manufacturing practices on sustainable ecological
development. The advantages of reverse logistics were
highlighted by Chunguang et al. [25]. Gonza´lez et al. [26]
has given relationship between EMS and EM practice
adoption. The author emphasized on the ISO 14001 and
EMAS certifications and these are considered as
systemic requirements oriented toward altering business
processes and procedures. Existing literature in the field
IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012
of business and management has largely ignored GM
practices within small and medium-sized enterprises
(SME’s). But the process of GM adoption in SME’s is
explored and investigated and founded that SME’s can
make themselves greener by making strategic and
organizational changes [32]. Gonza´lez et al. [26]
suggested a term CSR reported over the past two
decades in the electronics industry. Authors have
provided CSR standards and codes which are applicable
in a firm and these are ISO 14001, SA8000, AA1000,
GRI Reporting Guideline and Global Compact.
Fig. 1 EMS Model
Greening of the supply chain provides a significant
opportunity to improve overall environmental
performance and also opportunity to reduce costs [23].
Dornfeld [33] defined the sustainable manufacturing as
the creation of manufacturing products that uses
materials and processes that minimize negative
environmental impacts. Kannan et al. [34] proposed a
reverse logistic approach in which there is a provision
of taking back the used products, either under warranty
or at the end of use.
2.2 Extracted Drivers from the Literature
From the identified set of “Drivers” the most common
factor that acts as a driver is found government
legislation under some special environmental standards
& codes, that are decided by the government itself [1],
[9], [13], [14], [21], [28], [30], [33], [34].
In the same manner green purchasing strategies which
are directly related to level of customer awareness
towards purchasing of environmental friendly products
are emphasized [1]. Green purchasing is an important
environmental conscious technique for implementation
of GM that tries to ensure that purchased products or
7
materials meet environmental objectives set by the
purchasing firm, such as reducing the sources of
wastages, promoting recycling, reuse, resource
reduction, and substitution of materials.
As far as the drivers are concerned organizational
factors play a key role in the adoption of environmental
innovations, referred to as environmentally conscious
manufacturing (ECM) practices. These organizational
factors are regulatory pressure, public concerns, market
competition, organizational resources and
organizational monitoring systems [2], [3], [22], [23],
[24], [26], [27]. There should be a strategic alliance
between manufacturer and an eco-non-profit
organization in the collection process under a closed-
loop supply chain that benefits the manufacturer by
reducing its collection costs [14].
Walker [30] explored the various factors that drive
organizations to implement green supply chain
management practices. Results are divided into two
main categories of internal and external drivers of
green supply chain management practices, including
organizational factors, regulation, customers,
competitors and society. It is also found that
organizations seem to be more influenced by external
rather than internal drivers.
Further some more dominating driving factors such as
customer’s & supplier’s demands and pressure,
economic benefits, lack of natural resources, ethical&
social responsibility, environmental concerns &
auditing are proposed [3], [4], [12], [19], [23], [33].
Reference [16] suggested three categories, such as
motivator type, actions and strategies & potentially
affecting the level of environmental soundness are three
categories which contribute to an organisation to pursue
a certain level of environmental soundness within the
business. Cai et al., [24] summarized three types of
pressures or drivers in adoption of the GSC strategy
among firms. These are mimetic, coercive and
normative types of pressures.
Also firms are founded to be more worried about
Environmental Safety, Employee’s Health and Safety,
Green Image & Global Improvement in sales [4], [7],
[8], [10], [13], [15], [20], [30], [35].
Some more factors that came in to existence are the
Cost reduction benefits, Inter-competitiveness, Green
Purchasing strategy and Improved quality level of
product [4], [11], [14], [21], [26].
Central as well as State government are found more
active towards GM. For the fulfilment of the same they
are providing economic compensation to the firms
which help a lot to motivate the firms towards adoption
of green practices. Commitment of the national
authorities & NGO’s pressure are two such factors that
create pressure and awareness to the firms about green
manufacturing [15], [25], [27].
IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012
2.3 Extracted Barriers from the Literature
The next types of factors that are extracted from the
literature are of barrier types, which hinder the path of
various GM practices and are faced by various
processing teams. However most of them are being
overtaken with the help of excellent supervision, but
some are remain as un-crossable barriers in the noble
path of GM. The very frequently originated barriers
faced by supervisors of various green practices are lack
of necessary tools, management skills & commitment,
lack of customer awareness and lack of awareness in
firm itself. Further some more related factors to this
group are lack of research & empirical studies in the
firms, which should have be done periodically in R&D
departments [3], [4], [9], [12], [13], [28], [35].
Revelle [5] described that increment in overall cost, risk
in adopting new green production measures & various
hidden costs are some more hindering factors that affect
the firm’s performance in a reverse manner by
increasing the total cost of a product. Reference [9]
explained firstly barriers and then proposed the
successful ways to pass through these hurdles to
implement EMS successfully. The problems in supply
chain, poor supplier commitment & lack of co-
ordination in various departments proved themselves as
some internal barriers against GM. In the same manner
displaced efforts & loose government legislation also
acts as barriers for GM [5], [12], [13], [15], [16], [20],
[27], [30], [31].
Somehow inabilities of the firms in the area of change
in manufacturing & management systems, inappropriate
environmental treatment measures and non-uniform
rules of obeying environmental standards & codes all
collectively lead to impart complication in adoption of
various GM practices [7], [8], [9], [10], [15], [27], [28],
[32].
Main Drivers For GM Practices
Legal requirements of Government, Social
responsibility, public Pressure, Green image, Global
marketing.
Economic benefits or cost reduction benefits,
Competitiveness, Green purchasing strategy, Improved
quality level.
Customer awareness, pressure & support, Supplier’s
Pressure & willingness, Investors & Shareholder
Pressure, Demand for eco-friendly products.
Before the adoption of new green practice, the primary
step is the development of new analytical tools, models
& metrics to propagate and evaluate the practice in
various running phases. Somehow these all formulations
proved as a tedious job for the engineers and whole
management, in turn of which the interest of staff has
been lost, again resulting to the non-adoption of new
green practice [5], [12], [33].
Kumar & Malegeant [14] showed that recycling being so
wide existing green practice need not to be 100%
successful green practice, because of the following
negative features:-
1) Uncertainty in material recovery during
recycling,
2) Routing uncertainty,
3) Difficulty in recycling for perishable products.
Walker [30] also explored the various factors that hinder
organizations to implement green supply chain
management practices. Author have identified the main
categories of internal and external barriers, where
internal barriers include cost and lack of legitimacy and
external barriers include regulation, poor supplier
commitment and industry specific barriers. Reference
[32] founded a problem that small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) are already handicapped by lack of
information and resources to invest in green
management. One more factor that came in to
framework is requirement of special training programs
& courses for the successful implementation of various
green practices. But overall in the sight of financial
managers all of these programs side by side increases
overall product cost which is unfavorable for both
customer and producer itself.
The following Table provides further information about
the various drivers that are responsible for the adoption
of various GM practices:-
Contributors Remarks
[2], [3], [9], Requirement of Government legislation for
[13], [14], green manufacturing (GM) is founded as
[22], [23], widest most existing factor in various firms.
[24], [27],
[34]
[1], [4], [11], Green practices contribute to achieve
[15], [16], Economic benefits that leading firms to
[18], [20], adopt various GM practices.
[21], [26]
[7], [10], [16], Customers, Suppliers & Investors are found
[17], [18], to be more aware about eco-friendly
[21], [27], products, which lead collectively towards
[35] GM.
IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
8
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012

Environmental concerns of firm, Employee’s [1], [4], [6], Firms are found to be keen towards self
Motivation, health & Safety, Ecological benefits, [8], [11], [14], responsibility for the sustainable
Higher amount of waste generation, Waste disposal [18], [19], development.
problem. [20], [31]

Economic compensation by Government, Commitment [15], [25], Central as well as state government are found
of the national authorities, NGO Pressure. [27] more active towards GM by hardening their
environmental laws.
Scarcity of Resources, Rapid industrialization, Rising [4], [6], [12], Limited availability of natural resources
energy prices, Desire of continuous improvement, [15], [19], forces firms for contributing to Green
Limited space available for disposal. [33] manufacturing.

Corporate strategies to maintain market leadership, [24], [33] Individual strategies of firms to improve
Interest of firm in overall Efficiency. their overall efficiency contributing to Green
manufacturing a lot.

Organizational capabilities & awareness, Co-operative [8], [17], [21], Individual ability and supporting
organizational structure, availability of adequate [29] infrastructure of firms also contribute a lot
human resources, Compatible supply chain structure, towards sustainable development of firm.
Efficient leadership of senior management, Good
Customer-supplier relationship.

Availability & use of recycled materials in [15], [17], Allow ability of consumption of re-cycled
manufacturing, Improved technology of converting [21] materials in manufacturing system give
waste in to new product, Satisfactory technological direction to green manufacturing.
alternatives.

The following Table 2 will give the required information about some obstacles ‘or’ barriers:-

Table 2: Segregated list of barriers along with their reference and remarks
Main Barriers During Adoption Of Contributors Remarks
Various Gm Practices
Lack of necessary tools, management [3], [4], [9], [12], Firms are founded, lacking in many basic requirements
skills & commitment, customer awareness, [13], [15], [27], for the successful implementation of various GM
financial support, research & empirical [28], [35] practices.
studies, awareness in Companies itself,
less environmental pressures from
stakeholders.

Poor supplier commitment, problems in [1], [4], [12], [13], Intra co-ordination between departments and relation
supply chain, Inadequate coordination, [15], [16], [20], with suppliers need to be more active & stable, with
Displaced efforts, Loose Government [27], [30] the corresponding increment in awareness.
Legislation, Manufacturer’s unawareness.

Increment In overall Cost, Purchasing of [1], [5], [9], [12], Here some de-motivating reasons are given which also
costly Environmental friendly materials, [20], [22], [23], acts as barriers for GM implementation.
Inappropriate incentives, Risk in adopting [27], [30], [32]
new green production measures, Hidden
costs.
Incompatibility with different mgt. & [3], [5], [7], [8], Non-flexible nature of manufacturing system &
manuf. systems, incompatible [9], [10], [15], organization structure hinders any change required for
organizational str., Inability to adopt [27], [32] adoption of GM practices.
adequate environmental treatment
measures, Non-uniform rules, Resistance
to change.

IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
9
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012

Need of development of new analytical
tools, models & metrics, chemical analysis
of exhaust.
Uncertainty in material recovery during
recycling, routing uncertainty, difficulty in
recycling for perishable products.
[5], [12], [27], [33] These factors showing the unwillingness of the firm
towards GM.
[14] Very popular GM practice named recycling need not to
be every time 100% successful.

Requirement of training for [8], [32] These factors unwillingly increases the labor cost of
implementation of environmental sensitive the firm; hence act as barriers.
processes, re-management of Human
resource.
3.1 Computational Technique for Pearson
3. Results and Discussions Correlation Coefficient (r):-

With the help of these above Identified drivers and For X and Y the two variables that need to be
barriers a structured questionnaire is prepared and a correlated.
pilot study is performed to check the reliability and X = Mean of all responses of X variable.
validity of the questionnaire. Questionnaire is mailed to Y = Mean of all responses of Y variable.
about 55 Indian industries and after rigorous follow up The r-value can be calculated by following formula
30 valid responses are received on a five point Likert
scale.
To assess the penetration of identified drivers and
barriers of green manufacturing practices in Indian
Industries descriptive statistics is calculated. The
relation between drivers and barriers of green practices
with green performance parameters is obtained with the
Where,
help of correlation analysis in SPSS.
This correlation tool is used to measure the strength of
N = Sample Size
association between drivers & performance parameters
and between barriers & performance parameters (i.e., by
finding the sign and absolute value of Pearson
Correlation Coefficient). The Pearson correlation
coefficient (r) value for short is a measure of the degree
of linear relationship between two variables. The sign
of the correlation coefficient (+, -) defines the direction
of the relationship, either positive or negative.
A positive correlation coefficient means that as the Where,
value of one variable increases, the value of the other
variable increases; as one decreases the other decreases. SX = Sample standard deviation of X variable.
While the negative sign indicates that if the value of one SY = Sample standard deviation of Y variable
variable increases the other variable will decrease.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics of drivers

Mean Standard Sample
Driver value Deviation size (N)
J Employee’s Motivation, health & Safety 4.1667 0.94989 30
N Global climatic pressure & Ecological benefits 3.8667 1.04166 30
B Environmental concerns & legislature 3.5667 0.89763 30
D Green image, Global marketing & Competitiveness 3.5333 1.07425 30
C Social & Environmental responsibility 3.4667 1.07425 30
L Organizational capabilities & awareness 3.4000 1.03724 30
A Government rules & legislation 3.3667 1.06620 30

IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
10
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012

K Scarcity of Resources, Higher waste generation & Waste

3.3333 0.95893 30
disposal problem
G Customer’s awareness, pressure & support 3.3000 0.98786 30
M Demand for environmentally friendly products 3.1333 1.19578 30
F Economic benefits or cost reduction benefits 2.9333 0.94443 30
E Society or public pressure 2.7000 1.08755 30
H Supplier’s Pressure & willingness 2.6000 1.19193 30
I Investor’s & Shareholder Pressure 2.1000 1.09387 30

Fig. 2 Bar Diagram showing comparison of means of responses of Different drivers from survey questionnaire

pressurized from the globally oriented environmental

3.2 Descriptive Statistics of Drivers
The following derived Table 3 & Fig. 2 are showing
factor wise mean values and standard deviations of
survey responses on a five point Likert scale, of all
presented drivers to GM practices to 30 different Indian
manufacturing industries.
After the evaluation of Table 3 and Fig. 2 it can be easily
notified that in most of firms Employee’s motivation,
health & safety (J), Environmental concerns &
legislature (B), Green image, Global marketing &
competitiveness (D), Global climatic pressure &
ecological benefits (N), Social & environmental
responsibility (C) and Government rules & legislation
(A) are the most commonly existing driving factors
which led firms to adopt various green practices, with
having mean value ranging from 3.3667 to 4.1667 when
responses are taken on a five point Likert’s scale. The
present survey results made us confirmed that firms are
adopting green practices because they are highly
worried about their employees, they are continuously
11
issues handling bodies and NGO’s and they want to
impose themselves with a good global image which in
turn helps them financially by improving their market
globally. Some firms are also concerned of the social &
environmental responsibility against the environment
for ecological benefits. Again the intense pressure from
state and central governments under many rules and
legislature motivates Indian firms to adopt the green
practices willingly or unwillingly.
In the same manner it is also proved that Investor’s &
shareholder pressure (I), Supplier’s pressure &
willingness (H), Society ‘or’ public pressure (E),
Economic benefits ‘or’ Cost reduction benefits (F),
Demand for environmentally friendly products (M) and
Scarcity of resources, higher waste generation & waste
disposal problem (K) are some driving factors that
founded with a very low level of acceptability with a
mean value range from 2.1 to 3.333. The data reveals
that various investors, shareholders & supplier’s of a
firm are not fully aware of their rights of alteration in
manufacturing system of the firm to make it clean,
IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012

efficient and profit oriented. Our society again lacking
in awareness level towards eco-friendly products and
hazardous impact of manufacturing processes on whole
ecological system. The customers are not demanding
environmentally friendly products from the firms and
also they hesitate to buy the same because of some extra
load on their pocket. Hence the golden and fruitful
outcomes of using such products are avoided.
3.3 Descriptive Statistics of Performance
Parameters
In the same manner if the analysis is made on the
existence level of different performance parameters and
beneficial outcomes in a firm after adoption of green
practices, then renovated Working conditions for the
ease of their employees are founded to be established in
the most of the firms, up to an excellent level with mean
value equal to 4.3667 (Table 4 & Fig. 3). Along with
that Controlled level of pollution, saving of natural
resources, Improved Health and safety of employees &
improved global Image are some existing benefits
founded in the surveyed set of firms with mean value of
4.300, 4.033, 4.300 & 3.800 respectively. But on the
other side the minor effects on the increment in share
price, profitability & quality of product are seen. This
can be recognized from the following Table 4 & Fig. 3.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Performance Parameters

Performance Parameter Sample size
Mean value Standard Deviation
(N)
T Better Working conditions 4.3667 0.88992 30
U Improved Health and safety of Employees 4.3000 0.91539 30
O Pollution control 4.3000 0.83666 30
P Saving of natural resources 4.0333 0.88992 30
V Improved Global Image 3.8000 0.96132 30
S Improved Product quality 3.6000 0.93218 30
Q Increased Profitability 3.3000 1.08755 30
R Rise in market share price 3.1000 1.12495 30

Fig. 3 Bar Diagram showing comparison of means of responses of different performance parameters from survey questionnaire

3.4 Correlation Results of Drivers with generated by the help of SPSS statistical tool to evaluate
Performance Parameters the actual relation of drivers with the final outcomes and
performance parameters in a firm. The relation between
With the help of survey responses, the correlated results drivers and performance parameters normally appeared
of various drivers with performance parameters are as positively correlated. The same can be interpreted
IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
12
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012

from the following correlations results of drivers &
performance parameters indicating positive Pearson
Correlation Co-efficient (r) in most of columns, in the
following Table 5. After a close look it can be seen that
the driving factor ‘J’ is found strongly correlated
positively with performance parameter named ‘T’,
having the r-value of +0.782, which is very close to its
highest possible value of + 1.000. This correlation result
proves that if the firms are worried about the health &
safety of the employees, then in turn they are gaining
better and improved working conditions in their
premises. After that one more driving factor ‘M’ is also
found strongly correlated with the performance
parameter ‘S’ with having the r-value of +0.730, which
shows that environmentally friendly products leads to
improved quality level. The next driving factor ‘B’
when correlated with ‘P’, the r-value of +0.623 is
obtained, which shows that if the firms are directed
towards environmental concerns then automatically
saving of natural resources can be achieved. The
correlated result of drivers & performance parameters
are shown in the following Table 5:

Table 5: Correlations results of Drivers & Performance parameters indicating Pearson Correlation Co-efficient (r) value
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V
A Pearson *
.532 .29
Correlati 1 * .395* .158 .196 -.043 -.152 .115 .346 -.056 .393* .123 .356 .375* .495** .199 .572** .361 .544** .413* .209
7
on
Sig. (2- .11
.002 .031 .406 .298 .823 .423 .544 .061 .768 .032 .519 .053 .041 .005 .291 .001 .050 .002 .023 .269
tailed) 1
B Pearson
.532* .64 .532* .600* .526*
Correlati * 1 .713** .110 .249 -.121 .058 .256 * .254 * .281 * .500** .623** .385* .420* .321 .422* .457* .535**
6**
on
Sig. (2- .00
.002 .000 .565 .184 .526 .761 .171 .002 .176 .000 .133 .003 .005 .000 .036 .021 .083 .020 .011 .002
tailed) 0
C Pearson
.646* .662* .487*
Correlati .297 * 1 .763** .153 .304 .026 .285 .370* .462* .279 * * .427* .453* .344 .496** .360 .468** .248 .203 .461*
on
Sig. (2-
.111 .000 .000 .418 .103 .892 .126 .044 .010 .135 .000 .006 .019 .012 .063 .005 .051 .009 .187 .281 .010
tailed)
D Pearson
.713* .76 .699*
Correlati .395* * 1 .053 .172 -.026 .092 .158 .451* .257 .399* .405* .391* .269 .360 .439* .393* .293 .393* .474**
3** *
on
Sig. (2- .00
.031 .000 .780 .363 .892 .630 .403 .012 .171 .000 .029 .027 .032 .150 .051 .015 .032 .116 .032 .008
tailed) 0
E Pearson
.15 .618* .568* .596* .519*
Correlati .158 .110 .053 1 * * * * -.117 .298 .171 .323 .024 -.011 .011 .224 .251 .354 -.239 -.149 .040
3
on
Sig. (2- .41
.406 .565 .780 .000 .001 .001 .003 .539 .110 .366 .081 .898 .952 .955 .233 .181 .055 .204 .432 .835
tailed) 8
F Pearson
.30 .618* .466* .619* .641* .520*
Correlati .196 .249 .172 * 1 * * * .167 * .310 .222 -.009 .113 .249 .423* .266 .321 .030 .104 .175
4
on
Sig. (2- .10
.298 .184 .363 .000 .009 .000 .000 .379 .003 .096 .239 .961 .551 .185 .020 .155 .084 .875 .586 .356
tailed) 3
G Pearson
.02 .568* .466* .750*
Correlati -.043 -.121 -.026 * * 1 * .386* -.165 .364* .215 .374* .007 .138 .106 .202 .189 .285 -.051 .126 .211
6
on
Sig. (2- .89
.823 .526 .892 .001 .009 .000 .035 .383 .048 .253 .042 .972 .468 .578 .284 .316 .127 .789 .508 .264
tailed) 2
H Pearson
.28 .596* .619* .750* .746*
Correlati -.152 .058 .092 * * * 1 * -.122 .453* .357 .450* -.017 .090 .078 .362* .185 .379* -.182 -.013 .289
5
on
Sig. (2- .12
.423 .761 .630 .001 .000 .000 .000 .521 .012 .053 .013 .930 .637 .682 .049 .327 .039 .336 .947 .122
tailed) 6
I Pearson
.37 .519* .641* .746*
Correlati .115 .256 * .158 * * .386* * 1 .116 .460* .389* .306 -.018 .079 .244 .351 .412* .379* .032 .038 .216
0
on

IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
13
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012

Sig. (2- .04

.544 .171 .403 .003 .000 .035 .000 .541 .010 .034 .100 .924 .678 .193 .057 .024 .039 .867 .842 .251
tailed) 4
J Pearson
.532* .46
Correlati .346 * .451* -.117 .167 -.165 -.122 .116 1 .429* .385* .132 .372* .499** .564** .217 .339 .156 .782** .615** .264
2*
on
Sig. (2- .01
.061 .002 .012 .539 .379 .383 .521 .541 .018 .036 .488 .043 .005 .001 .249 .067 .411 .000 .000 .158
tailed) 0
K Pearson
.27 .520*
Correlati -.056 .254 .257 .298 * .364* .453* .460* .429* 1 .416* .200 .288 .172 .269 .331 .160 .193 .256 .236 .224
9
on
Sig. (2- .13
.768 .176 .171 .110 .003 .048 .012 .010 .018 .022 .288 .123 .364 .150 .074 .399 .307 .172 .210 .233
tailed) 5
L Pearson
.600* .66 .595* .466*
Correlati .393* * .699** .171 .310 .215 .357 .389* .385* .416* 1 .374* .471** .410* .585** .492** .359 .414* .533**
2** * *
on
Sig. (2- .00
.032 .000 .000 .366 .096 .253 .053 .034 .036 .022 .001 .009 .042 .009 .025 .001 .006 .052 .023 .002
tailed) 0
M Pearson
.48 .595*
Correlati .123 .281 ** .399* .323 .222 .374* .450* .306 .132 .200 * 1 .430* .303 .417* .472** .554** .730** .017 .277 .384*
7
on
Sig. (2- .00
.519 .133 .029 .081 .239 .042 .013 .100 .488 .288 .001 .018 .103 .022 .008 .002 .000 .928 .138 .036
tailed) 6
N Pearson
.526* .42 .466*
Correlati .356 * .405* .024 -.009 .007 -.017 -.018 .372* .288 * .430* 1 .562** .489** .219 .365* .369* .315 .405* .351
7*
on
Sig. (2- .01
.053 .003 .027 .898 .961 .972 .930 .924 .043 .123 .009 .018 .001 .006 .245 .047 .045 .090 .026 .057
tailed) 9
O Pearson
.500* .45 .499* .562*
Correlati .375* * .391* -.011 .113 .138 .090 .079 * .172 .374* .303 * 1 .588** .277 .407* .424* .634** .419* .249
3*
on
Sig. (2- .01
.041 .005 .032 .952 .551 .468 .637 .678 .005 .364 .042 .103 .001 .001 .139 .026 .019 .000 .021 .185
tailed) 2
P Pearson
.495* .623* .34 .564* .471* .489*
Correlati * * .269 .011 .249 .106 .078 .244 * .269 * .417* * .588** 1 .310 .582** .391* .681** .665** .492**
4
on
Sig. (2- .06
tailed) .005 .000 .150 .955 .185 .578 .682 .193 .001 .150 .009 .022 .006 .001 .096 .001 .033 .000 .000 .006
3

Q Pearson
.49 .472*
Correlati .199 .385* ** .360 .224 .423* .202 .362* .351 .217 .331 .410* * .219 .277 .310 1 .454* .667** .132 .322 .422*
6
on
Sig. (2- .00
.291 .036 .051 .233 .020 .284 .049 .057 .249 .074 .025 .008 .245 .139 .096 .012 .000 .487 .083 .020
tailed) 5
R Pearson
.572* .36 .585* .554*
Correlati * .420* .439* .251 .266 .189 .185 .412* .339 .160 * * .365* .407* .582** .454* 1 .697** .444* .472** .370*
0
on
Sig. (2- .05
.001 .021 .015 .181 .155 .316 .327 .024 .067 .399 .001 .002 .047 .026 .001 .012 .000 .014 .008 .044
tailed) 1
S Pearson
.46 .492* .730*
Correlati .361 .321 ** .393* .354 .321 .285 .379* .379* .156 .193 * * .369* .424* .391* .667** .697** 1 .183 .226 .177
8
on
Sig. (2- .00
.050 .083 .032 .055 .084 .127 .039 .039 .411 .307 .006 .000 .045 .019 .033 .000 .000 .333 .229 .349
tailed) 9
T Pearson
.544* .24 .782*
Correlati * .422* .293 -.239 .030 -.051 -.182 .032 * .256 .359 .017 .315 .634** .681** .132 .444* .183 1 .665** .210
8
on
Sig. (2- .18
.002 .020 .116 .204 .875 .789 .336 .867 .000 .172 .052 .928 .090 .000 .000 .487 .014 .333 .000 .266
tailed) 7

IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
14
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012

U Pearson
.20 .615*
Correlati .413* .457* .393* -.149 .104 .126 -.013 .038 * .236 .414* .277 .405* .419* .665** .322 .472** .226 .665** 1 .619**
3
on
Sig. (2- .28
.023 .011 .032 .432 .586 .508 .947 .842 .000 .210 .023 .138 .026 .021 .000 .083 .008 .229 .000 .000
tailed) 1
V Pearson
.535* .46 .533*
Correlati .209 * .474** .040 .175 .211 .289 .216 .264 .224 * .384* .351 .249 .492** .422* .370* .177 .210 .619** 1
1*
on
Sig. (2- .01
.269 .002 .008 .835 .356 .264 .122 .251 .158 .233 .002 .036 .057 .185 .006 .020 .044 .349 .266 .000
tailed) 0
# Sample size (N) =30, ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
(2-tailed),

3.5 Descriptive Statistics of Barriers

The following derived Table 6 & Fig. 4 are showing presented barriers to GM practices to the same 30
factor wise mean values and standard deviations of different Indian manufacturing industries.
survey responses on a five point likerts scale, of all
Table 6: Descriptive statistics of performance parameters
Barrier Mean Standard Sample
value Deviation size (N)
F" Lack of research & empirical studies 3.0333 1.18855 30
K" Lack of customer’s, supplier’s & shareholder’s awareness 2.9333 1.01483 30
D" Increment In overall Cost or financial burden 2.8667 .93710 30
H" Lack of awareness in Companies 2.4333 .89763 30
I" Inadequate coordination between different departments 2.3000 .98786 30
G" Need of development of new analytical tools & models 2.2667 1.04826 30
E" Incompatibility with different management & manufacturing
2.2333 .67891 30
systems
B" Lack of management commitment 2.2000 .99655 30
A" Lack of necessary tools, management skills and knowledge 2.1667 1.01992 30
C" Loose Government Legislation 2.1000 .80301 30
J" Inability to adopt adequate environmental treatment measures 2.0333 .96431 30

It can be easily notified that in most of the firms Lack of
research & empirical studies (F”), Increment In overall
Cost or financial burden (D”), Lack of awareness in
Companies (H”) and Lack of management commitment
(B”) are founded as most commonly existing barriers
factors which hinder these firms in adoption of various
green practices. Most of these barriers having mean
values ranging from 2.200 to 3.0333, when responses
are evaluated on five point Likert scale, with F” with its
highest mean value of 3.0333.
The present survey results demonstrate that firms are
unable to adopt green practices because they are lacking
in periodically research and necessary empirical studies
& awareness which is a primary step in the successful
implementation of various green practices.
Before the implementation of green manufacturing a
15
firm has to invest on purchasing of environmentally
friendly raw material, safer energy source and special
purpose machines which are collectively increase the
overall cost and hence imposing extra financial burden
on the budget. Hence the same proved itself as a major
barrier factor in the noble path of GM. One more factor
that came in to existence is the lack of commitment &
seriousness of workers and managerial staff towards the
implementation of green practices. But on the other side
the existence of barrier named Loose government
legislation (C”) is found very poor with the mean value
of 2.100 ,which signifies that government is playing its
role very well against the environmental rules &
legislations. Also firms are able to adopt adequate
environmental treatment measures but due to some
internal cost oriented reasons they are lacking
IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012

continuously in adoption of green practice.

Fig. 4 Bar diagram showing comparison of means of responses of different barriers from survey questionnaire

3.6 Correlated Results of Barriers with

Performance Parameters
Correlated results of various barriers with performance In the following derived Table 7 the barrier factor D” is
parameters are generated with the help of SPSS found strongly negatively correlated with performance
statistical tool to evaluate the actual relation of barriers parameter named P & T, having the r-value of -0.573 &
with the final outcomes and performance parameters in -0.518 resp., which is 60 % close to its highest possible
a firm. The relation of barriers factors with performance value of -1.000, which shows that there is a strong
parameters normally appeared as negatively correlated. negative relation between them and increment or
Also after the evaluation of following correlations decrement in one don’t affect the other. In the same way
results of barriers & performance parameters the study K” is also correlated negatively strongly with
obtained negative Pearson Correlation Co-efficient in performance parameter Q & S having r-value of - 0.512
most of the correlated results (excepting I” & J”, when & -0.503 respectively, which shows the independent
correlated with parameter S) in the following Table 7, behavior of them to each other. The correlated results of
which shows that the defined set of barriers always various barriers & performance parameters are shown in
hinders the implementation of green practices for GM. the following table:
Table 7: Correlations results of barriers with performance parameters indicating Pearson correlation co-efficient (r) value
A" B" C" D" E" F" G" H" I" J" K" O P Q R S T U V
A" Pearson ** * ** * * * ** ** * *
1 .712 .442 .241 .639 .337 .441 .408 .394 .555 .478 -.424 -.272 -.358 -.376 -.254 -.108 .018 -.317
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .014 .200 .000 .069 .015 .025 .031 .001 .008 .019 .146 .052 .041 .176 .571 .923 .088
B" Pearson .712* ** * ** * ** * *
* 1 .577 .399 .591 .169 .442 .247 .287 .495 .218 -.405 -.435 -.121 -.357 -.059 -.358 -.257 -.497**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .029 .001 .372 .014 .189 .124 .005 .247 .026 .016 .525 .053 .755 .052 .170 .005
C" Pearson * ** ** * * ** *
.442 .577 1 .568 .462 .358 .418 .225 .352 .485 .432 -.251 -.150 -.272 -.164 -.083 -.294 -.089 -.241
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .014 .001 .001 .010 .052 .022 .232 .056 .007 .017 .180 .430 .145 .386 .663 .114 .640 .199
D" Pearson * ** * ** * * ** * **
.241 .399 .568 1 .376 .499 .353 .317 .268 .005 .389 -.431 -.573 -.365 -.249 -.261 -.518 -.273 -.184
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .200 .029 .001 .041 .005 .055 .088 .152 .979 .034 .017 .001 .047 .185 .164 .003 .144 .331
E" Pearson .639* ** * * * ** * * * *
* .591 .462 .376 1 .417 .491 .224 .303 .462 .374 -.431 -.356 -.378 -.348 -.229 -.261 -.227 -.454*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .010 .041 .022 .006 .233 .103 .010 .042 .017 .054 .039 .060 .224 .164 .227 .012
F" Pearson
.337 .169 .358 .499** .417* 1 .380* .406* .256 .119 .717** -.218 -.294 -.462* -.260 -.517** -.077 -.010 -.266
Correlation

IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
16
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012

Sig. (2-tailed) .069 .372 .052 .005 .022 .038 .026 .173 .530 .000 .246 .114 .010 .164 .003 .685 .960 .156
G" Pearson * * * ** * ** ** * *
.441 .442 .418 .353 .491 .380 1 .533 .353 .707 .439 -.448 -.269 -.284 .006 -.064 -.145 -.230 -.664**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .015 .014 .022 .055 .006 .038 .002 .056 .000 .015 .013 .151 .128 .976 .739 .443 .221 .000
H" Pearson * * ** ** *
.408 .247 .225 .317 .224 .406 .533 1 .315 .301 .525 -.455 -.278 -.314 -.079 -.198 -.249 -.206 -.296
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .025 .189 .232 .088 .233 .026 .002 .090 .105 .003 .012 .137 .091 .680 .295 .185 .276 .113
I" Pearson * **
.394 .287 .352 .268 .303 .256 .353 .315 1 .496 .124 -.113 -.129 -.087 .034 .097 -.090 -.027 -.298
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .031 .124 .056 .152 .103 .173 .056 .090 .005 .514 .553 .495 .649 .858 .609 .635 .889 .110
J" Pearson .555*
* .495** .485** .005 .462* .119 .707** .301 .496** 1 .249 -.184 -.042 -.076 .060 .207 -.055 -.129 -.551**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .005 .007 .979 .010 .530 .000 .105 .005 .185 .331 .828 .691 .751 .272 .773 .497 .002
K" Pearson .478*
* .218 .432* .389* .374* .717** .439* .525** .124 .249 1 -.341 -.227 -.512** -.326 -.503** -.239 .059 -.191
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .247 .017 .034 .042 .000 .015 .003 .514 .185 .065 .229 .004 .079 .005 .203 .755 .312
O Pearson -
-.405* -.251 -.431 *
-.431 *
-.218 -.448 *
-.455 *
-.113 -.184 -.341 1 .588 **
.277 .407 *
.424 *
.634 **
.419 *
.249
Correlation .424*
Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .026 .180 .017 .017 .246 .013 .012 .553 .331 .065 .001 .139 .026 .019 .000 .021 .185
P Pearson * ** ** ** * ** **
-.272 -.435 -.150 -.573 -.356 -.294 -.269 -.278 -.129 -.042 -.227 .588 1 .310 .582 .391 .681 .665 .492**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .146 .016 .430 .001 .054 .114 .151 .137 .495 .828 .229 .001 .096 .001 .033 .000 .000 .006
Q Pearson * * * ** * **
-.358 -.121 -.272 -.365 -.378 -.462 -.284 -.314 -.087 -.076 -.512 .277 .310 1 .454 .667 .132 .322 .422*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .052 .525 .145 .047 .039 .010 .128 .091 .649 .691 .004 .139 .096 .012 .000 .487 .083 .020
R Pearson - * ** * ** * **
-.357 -.164 -.249 -.348 -.260 .006 -.079 .034 .060 -.326 .407 .582 .454 1 .697 .444 .472 .370*
Correlation .376*
Sig. (2-tailed) .041 .053 .386 .185 .060 .164 .976 .680 .858 .751 .079 .026 .001 .012 .000 .014 .008 .044
S Pearson
-.254 -.059 -.083 -.261 -.229 -.517** -.064 -.198 .097 .207 -.503** .424* .391* .667** .697** 1 .183 .226 .177
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .176 .755 .663 .164 .224 .003 .739 .295 .609 .272 .005 .019 .033 .000 .000 .333 .229 .349
T Pearson
-.108 -.358 -.294 -.518** -.261 -.077 -.145 -.249 -.090 -.055 -.239 .634** .681** .132 .444* .183 1 .665** .210
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .571 .052 .114 .003 .164 .685 .443 .185 .635 .773 .203 .000 .000 .487 .014 .333 .000 .266
U Pearson * ** ** **
.018 -.257 -.089 -.273 -.227 -.010 -.230 -.206 -.027 -.129 .059 .419 .665 .322 .472 .226 .665 1 .619**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .923 .170 .640 .144 .227 .960 .221 .276 .889 .497 .755 .021 .000 .083 .008 .229 .000 .000
V Pearson ** * ** ** ** * * **
-.317 -.497 -.241 -.184 -.454 -.266 -.664 -.296 -.298 -.551 -.191 .249 .492 .422 .370 .177 .210 .619 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .088 .005 .199 .331 .012 .156 .000 .113 .110 .002 .312 .185 .006 .020 .044 .349 .266 .000
# Sample size (N) =30, ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed),
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

3.7 Findings from the Present Work

Some of the major findings from the present work have
been stated as following:
Finding 1:- Environmental & Employee’s concerns of
the firm, Need for sound global image & Pressures from
legislating bodies all collectively act as some major
driving forces in various firms for adoption of green
manufacturing practices.
Finding 2:- Firms are found to be more influenced by
external drivers as compared to internal drivers, when
analyzed in a more deeper sense.
Finding 3:- Overall it can be stated that most of the
driving factors are found positively correlated with the
performance parameters (excepting E & H when
correlated with T & U), hence proving that driving
factors act as boosters in enhancing the existence level
of performance parameters.
Finding 4:- Lack in periodically research and necessary
empirical studies, lack of awareness in the firms and
unnecessary increment in overall cost founded as most
often raised barriers during adoption of GM practices.
Finding 5:- The maximum no. of barriers are negatively
correlated with the performance (excepting I” & J”,
when correlated with parameter S), which signifies that
these barriers hinders the implementation of various
green practices and hence act as road blockers in the
noble path of green manufacturing.

IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
17
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012
The results of this study are finally discussed with the
practitioners working in the Indian Industries and after
discussion with the practitioners of four main industries
it is found that the results of this study represents the
true scenarios of Indian Industries.
4. Conclusion and Future Scope
The term Green Manufacturing is vital in preserving our
whole environment and natural resources for present
and also for our upcoming future generations. It may be
costly, full of obstacles and requires a lot of
determination but many companies have taken the
initiative to go green. Various automobile producing
enterprises mainly car industries have launched a green
marketing campaign, to meet out the upcoming U.S. and
European emissions standards (Euro III, Euro IV etc.)
and the development of various alternative-power
technologies.
It is time that other companies, be it large or small
recognize their role in making the Earth greener and
take up the Green Manufacturing challenge. The
benefits are plenty especially if the company adopts
Green Manufacturing now. Having such few companies
that truly is green, achieving the status now will prove
the companies strength, capability and reliability. Each
creature has its own purpose of survival. As humans, we
have the thinking capability which separates us from
beasts. Therefore, we must start thinking of the
consequences of our actions and begin fulfilling our
most important purpose that is preserving the Earth
from future deterioration.
As far as the terms “Drivers” & “Barriers” are
concerned for the present work, it is concluded that the
governing authorities ‘or’ states, customers & suppliers
and the firms itself, all are equally responsible for the
adoption and non-adoption of various useful green
manufacturing practices.
4.1 Future Scope of the Work
It is clear from the extant literature that various GM
practices have proved themselves as unavoidable
industrial practices with passage of time. However the
existing work in the field of green manufacturing has
motivated the various small and big industries for the
implementation of green practices but still there are
fewer efforts have been made on the periodic evaluation
of those green practices in these firms. Effective
managing of these practices after the implementation is
one of the critical factors that need to be considered.
Since the present work has dealt only with Identification
of Drivers & Barriers while adoption of GM practices in
Indian industries, but still there are many areas to
18
explore the topic in the future on the same concept
Green Manufacturing. These are stated as the following:
• The various out comings like benefits and losses after
adoption of GM practices can also be explored.
• The most efficient GM practices can also be explored
to provide the priorities at the time of adoption.
• Role of central and state governments in deciding the
environmental rules and regulation to the Indian
industries can also be explored.
• In the present work the survey questionnaire is filled
only by one concerned person in the firm. However to
fetch out the real status of existence of the green
practices it can be made to fill by respective
departments in a firm.
References
[1] H. Min and W. Galle, “Green Purchasing Strategies:
Trends and Implications”, International Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, Module 4, pp.
10-17, in 1997.
[2] J. Sarkis, “Evaluating environmentally conscious business
practices”, European Journal of Operational Research,
1998, Vol. 107, No. 1, pp. 159-174.
[3] R. Florida, M. Atlas & M. Cline, “What Makes
Companies Green? Organizational and Geographic
Factors in the Adoption of Environmental Practices”,
2000, Economic Geography 77 (3), pp. 209-225.
[4] J. Murray, “Effects of a green purchasing strategy: the
case of Belfast City Council” - A case study, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 2000, Vol. 5, pp.
37-44.
[5] C. Revelle, “Research challenges in environmental
management, a Invited Review”, European Journal of
Operational Research, 2000, pp. 218-231.
[6] U. Pal, “Identifying the Path to Successful Green
Manufacturing, Green manufacturing”, Journal of
Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 2002, Volume 54,
Issue 5, pp.25-25.
[7] K. Pun, I. Hui, H. Lau, W. Lewis, and H. Wai,
“Development of EMS Planning Framework For
environmental management practices”, International
journal of Quality and reliability management, 2002, Vol.
19 ,Issue: 6, pp. 688 - 709.
[8] S. Curkovic, “Environmentally Responsible
Manufacturing: The development and validation of a
measurement model” European Journal of Operational
Research, 2003, vol.146, pp. 130–155.
[9] M. Baxter, “Taking the first steps in environmental
management”, ISO Management Systems, 2004, pp. 13-
18.
[10] J. Fiksel, D. Lambert, L. Artman, J. Harris and H. Share,
“The New supply Chain Edge-supply chain management
review”, 2004, pp. 50-57.
[11] P. Georgiadis & D. Vlachos, “The effect of
environmental parameters on product recovery”,
European Journal of Operational Research, 2004, vol.
157, pp. 449–464.
[12] J. Paquette, “The supply chain response to
environmental pressures”, a discussion paper, engineering
IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com
 IJMRS’s International Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 01, Issue 01, Month 2012
system division, 2005, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, pp. 1-29.
[13] Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis & Y. Geng, “Green supply chain
management in China: pressures, practices and
performance”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 2005, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 449-
468.
[14] S. Kumar & P. Malegeant, “Strategic alliance in a
closed-loop supply chain, a case of manufacturer and eco-
non-profit organization”, Technovation, 2006, vol. 26, pp.
1127–1135.
[15] P. Oosterveer, S. Kamolsiripichaiporn & R. Rasiah,
“The ‘greening’ of industry and development in Southeast
Asia: perspectives on industrial transformation and
environmental regulation”, Journal of Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 2006, vol.8, pp. 217–227.
[16] P. Cousins & L. Pocknell, “Business Environmental
Soundness and Green Supply Chain Management”,
Manchester Business School, 2007.
[17] J. Field & R. Sroufe, “The Use of Recycled Materials in
Manufacturing: Implications for Supply Chain
Management and Operations Strategy”, International
Journal of Production Research, 2007, vol. 45, no. 18, pp.
4439-4463.
[18] A. Hosseini, “Identification of green management
system’s factors- A conceptualized model”, 2007, Vol. 2,
pp. 221-228.
[19] J. Sarkis, Q. Zhu & K. Lai, “Initiatives and outcomes of
green supply chain management implementation by
Chinese manufacturers”, Journal of Environmental
Management, 2007, vol.-85, pp.179–189.
[20] J. Schleich, “The economics of energy efficiency:
barriers to profitable investments”, EIB papers, 2007, Vol.
12, pp. 82-109.
[21] D. Simpson, D. Power & D. Samson, “Greening the
automotive supply chain: a relationship perspective”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 2007, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 28-48.
[22] Q. Zhu & J. Sarkis, “The moderating effects of
institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain
practices and performance”, International Journal of
Production Research, Taylor & Francis, 2007, Vol. 45,
pp. 18–19.
[23] D. Brown, “It is good to be green- Environmentally
friendly credentials are influencing business outsourcing
decisions”, Strategic Outsourcing: An International
Journal, 2008, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 87-95.
[24] S. Cai et al., “The Adoption of Green Supply Chain
Strategy: An Institutional”, the Logistics Institute – Asia
Pacific, National University of Singapore, 2008, pp. 1044-
49.
[25] Q. Chunguang, C. Xiaojuan, W. Kexi & P. Pan,
“Research on Green Logistics and Sustainable
Development”, International Conference on Information
Management, IEEE , 2008, pp. 162-165.
[26] P. Gonza´lez, J. Sarkis & B. Adenso-Dıaz,
“Environmental management system certification and it’s
on corporate practices”, 2008, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 1021-
1041.
[27] W. Lassar & A. Gonzalez, “The state of green supply
chain management-Survey Results”, Kovens conference
center,Florida, 2008, pp. 1-29.
19
View publication stats
[28] A. Lee, H. Kang, C. Hsu & H. Hung, “A green supplier
selection model for high-tech industry”, Volume 36, Issue
4, May 2009, pp. 7917-7927.
[29] S. Lee, “Drivers for the participation of small and
medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain initiatives”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
2008, vol.13/3, pp. 185–198.
[30] H. Walker, L. Sisto & D. McBain, “Drivers and barriers
to environmental supply chain management practices:
Lessons from the public and private sectors Management”,
2008, pp. 69-85.
[31] K. Lee & J. Kim, “Current status of CSR in the realm of
supply management: the case of the Korean electronics
industry”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 2009, Vol. 14 Issue: 2, pp.138 – 148.
[32] K. Lee, “Why and how to adopt green management into
business organizations?” Management Decision, 2009,
Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 1101-1121.
[33] D. Dornfeld, “Green Issues in Manufacturing - Greening
processes, systems and products”, Laboratory for
Manufacturing and Sustainability, 2010, pp. 1-51.
[34] G. Kannan, P. Sasikumar & K. Devika, “A genetic
algorithm approach for solving a closed loop supply chain
model: A case of battery recycling”, 2010, Volume 34,
Issue 3, pp. 655-670.
[35] T. Tayeb, S. Zailani & K. Jayaraman, “The examination
on the drivers for green purchasing adoption among EMS
14001 certified companies in Malaysia”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 2010, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 206-225. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 2008, vol.13/3, pp. 185–198.
[36] H. Walker, L. Sisto & D. McBain, “Drivers and barriers
to environmental supply chain management practices:
Lessons from the public and private sectors Management”,
2008, pp. 69-85.
[37] K. Lee & J. Kim, “Current status of CSR in the realm of
supply management: the case of the Korean electronics
industry”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 2009, Vol. 14 Issue: 2, pp.138 – 148.
[38] K. Lee, “Why and how to adopt green management into
business organizations?” Management Decision, 2009,
Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 1101-1121
[39] D. Dornfeld, “Green Issues in Manufacturing - Greening
processes, systems and products”, Laboratory for
Manufacturing and Sustainability, 2010, pp. 1-51.
[40] G. Kannan, P. Sasikumar & K. Devika, “A genetic
algorithm approach for solving a closed loop supply chain
model: A case of battery recycling”, 2010, Volume 34,
Issue 3, pp. 655-670.
[41] T. Tayeb, S. Zailani & K. Jayaraman, “The examination
on the drivers for green purchasing adoption among EMS
14001 certified companies in Malaysia”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 2010, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 206-225.
IJMRS
www.ijmrs.com