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

net/publication/264814413

Establishment of a sustainable development framework in small scale mining

supply chains in India

Article  in  International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise · January 2013

DOI: 10.1504/IJIE.2013.057340

CITATIONS READS

20 333

2 authors:

Kamalakanta Muduli Akhilesh Barve

The Papua New Guinea University of Technology Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal
106 PUBLICATIONS   1,296 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   1,408 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

CALL FOR BOOK CHAPTER: Digital Technology Enabled Circular Economy: Models for Environmental and Resource Sustainability View project

Humanitarian Supply Chains issues in Disaster Risk Reduction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamalakanta Muduli on 11 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

84 Int. J. Intelligent Enterprise, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2013

Establishment of a sustainable development

framework in small scale mining supply chains in
India

Kamalakanta Muduli* and Akhilesh Barve

School of Mechanical Sciences,
IIT Bhubaneswar,
Samantpuri, Bhubaneswar,
Odissa, India, 751013
E-mail: kamalakantam@gmail.com
E-mail: kamalakanta@iitbbs.ac.in
E-mail: akhileshbarve@yahoo.com
E-mail: akhilesh@iitbbs.ac.in
*Corresponding author

Abstract: Green supply chain management (GSCM) improves environmental

performance of the organisation which leads to their increased social image
while enabling them to improve economical performance through cost
reduction and cost saving principles. In fact GSCM success can lead to
increased contribution of the organisations towards sustainable development
(SD). However, mining industries in India particularly small scale mines are
either unable to implement GSCM successfully or reluctant to adopt it. The
reason may be lack of adequate knowledge of potential GSCM barriers and the
existing causal relationship among them. To bridge this gap this research tries
to explore the potential GSCM barriers in small scale Indian mining industries
and proposes, decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL)
method to extract the causal relationships among them. Prior knowledge of the
barriers and their nature will help the decision makers in formulating effective
strategies to bring improvements in GSCM implementation that supports
sustainable development.

Keywords: green supply chain management; GSCM; sustainable development;

SD; decision making trial and evaluation laboratory; DEMATEL; barriers;
small scale mining industries.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Muduli, K. and Barve, A.

(2013) ‘Establishment of a sustainable development framework in small scale
mining supply chains in India’, Int. J. Intelligent Enterprise, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.84–100.

Biographical notes: Kamalakanta Muduli is presently pursuing his PhD in

School of Mechanical Sciences, at IIT Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India, in the area
of Green Supply Chain Management. He has obtained his Master’s degree in
Industrial Engineering. He has over nine years of academic and research
experience. He has authored several research articles in number of international
journals and presented papers in national and international conferences.

Akhilesh Barve is working as an Assistant Professor in School of Mechanical

Sciences IIT Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India. He has ten years of academic and
research experience. He obtained his Master’s and Doctorate degrees from
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India. He has authored several research

Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Establishment of a sustainable development framework 85

articles in a number of international journals and presented papers in national

and international conferences. He is a reviewer of some reputed international
journals. His area of research includes agile and lean issues of supply chain,
logistics, green supply chain management, quality control, etc.

1 Introduction

Indian mining sector has demonstrated substantial potential for growth and development
keeping in view the fact that not only the country has sizeable potential for mineral
wealth but also demand from local as well as foreign manufacturing industries continues
to expand. Further government of India is focusing on the growth of this sector and even
opened door for heavy foreign direct investment to exploit the employment as well as
wealth generating capability of the sector. As a result significant growth of the mining
sector since 1947 with a total value of US$ 13.5 million (Ghose, 2003a) to a present
value of US$ 41790 million (excluding atomic mineral) million has been observed. It
accounts for 2.5% of GDP of India as central statistical organisation’s estimation. Though
mining contributes significantly to national employment and economy, still it has a very
poor public image. This can be due to the increasing public awareness regarding adverse
social and environmental impact of mining activities. It has been recognised that mining
activities unless properly planned and regulated can have serious environmental impact
such as disturbance of top soil, contamination of water bodies, atmospheric pollution,
acid mine drainage, global warming due to emission of green house gases, dust and noise.
With increasing awareness of environmental protection worldwide, the green trend of
conserving the Earth’s resources and protecting the environment is overwhelming,
thereby exerting pressure on corporations (Chien and Shih, 2007; Mathiyazhagan et al.,
2013). Consequently the mining industries are actively seeking to progress their
commitment to sustainable development principles (Worrall et al., 2009) by integrating
economic objective with environmental objective, social goals and effective governance
systems. In this paper green supply chain management (GSCM) has been proposed as a
SD strategy for mining industries as it results in a simplification of compliance, improved
public relations, a potential reduction in costs and increased profit from a preventive
proactive approach to compliance and management of environmental liabilities (Petroni,
2001). However success of GSCM implementation depends upon the ability of the
company to manage the existing barriers. In this context this study tries to explore and
analyse potential barriers of GSCM implementation in small scale Indian mining
industries.

2 Literature review

This section summarises the literature on status of small scale mining in India,
sustainable development, green supply chain management, GSCM approach to
sustainable development and its barriers.
86 K. Muduli and A. Barve

2.1 Status of small scale mining in India

Mines having annual production capacity below 50,000 tonnes are generally fall under
small-scale mine category (Ghose, 2003a). Such mines constitute about 90% of India’s
operations producing 42% of total non-fuel output and minor minerals and 6% of fuel-
mineral output while employing 0.5 million people (Muduli et al., 2013). These mines are
not subjected to regulation under mines act (Ghose, 2003a) hence are operated in illegal
way in most of the cases. These mines are largely ignored by regulators not only from a
policy-making stand-point but also from necessary guidance and support, which in turn
has caused the sector to develop in a haphazard manner (Ghose, 2003b).

2.2 Sustainable development

Issues of sustainable development have become centre stage to economic debates and are
now setting the pattern of economic growth and world trade. Sustainable development
implies a process, which is integrative in essence, and that tries to maintain a state of
dynamic balance in the long run (Faisal, 2010). It can be defined as a mode of human
development that focuses not only on judicious utilisation of resources to meet the
demands of present as well as future generations but also on preservation of the
environment. Organisations will be able to eliminate or minimise waste and emissions
from their industrial activities and from consumer end-of-life process, to cut the use of
virgin raw materials, to improve water and air quality and potentially save money by
adoption of sustainable development policies (Borland, 2009). Sustainable development
espouses the complex objective of giving commensurate emphasis for developing the
economic and social dimensions while sustaining the earth’s ecological resources
(Perez-Batres et al., 2011). Economic dimension refers to the financial aspects of the
company and regarded as the most important factor for being the basic motivation behind
any organisation. Ecological dimension refers to various measures for environmental
preservation taken by the organisation. Social dimension refers to the initiatives taken by
the organisation to full fill the social needs of the employees such as equity, education,
healthcare facility human rights workplace safety etc.

2.3 Green supply chain management

GSCM shifted into the focus of business related research when the pressure from politics
and societies forced companies to adopt increasingly strict environmental measures in
order to comply with environmental regulations (Kumar et al., 2012). It focuses on
incorporation of environment friendly initiatives into every aspect of supply chain
activities encompassing sourcing, product design and development, manufacturing,
transportation, packaging, storage, retrieval, disposal and post sales service including
end-of-product life management (Min and Kim, 2012). GSCM philosophy emphasises on
reduction of material and energy usage leading to waste minimisation at each and every
phase of supply chain. It can enable organisations for developing ‘win–win’ strategies
that seek to achieve profit and market share objectives by lowering their environmental
risks and impacts, while increasing their ecological efficiency (van Hoek 1999).
Therefore, GSCM is an increasingly widely diffused practice among companies that are
seeking to improve their environmental performance (Testa and Iraldo, 2010).
 Establishment of a sustainable development framework 87

2.4 A SD framework through GSCM

Sustainable development addresses the threat to long term stability arising from natural
resource depletion, including the earth’s atmospheric condition that has given rise to the
global warming climate change challenge (Perez-Batres et al., 2011). Hence it receives
high prioritisation among the regulators as well as among the industrial sectors including
mining. However, mining activities being relying on extraction and processing of
non-renewable material resources leading to their depletion are often referred as
unsustainable. Yet it can be argued that increasing, earnings from mining activities by
adopting some strategy and investing it for construction of public infrastructure that could
serve present as well as future generations could enable mining operations to contribute
significantly towards sustainable development. GSCM has been emerged as a strategy to
solve this purpose. GSCM can lead to cost savings in terms of reduction in material and
energy usage, clean up cost, regulatory fines, waste disposal costs and costly
environmental accidents (Hilson and Nayee, 2002). It also facilitates sanction of loans
and financial assistance from the banks and other government organisations thus
increasing investment capacity of the mining companies that may lead to their higher
earning potential. Further, improved recovery of resources and improved recycling
options of GSCM leads to reduced depletion rates of mineral reserves making the sector
sustainable (Berkel, 2007). Moreover GSCM puts a stronger emphasis on ecological and
sociological aspects while making managerial decisions (Kumar et al., 2012) and enables
the mining industries to address the challenges regarding worker and community safety,
poor working conditions and associated accidents coupled with various occupational
health hazards thus improving the social dimension of sustainable development.

Figure 1 A frame work for sustainable development

  Exploration of
GSCM barriers and
existing causal
relationship among GSCM philosophy Benefits of GSCM
them
Recycling of the materials 
Improved
Strategies to Reduction of waste   economical
minimise impact
of barriers of performance
Reduction of cleanup cost 
GSCM
Reduction of regulatory fines
Avoidance of costly
Effective environmental accidents 
Improved
environmental Sustainable
implementation of
Reduction of toxic effluent performance development
GSCM practices discharge
Reduction of material usage

Reduction of energy usage  Improved

social
Improved working conditions performance
Improved worker and
community safety 

Source: Adopted from Muduli and Barve (2013)

88 K. Muduli and A. Barve

Table 1 Barriers of GSCM practices

Barrier Description Contributor

Lack of direct The additional cost of green process Hilson and Nayee (2002)
incentives (B1) cannot be imposed on customers as metal and Mudgal et al. (2010)
prices are regulated by international
auction markets instead of by producers.
Unavailability of Indian mining industries due to their poor Ghose (2003b), Lin and
skilled manpower financial condition, work culture and Ho (2008) and Luthra et
(B2) demographic locations fail to attract and al. (2011)
retain skilled manpower.
Poor government In India govt policies keep on changing Hilson (2000), Ghose,
policies and support with frequent changes in political climates. (2003b, 2003a) and
(B3) Hence mining companies prefer Ministry of Mines (2010)
compliance approach rather than proactive
approach for towards their environmental
programs.
Lack of top Top management not only takes the Lee and Rhee (2007),
management decision of GSCM adoption but also Luthra et al. (2011) and
involvement (B4) formulates strategy regarding GSCM its Mudgal et al. (2010)
implementation. They arrange as well as
allocate resources necessary for execution
of any program. Further their active
involvement motivates employees for
achieving excellence.
Lack of employee Employees are responsible for executing Saad and Siha (2000),
commitment (B5) any programs. Low employee commitment Hansson et al. (2003) and
results in their disregard for the work and Mudgal et al. (2010)
ultimately in delay or failure of the
program.
Financial constraints For attracting and retaining skilled AlKhidir and Zailani
(B6) employee, purchasing necessary (2009), Luthra et al.
equipments, arranging necessary green (2011) and Nikolaou and
awareness and training programs heavy Evangelinos (2010)
initial investment is required. Most of the
Indian mines have insufficient fund for
these activities.
Poor working culture Most of the Indian mines follow a Harris and Crane (2002),
(B7) bureaucratic instead of a participative type Govindarajulu and Daily
of work culture. This kind of work culture (2004) and Jabbour and
prevents two way communication flows. Santos (2008)
Besides this kind of work culture is also
responsible for low employee morale
restricting employee innovation and risk
taking activities.
Technical barriers Unavailability of appropriate extractive Ghose (2003b) and
(B8) technologies, equipments, mining sector Ministry of Mines (2010)
specific greener process guidelines and
expert advice is a major barrier in the case
of Indian mines.
 Establishment of a sustainable development framework 89

Table 1 Barriers of GSCM practices (continued)

Barrier Description Contributor

Inadequate Lack of adequate and usable information Bowonder (1986),
environmental of environmental issues associated with Ministry of Mines (2010)
awareness (B9) mining industries is not only observed at and Ghose (2003b)
the management or local society but also at
all levels of the regulators. This gives rise
to unclear definitions and confused
guidelines on several aspects of mining
process leading to continuation of illegal
operations.
Resistance to change This refers to human nature that restricts Shrivastava (1995),
and adoption (B10) them to accept any kind changes in AlKhidir and Zailani
previous procedures or their working (2009) and Luthra et al.
styles. It is observed that resistance is (2011)
offered by local residents for adoption of
increased mechanisation due to fear of loss
of job.
Fear of failure (B11) Involves the fear of failure while adopting Rao and Holt (2005),
green supply chain which could lead to Shrivastava (1995),
monetary losses for the firm or the fear of Hansson et al. (2003),
failure of the product, hence leading to Saad and Siha (2000) and
losing the competitive advantage. Mathiyazhagan et al.
(2013)

2.5 Contemporary research

Mudgal et al. (2010) conducted study on barriers of GSCM practices in Indian
companies. Their study explored eleven barriers from literature survey. The study
involved a questionnaire survey in which 550 questionnaires were sent. They received
146 valid responses. They analysed the data collected through questionnaire survey using
interpretive structural modelling (ISM) to explore the contextual relationships existing in
them. The result of their study shows ‘lack of corporate social responsibility’ is the most
important barrier as it forms the base of the ISM-based hierarchy.
In a similar kind of study conducted by Luthra et al. (2011) on GSCM barriers in
Indian automobile industries identified eleven barriers on the basis of literature survey
and expert opinion. Further, ISM methodology was used to analyse the interdependencies
among these barriers. ‘Lack of government support policies’ is identified as the top most
important barrier to GSCM and ‘Lack of top management commitment’ is found as the
second most important barrier.
Latter Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) analysed the barriers to GSCM implementation in
auto component manufacturing industries in Tamilnadu, South India. They identified
twenty-six barriers from literature survey. They have used ISM methodology to analyse
the barriers and found that ‘problem in maintaining the environmental awareness
suppliers’ is the most important barrier and ‘complex to measure and monitor the
environmental practice of suppliers’ and ‘lack of top management involvement in
adopting GSCM’ jointly ranked as second most important barrier.
It is realised from literature that degree of success of GSCM implementation depends
upon the extent of understanding of the barriers present in the system. Studies on GSCM
90 K. Muduli and A. Barve

barriers relevant to small scale mining industries are scarce. Previous studies on GSCM
barriers by Mudgal et al. (2010) has not focused on any specific sector where as that of
Luthra et al. (2011) and Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013) focused on automobile and auto
component manufacturing industries respectively. Similarly all the above mentioned
empirical studies used ISM methodology. In ISM methodology experts’ opinions are
used as a basis to decide whether a particular element drives or depends on another
variable. While doing so, equal importance is given to the degree of influence imparted to
or received from other elements by a particular element. However the results of the
assessed weights would be either higher than or lower than the real situation (Yang and
Tzeng, 2011). To bridge the above mentioned gaps this study focuses on exploring the
GSCM barriers existing in case of small scale mines and proposes use of DEMATEL
methodology for analysis of the barriers.

3 Methodology

DEMATEL is a comprehensive technique developed for constructing as well as

analysing a structural model involving causal relationships between complex factor
(Zhou et al., 2006). It can elevate the understanding of the issues, groups of interacted
factors, criteria and provide a feasible solution by building a hierarchical relevant
network system (Lin and Tzeng, 2009). This method is based on directed graphs or
digraphs instead of directionless graphs as the former has proven its superiority over the
later by demonstrating directed relationships of elements of a system. Further the digraph
has the ability to portray the existing contextual relationships among the system elements
and enables DEMATEL to divide the system elements into two groups as cause and
effect group. The following table shows some of the application areas of DEMATEL.
Table 2 Application areas of DEMATEL

Authors
Seyed-Hosseini et al. (2006)
Wu and Lee (2007)
Tzeng et al. (2007)
Wu (2008)
Lin and Wu (2008)
Liou et al. (2007)
Liou et al. (2008)
Tsai and Chou (2009)
Shieh et al. (2010)
Lin (2013)
Contribution
Reprioritisation of failures in a system failure mode and effects
analysis
Developing global managers’ competencies
Evaluating performance in e-learning programs
Choice of knowledge management strategy
Group decision making
Airline safety measurement
Safety management system of airlines
Selection management systems of SMEs
Identification of key success factors of hospital service quality
Evaluation of GSCM practices

Steps of DEMATEL methodology can be summarised as follows.

Step 1 Calculation of mean direct relation matrix

Individual experts were asked to make judgment of the impact of each element on other
elements and express their perception in terms of integer values ‘0’ (no influence), ‘1’
 Establishment of a sustainable development framework 91

(very low influence), ‘2’ (low influence), ‘3’ (high influence) or ‘4’ (very high influence).
Based on the pair-wise judgment of the experts, direct-relation matrix Di for each
respondent was constructed as per equation (1). A mean matrix ‘M’ was derived from a
group of direct relation matrices where each aspect of the mean matrix ‘M’ is the average
value of the same aspect in the different direct relation matrices of the respondents using
equation (2) and (3).

[ ]
Dk = X ijk , (1)

where 1 ≤ k ≤R. R = number of respondents. ‘Dk’ is the direct relation matrix for kth
respondent.

∑ [X ]
1 R k
m ij = ij (2)
R k =1

[ ]
M = m ij (3)

Step 2
The mean direct relation matrix ‘M’ was normalised using the formula (4) and (5) to
obtain the initial direct influence matrix ‘D’

D = km, k > 0 (4)

where

1
k= for 1 ≤ i ≤ n (5)
∑
n
max X ij
j=1

Step 3
The total relation matrix ‘T’ was calculated from the matrix using the formula
T = D(I – D)–1, where I is the identity matrix. Then ‘r’ and ‘c’ are calculated where ‘r’ is
a n×1 vector and ‘c’ is a 1 × n vector representing the sum of rows and sum of columns
of the total relation matrix respectively. The direct and indirect influences of ith factor on
other factors is summarised by ‘ri’ that is calculated by summing all the elements of ith
row of the matrix ‘T’. Similarly cj calculated by summing all columns of jth column of the
matrix ‘T’ indicates the direct and indirect impacts on factor j from rest of the factors.
When j = i, the sum (ri+ cj) shows the total effects given and received by factor i and the
difference (ri- cj) summarises the net effect that factor I contributes to the system (Shieh
et al., 2010).
 92

Table 3

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11
B1 0 1.75 1 3.75 1 3 2 2.75 2.25 1.25 1.25
K. Muduli and A. Barve

B2 0.25 0 1 1.5 3.25 1.75 3 2.75 2 3 2.75

B3 1 3 0 3 2 2.5 2.5 3.5 4 2.5 2.5
Average direct relation matrix

B4 0.75 3 1.75 0 3 3.25 3.75 3.25 3.5 3.75 3.25

B5 0.25 0.75 0.75 1.25 0 1 2.75 1.75 1.75 3.25 2.5
B6 0.75 3.25 0.75 2.5 2.25 0 3 3 3 2.5 2.75
B7 0.5 1.75 0.5 2.5 3 0.75 0 1.25 2 2.5 2.5
B8 0.5 1.5 1.5 2.25 1.75 1 2 0 1.5 1.75 3
B9 2.25 1.25 2.75 3 2 0.75 2.25 2 0 2 2.25
B10 0.75 1.25 1 2.25 2.5 0.75 2.25 0.5 2 0 1.5
B11 0.5 0.75 0.75 3 1 1 1.25 0.75 0.5 0.75 0
 Table 4

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11
B1 0 0.059829 0.034188 0.128205 0.034188 0.102564 0.068376 0.094017 0.076923 0.042735 0.042735
B2 0.008547 0 0.034188 0.051282 0.111111 0.059829 0.102564 0.094017 0.068376 0.102564 0.094017
B3 0.034188 0.102564 0 0.102564 0.068376 0.08547 0.08547 0.119658 0.136752 0.08547 0.08547
Initial direct influence matrix

B4 0.025641 0.102564 0.059829 0 0.102564 0.111111 0.128205 0.111111 0.119658 0.128205 0.111111
B5 0.008547 0.025641 0.025641 0.042735 0 0.034188 0.094017 0.059829 0.059829 0.111111 0.08547
B6 0.025641 0.111111 0.025641 0.08547 0.076923 0 0.102564 0.102564 0.102564 0.08547 0.094017
B7 0.017094 0.059829 0.017094 0.08547 0.102564 0.025641 0 0.042735 0.068376 0.08547 0.08547
B8 0.017094 0.051282 0.051282 0.076923 0.059829 0.034188 0.068376 0 0.051282 0.059829 0.102564
B9 0.076923 0.042735 0.094017 0.102564 0.068376 0.025641 0.076923 0.068376 0 0.068376 0.076923
B10 0.025641 0.042735 0.034188 0.076923 0.08547 0.025641 0.076923 0.017094 0.068376 0 0.051282
B11 0.017094 0.025641 0.025641 0.102564 0.034188 0.034188 0.042735 0.025641 0.017094 0.025641 0
Establishment of a sustainable development framework
93
 94

Table 5

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11
Total relation matrix

B1 0.05231 0.1781 0.116315 0.276246 0.183066 0.196765 0.229184 0.224779 0.217544 0.198948 0.206076
K. Muduli and A. Barve

B2 0.057625 0.1084165 0.10997 0.199806 0.245106 0.145394 0.249277 0.209131 0.197384 0.244377 0.243362
B3 0.099537 0.2414632 0.105132 0.293507 0.251086 0.201628 0.283579 0.277477 0.303415 0.275118 0.284585
B4 0.09419 0.2483987 0.164588 0.211477 0.293412 0.228017 0.332558 0.275701 0.297148 0.324387 0.318764
B5 0.046798 0.1077019 0.083842 0.157466 0.108545 0.10027 0.203106 0.146793 0.15729 0.214076 0.196455
B6 0.081561 0.2282264 0.115735 0.252391 0.236764 0.105118 0.272942 0.238288 0.248042 0.251289 0.266749
B7 0.058059 0.1467567 0.083142 0.204733 0.214429 0.102854 0.131363 0.144634 0.176213 0.206283 0.209796
B8 0.057412 0.1404588 0.112786 0.197657 0.17386 0.11089 0.192271 0.103856 0.160747 0.179841 0.223783
B9 0.123737 0.1587544 0.168774 0.254486 0.210046 0.127747 0.233048 0.198627 0.144636 0.218907 0.232443
B10 0.062335 0.1235344 0.091636 0.184461 0.186813 0.095691 0.189084 0.112681 0.166559 0.114279 0.165242
B11 0.043734 0.0903727 0.068528 0.178535 0.113941 0.088734 0.130075 0.098531 0.096383 0.111642 0.088504
 Establishment of a sustainable development framework 95

4 Result analysis

Four experts are chosen from iron ore mining industries operating in Odisha, India. The
experts are either in the rank of quality control officer or project manager level. They
have an average working experience of 12 years. They were asked to give their opinion in
the form of a pair-wise comparison among the barriers. The pair-wise comparison matrix
obtained from four respondents was used to get the average direct-relation matrix as
shown in Table 3.
Table 6 The sum of influences given and received among the barriers

ri cj ri + cj ri – cj
Lack of direct incentives 2.079333 0.777298 2.856631 1.302035
Unavailability of skilled manpower 2.009847 1.772184 3.78203 0.237663
Poor government policies and support 2.616528 1.22045 3.836978 1.396078
Lack of top management involvement 2.788641 2.41077 5.199406 0.377876
Lack of employee commitment 1.522344 2.21707 3.739413 -0.69472
Financial constraints 2.297106 1.50311 3.800214 0.793998
Poor working culture 1.678264 2.44649 4.124751 -0.76822
Technical barriers 1.653563 2.030498 3.68406 -0.37693
Inadequate environmental awareness 2.071205 2.165362 4.236568 -0.09416
Resistance to change and adoption 1.492315 2.339147 3.831462 -0.84683
Fear of failure 1.10898 2.435759 3.544739 -1.32678

Figure 2 Cause and effect diagram (see online version for colours)

The matrix represented in Table 3 was normalised as per the procedure discussed in
methodology section to obtain the initial direct influence matrix ‘D’, represented by
96 K. Muduli and A. Barve

Table 4. Then this initial direct influence matrix was use to calculate the total relation
matrix ‘T’ represented by Table 5. Row sum ‘ri’ (for i = 1, 2, …, 11) and column sum ‘cj’
(for j = 1, 2, 3, …, 11) of total direct relation matrix was calculated and shown in Table 6.
Then ri + cj and ri – cj values were calculated for each variable representing the influences
given and received by the barriers respectively. The values of ri + cj and ri – cj are shown
in Table 6 and are used to map the causal relationships between the barriers as shown in
Figure 2.

5 Discussion

It is evident from literature that GSCM has a proven track record of improving
profitability as well as environmental performance of the organisations thus leading to
their increased social and competitive image. Notwithstanding its growing diffusion and
success many factors are still inhibiting GSCM adoption by organisations particularly
small scale mines (Testa and Iraldo, 2010). This research by exploring the potential
barriers to GSCM implementation in small scale mines and identifying the causal
relationship existing between them can help the decision makers to make strategies for
handling them effectively well in advance.
Based on the ‘ri – cj’ values the barriers are divided into two categories. The barriers
with positive ‘ri – cj’ values are assigned to cause category and that with negative value
are categorised under effect group. Values ‘ri + cj’ for each barrier are calculated which is
an indication of degree of influence of the barrier on GSCM implementation. More the
value of the ‘ri + cj’ more is the inhibiting impact of the barrier. Based on the ‘ri + cj’
values given in the third column of the table 6, the prioritisation of the barriers can be
given as B4 > B9 > B7 > B3 > B10 > B6 > B2 > B5 > B8 > B11 > B1. Similarly higher value
of ‘ri’ indicates the higher degree of influence of that barrier on other barriers present in
the system while higher ‘cj’ value indicates higher degree of dependence on other
barriers.

6 Managerial implication

The following managerial implications emerge from the study

• This research explores potential barriers to sustainable development practices in
Indian small scale mining industries. Knowledge of the barriers well in advance may
help the managers to formulate strategies to handle these barriers without focusing
on one or two barriers.
• Further, this research finds causal relationship between the barriers and divides them
into two groups cause and effect where cause group barriers influence the barriers in
effect group. This will help managers two identify the barriers need to be
emphasised.
• Barriers, ‘lack of direct incentives (B1)’, ‘unavailability of skilled manpower (B2)’,
‘poor government policies and support (B3)’, ‘lack of top management involvement
(B4)’,’financial constraints (B6)’ are the cause barriers as per the cause and effect
diagram shown in Figure 2. These barriers have impact on the whole system. Hence
 Establishment of a sustainable development framework 97

should be given supreme importance to bring an improvement in the overall

objective.
• Again barrier ‘lack of top management involvement (B4)’ has the highest ‘ri + cj’
amongst the cause group barriers indicating that it is most important barrier. Hence
more care should be given to it while preparing strategies for GSCM
implementation.
• It can be found from Table 6, that though ‘inadequate environmental awareness’
(B9) is an effect group barrier still has higher influence on other barriers as well as
on the total system for having high value of ‘ri’ and ‘ri + cj’ respectively. Hence
decision makers should focus on it and raise organisational wide green awareness
programs.

7 Conclusions

This study proposes a frame work for adoption of sustainable development practices in
small scale mining industries in India through GSCM approach. This research suggests
that identification of GSCM barriers and their proper management will lead to improve
GSCM practices in mining industries leading to their improved sustainable development
practices. Experts from four mines were consulted to evaluate the impact of each barrier
on others. DEMATEL methodology was used to analyse the causal relationship between
these barriers. The results of the analysis gave a prioritised list of the barriers in which
‘lack of top management involvement (B4)’ lists the top. Top management involvement
influences other barriers as it can be evident from the fact that starting from idea
generation to resource allocation, strategy formulation, arrangement of training and
awareness programs, work culture improvement are the responsibilities of top
management. Besides this ‘poor government policies and support’ ranks second among
the cause group barriers. The reason can be explained as, small scale mining industries
suffer from financial constraints, to manage this constraint they need supports from
governments central as well as regional in the form of financial aids, guidance and
equipments at a subsidised price. Similarly to address the barrier unavailability of skilled
manpower government has to set industrial training centres and start specific training
courses for generating skilled manpower. Though the frame work is developed for small
scale mining industries operating in India still it can be applied to other sectors.

References
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
Berkel, R.V. (2007) ‘Eco-efficiency in the Australian minerals processing sector’, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, Nos. 8–9, pp.772–781.
Borland, H. (2009) ‘Conceptualising global strategic sustainability and corporate transformational
change’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26, Nos. 4/5, pp.554–572.
Bowonder, B. (1986) ‘Environmental management problems in India’, Environmental
Management, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.599–609.
98 K. Muduli and A. Barve

Chien, M.K. and Shih, L.H. (2007) ‘An empirical study of the implementation of green supply
chain management practices in the electrical and electronic industry and their relation to
organizational performances’, International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp.383–394.
Faisal, M.N. (2010) ‘Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers’,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3 pp.508–529.
Ghose, M.K. (2003a) ‘Promoting cleaner production in the Indian small-scale mining industry’.
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 11, pp.167–174.
Ghose, M.K. (2003b) ‘A perspective on small-scale mining in India’, in Hilson, G.M. (Ed.): The
Socio-economic Impacts of Artisanal and Small-scale Mining in Developing Countries,
pp.449–457, Balkema Publishers, Netherlands.
Govindarajulu, N. and Daily, B.F. (2004) ‘Motivating employees for environmental improvement’
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 4, pp.364–372.
Hansson, J., Backlund, F. and Lycke, L. (2003) ‘Managing commitment: increasing the odds for
successful implementation of TQM, TPM or RCM’, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 20, No. 9, pp.993–1008
Harris, L.C. and Crane, A. (2002) ‘The greening of organizational culture: management views on
the depth, degree and diffusion change’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol.
15, No. 3, pp.214–34.
Hilson, G. (2000) ‘Barriers to implementing cleaner technologies and cleaner production (CP)
practices in the mining industry a case study of the Americas’, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 13,
No. 7, pp.699–717.
Hilson, G. and Nayee, V. (2002) ‘Environmental management system implementation in the
mining industry: a key to achieving cleaner production’, International Journal of Mineral
Processing, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp.19–41.
http://www.investindia.gov.in/?q=mining-sector.
Jabbour, C.J.C. and Santos, F.C.A. (2008) ‘Relationships between human resource dimensions and
environmental management in companies: proposal of a model’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.51-58.
Kumar, S., Teichman, S. and Timpernagel, T. (2012) ‘A green supply chain is a requirement for
profitability’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp.1278–1296.
Lee, S.Y. and Rhee, S-K. (2007) ‘The change in corporate environmental strategies: a longitudinal
empirical study’, Management Decision, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.196–216.
Lin, C.J. and Wu, W.W. (2008) ‘A causal analytical method for group decision-making under fuzzy
environment’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp.205–213.
Lin, C.L. and Tzeng, G.H. (2009) ‘A value-created system of science (technology) park by using
DEMATEL’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp.9683–9697.
Lin, C.Y. and Ho, Y.H. (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.
Lin, R.J. (2013) ‘Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management
practices’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 40, pp.32–39.
Liou, J.H., Tzeng, G.H. and Chang, H.C. (2007) ‘Airline safety measurement using a hybrid
model’, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.243–249.
Liou, J.J.H., Yen, L. and Tzeng, G.H. (2008) ‘Building an effective safety management system for
airlines’, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.20–26.
Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S. and Haleem, A. (2011) ‘Barriers to implement green supply chain
management in automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling technique – an
Indian perspective’, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 4,
No. 2, pp.231–257.
 Establishment of a sustainable development framework 99

Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan K., Haq, A.N. and Geng, Y. (2013) ‘An ISM approach for the barrier
analysis in implementing green supply chain management’, Journal of Cleaner Production
[online] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.042
Min, H. and Kim, I. (2012) ‘Green supply chain research: past, present, and future’, Logistics
Research, Vol. 4, Nos. 1–2, pp.39–47.
Ministry of Mines (2010) Preparation of Sustainable Development Framework (SDF) for Indian
Mining Sector, Working Paper I7638, ERM India, Gurgaon NCR, India, 20 September.
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P. and Raj, T. (2010) ‘Modeling 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. (2013) ‘Sustainable development practices in mining sector: a GSCM
approach’, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, Vol. 12,
No. 3, pp.222–243.
Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A. and Yong, G. (2013) ‘Barriers to green supply chain
management in Indian mining industries: a graph theoretic approach’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, May, Vol. 47, pp.335–344.
Nikolaou , I.E. and Evangelinos, K.I. (2010) ‘A SWOT analysis of environmental management
practices in Greek mining and mineral industry’, Resources Policy, Vol. 35, No. 3,
pp.226–234.
Perez-Batres, L.A., Miller, V.V. and Pisani, M.J. (2011) ‘Institutionalizing sustainability: an
empirical study of corporate registration and commitment to the United Nations global
compact guidelines’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, No. 16, pp.843–851.
Petroni, A. (2001) ‘Developing a methodology for analysis of benefits and shortcomings of ISO
14001 registration: lessons from experience of a large machinery manufacturer’, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.351–364.
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.
Saad, G.H. and Siha, S. (2000) ‘Managing quality: critical links and a contingency model’,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 10,
pp.1146–1163
Seyed-Hosseini, S.M., Safaei, N. and Asgharpour, M.J. (2006) ‘Reprioritization of failures in a
system failure mode and effects analysis by decision making trial and evaluation laboratory
technique’, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 91, No. 8, pp.872–881.
Shieh, J.I., Wu, H.W. and Huang, K.K. (2010) ‘A DEMATEL method in identifying key success
factors of hospital service quality’, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.277–28.
Shrivastava, P. (1995) ‘Environmental technologies and competitive advantage’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.183–200.
Testa, F. and Iraldo, F. (2010) ‘Shadows and lights of GSCM (green supply chain management):
Determinants and effects of these practices based on a multi-national study‘, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, Nos. 10–11 pp.953–962.
Tsai, W.H. and Chou, W.C. (2009) ‘Selecting management systems for sustainable development in
SMEs: a novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP’, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.1444–1458.
Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H. and Li, C.W. (2007) ‘Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning
programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL’, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 32, No.4, pp.1028–1044.
van Hoek, R.I. (1999) ‘From reversed logistics to green supply chains’, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.129–135.
 100 K. Muduli and A. Barve

Worrall, R., Neil, D., Brereton, D. and Mulligan, D. (2009) ‘Towards a sustainability criteria and
indicators framework for legacy mine land’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.17,
pp.1426–1434.
Wu, W.W. (2008) ‘Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and
DEMATEL approach’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.828–835.
Wu, W.W. and Lee, Y.T. (2007) ‘Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy
DEMATEL method’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.499–507.
Yang, J.L. and Tzeng, G.H. (2011) ‘An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL
for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38,
No. 3, pp.1417–1424.
Zhou, D.Q., Zhang, L and Li, H.W. (2006) ‘A study of the system’s hierarchical structure through
integration of DEMATEL and ISM,’ Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2006 International
Conference on, pp.1449–1453.

View publication stats