Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Full length Article

Reverse logistics in Malaysia: Investigating the effect of green product

design and resource commitment
Kuan Siew Khor a,1 , Zulkifli Mohamed Udin b,∗
a
Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business, UUM College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia
b
School of Technology Management and Logistics, UUM College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reverse logistics and green product design are green supply chain management practices that are being
Received 22 November 2012 implemented to demonstrate firm’s commitment to environmental sustainability. The generation of
Received in revised form 2 August 2013 waste from electrical and electronic equipments prompts the viability of product recovery to salvage
Accepted 5 August 2013
invested material and energy. Selection of various reverse logistics product disposition options relies on
products’ residual value and the accessibility of reusable content for re-entry in forward supply chain.
Keywords:
This study explores the effect of green product design and resource commitment on reverse logistics
Reverse logistics
product disposition by employing empirical analysis on 89 returned mail survey received from ISO14001
Green product design
Design for disassembly
certified electrical and electronic manufacturing firms in Malaysia. The results indicated that design for
Design for environment disassembly is necessary to harvest valuable inventories from every product disposition options except
Ecodesign of disposal whereas design for environment and commitment of resources have slight influence on repair
Green supply chain management and disposal activities. As the evidences show that green product design and reverse logistics product
disposition are interrelated, firms ought to undertake environmentally proactive approaches to generate
benefits from resources that are undeservingly discarded as landfill waste.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Environmental issues related to e-waste are cause of concern

Green supply chain management (GSCM) is an emerging busi-
ness concept for managing the environmental impact of products’
lifecycle. Due to exponential growth of electronic waste (e-waste)
from shorter technology clockspeed and higher rate of equipment
obsolescence (Fernández and Kekäle, 2005), managing large quan-
tity and volume of e-waste that contains valuable and/or hazardous
substance is overwhelming. It is estimated that 1.12 million tonnes,
equivalent to 81.5 million units of e-waste that are discarded by
households and business institutions will surface by year 2020
(2005). Therefore, some local governments introduced legislative
requirements to transfer the responsibility in mitigating negative
environmental impact from end-of-use products to producers. Cost
and complexity in recovering valuable resources from backward
flowing products are imminent issues that disrupt the business
viability of return acceptance. Generally, global business environ-
ment induces the adoption of green and sustainable products and
processes through source reduction strategy.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 4928 6851.
E-mail addresses: jolyne kuansiew@yahoo.com (K.S. Khor),
zulkifli@uum.edu.my (Z.M. Udin).
1
Tel.: +60 19 488 5486.
as dissemination of toxic waste threats environmental and human
health. Across developed and developing countries, e.g., Japan,
Korea, Taiwan and China, regulations related to extended producer
responsibility were introduced to make producers accountable for
collecting and recycling used products (Lee and Na, 2010; Toffel
et al., 2008) but the governance on product take back in Malaysia
is a legislative concept without framework for enforcement. Only
few multinational companies operating in Malaysia accept equip-
ments through liberal return policy, namely Motorola, Nokia, Dell,
HP and Apple (Agamuthu and Victor, 2011). As Guidelines for
the classification of used electrical and electronic equipment in
Malaysia (2010) was issued by Department of Environment of
Malaysia to deter e-waste imports and exports, authorized recy-
clers must acquire recycling technologies to process e-waste in a
cost-efficient manner. Generally, most products are designed to
serve mass production where little considerations are given to
design aspects that facilitate labour-intensive asset recovery. Prod-
ucts that are designed for multiple future uses are susceptible to
multiple recovery loops (Talbot et al., 2007).
Reverse logistics is defined as ‘. . .the process of planning, imple-
menting, and controlling the efficient, cost-effective flow of raw
materials, in-process inventory, finished goods, and related infor-
mation from the point of consumption to the point of origin for
the purpose of recapturing value or proper disposal’ (Rogers and
Tibben-Lembke, 1999). Reverse logistics is a dependent pollution

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.08.005
72 K.S. Khor, Z.M. Udin / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80
prevention initiative that requires commitment from various busi-
ness functions. With reference to Diabat and Govindan (2011),
they pointed out the importance of government regulation and
legislation, and reverse logistics as primary drivers to establish
collaborative effort between product designers and suppliers to
achieve the eco-sustainability goals of pollution prevention and
product stewardship. Knemeyer et al. (2002)) and Chen et al. (2006)
observed that green design exert positive influence towards reverse
logistics. However, most studies analyzed green design and reverse
logistics as green supply chain practices (Eltayeb and Zailani, 2009;
Hervani et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2007) and this study validated the
underlying relationship between both aspects.
Following sections provide an overview of green product design
and reverse logistics product disposition options. This is followed
by the methodology of research and empirical analysis on data col-
lected from 89 ISO 14001 certified electrical and electronic (E&E)
manufacturing firms in Malaysia. A discussion and suggestions for
future studies will conclude this paper.
2. Literature review
2.1. Green product design
Green product design involves the integration of both ecolog-
ical and economic perspectives in developing new and functional
products. Other terms that describe products that fulfil the interest
of the environment are green design, design for the environment
(DfE), ecodesign, environmentally conscious products or sustain-
able products. Navinchandra (1990) defined green engineering
design as an approach that assesses products and processes to vali-
date their compatibility with environmental well being, without
compromising product’s function or quality. The environmental
blueprint of a product is primarily locked-in during design stage
and literatures on environmental waste management character-
ized environmental design as a practice that functions in parallel
with environmental recycling and waste practices (Sroufe, 2003).
According to Baumann et al. (2002) and Dangelico and Pontrandolfo
(2010), ecodesign integrates environmental aspects into products
to minimize risks of emissions disseminated during production,
consumption and disposal phases of products’ lifecycle. For this
study, green product design is defined as ‘corporate proactive
approach for integrating product design and environmental con-
siderations without compromising product’s function and quality,
including innovations for recovering product value throughout its
life cycle prior to disposal.’ This definition encompasses all ele-
ments highlighted by previous authors and emphasizes on the need
to adopt environmentally proactive approach to attain business
benefits from reverse logistics management.
Green product design is a knowledge-based resource (Mills
et al., 2003) because intangible property such as talents, creativity
or skills are developed and applied to fulfil demands of the current
market and these sets of knowledge subsequently build competi-
tive edge. According to Kuo et al. (2001), the goals of green product
design or DfE are minimize use of non-renewable resources, effec-
tive management of renewable resources and reduce the volume of
toxic emissions. Although these goals were adapted as measures of
ecodesign by Zhu and Sarkis (2007) and Eltayeb et al. (2010), design
that reduces complexities associated with value recovery must be
taken into account. Design for disassembly (DfD) and design for
recycling (DfR) are highlighted as understudied ecodesign strate-
gies (Cerdan et al., 2009) and both resides within the aegis of
green design (Argument et al., 1998; Hauschild et al., 2005). These
two design strategies along with life cycle assessments are among
the approaches to develop green and profit-oriented supply chain
(Van Hoek, 1999). Additionally, Green et al. (2012) argued that the
design modification is commendable so long as there is no negative
trade-off with other product design criteria, particularly cost and
functionability.
Products must be redesigned to reduce the impact of waste pol-
lution and enhance assets recovery (Ayres et al., 1997; Van Hoek,
1999). Design team should collaborate with asset recovery divi-
sion including collection centres or third party recyclers to counter
reprocessing issues that deter recovery of invested material and
energy. Based on recent study, Eltayeb and Zailani (2010) indi-
cated that eco-design activities in Malaysia such as designing for
reuse, remanufacturing and recycling are viable study. Additionally,
Eltayeb et al. (2010) revealed that both ecodesign and reverse logis-
tics are cost reduction initiatives but the former initiative is more
promising as this eco-sustainable practice contributes to both eco-
nomic and environmental outcome. The benefits of ecodesign can
be realized only when returns are reprocessed for reuse of materi-
als, in the form of subassemblies or whole products. Although the
efficiency of after-sales services improve market performance, the
level of quality deterioration in used returns are just as important to
ensure that remanufacturers are able to extract high product value
(Pokharel and Mutha, 2009). Therefore, quite a number of authors
have developed subcomponents of DfE and they are comparable to
design objectives that serve specific product dispositions options
(Eltayeb et al., 2010; Sarkis, 1998; Zhu et al., 2007). Therefore, cul-
tivating product knowledge from the perspective of recoverability
friendly aspects is a resource for firm to develop capabilities in
reverse logistics.
2.2. Resource commitment
Commitment of resources allows firms to develop reverse logis-
tics programmes that recover assets. Employing knowledge, skills
and resources to develop capabilities (Hart, 1995; Olavarrieta and
Ellinger, 1997) in environmental conscious initiatives is called for
as pollution prevention activities are susceptible to external pres-
sure exerted by global environment. In defining the resources
required to implement RL activities, resource commitments pre-
sented by previous researches include property-based resources
and knowledge-based resources (Genchev, 2007), or manage-
ment resources, financial resources and technological resources
(Daugherty et al., 2001; Richey et al., 2004; Skinner et al., 2008).
Technological and managerial resources come under the classifica-
tion of knowledge-based resources because they are considered
as know-how and skills for managing returns (Genchev, 2007).
According to Gordon (2012), firms should allocate a functional role
dedicated to reverse logistic management to improve the quality of
return services and reduce instances of returns through double loop
learning via customer feedback. On the other hand, skills and tech-
nological knowledge are assets which generate barriers not through
financial or legal virtues, but they are the utilization of intangi-
ble knowledge that creates imitation barriers for indefinite period
and may exude property rights issues. While resource commitment
is associated with asset recovery and improved customer loyalty,
this study addresses the question as to whether commitment of
resources affects reverse logistics product disposition options.
2.3. Reverse logistics
From the perspective of GSCM, Hervani et al. (2005) described
reverse logistics as an operating practise that recovers materials
for re-entry at forward supply chain to make new or used prod-
ucts, by means of reuse, remanufacturing and/or recycling. From
the viewpoint of Prahinski and Kocabasoglu (2006), reverse logistics
is the transportation of recoverable goods received from customers
to reprocessing centre, inspection and disposition involves evalu-
ating the product to determine the most appropriate disposition
 K.S. Khor, Z.M. Udin / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80
Fig. 1. Product disposition process for closed loop supply chain (Khor and Zulkifli,
2012).
alternative whereas reconditioning is the actual work carried out
to recover value from products. However, most authors equate
reverse logistics to reconditioning (Hanafi et al., 2008; Kumar and
Putnam, 2008; Mollenkopf and Closs, 2005) or product recovery
management (Guide et al., 2000; Krikke et al., 1998; Thierry et al.,
1995). Other author refers to reverse logistics as activities that
closes the supply chain loop (Talbot et al., 2007) or as activities
that reuse, recycling and reclamation of materials from products
and packaging (Eltayeb et al., 2010). Hence, this study will adopt
reverse logistics product disposition as the term that represents prod-
uct recovery strategies which are industry and product-specific,
where decision-making highly depends on conservable value in
used products. Products are reincarnated for efficient consump-
tion and disposal of resources by recovering materials and energy
invested within products, modules or components to reuse in for-
ward supply chain to gain environmental and business benefits
(refer to Fig. 1). In other words, valuable assets are recovered
through a series of processes whereas remains with low residual
value are bound for disposal.
At normal circumstances, product recovery is common because
products flow backwards for several purposes and they include
manufacturing-related, distribution-related and customer-related
returns (Flapper, 2003; Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 1999) which
contain substantial residual value for resale at primary or sec-
ondary marketplace. According to Gobbi (2011), residual value
determines type of recovery options for maximizing profit from
reprocessing returns of varying quality. Malaysian manufacturers
are not keen on accepting end-of-use and end-of-life returns fit
for neither recycling nor disposal (Eltayeb and Zailani, 2010) due
to additional expenditure for handling non-value adding activi-
ties. However, the exponential growth of electrical and electronic
equipments (EEE) that are continuously retired from household
and business institutions create problems related to saturation of
landfill space. This led the development of Directive 2002/96/EC on
Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment, where all ten cat-
egories of EEEs are subject to rate of recovery within a range of
70–80% of average weight per appliance. Recovery practices are
noticeable among Asian countries, where producers to bear phys-
ical and financial obligations in recycling e-waste (Lee and Na,
2010). Japan’s Law for the Recycling of Specified Kinds of Home
Appliance 2001 practised a recycling system that legitimized col-
lection of recycling fees from consumers during point of disposal
whereas manufacturers have physical obligations to recycle 50–60
percent of selected home appliances’ content (Aizawa et al., 2008).
According to Srividya (2010), the adoption of product recovery
activities enables firm to exhibit corporate social responsibility
through greener and cleaner business conducts. In the case of
Malaysia, extended producer responsibility is not compulsory and
some multinational E&E companies adopt independent initiative in
73
collecting end-of-life products for disposal (Agamuthu and Victor,
2011; Tengku-Hamzah, 2011). Although Clause 101 in Solid Waste
and Public Cleansing Management Bill 2007 outline restrictions
for reduce, reuse and recycle controlled solid waste, such provi-
sion is generic and only few producers engage in product recovery
programmes out of voluntary participation.
Source reduction can be identified with pollution prevention
strategy as it minimizes waste proactively (Zhang et al., 1997).
As reverse logistics promotes reuse and recycling of recoverable
value (Kumar and Putnam, 2008), the implementation of reverse
logistics is comparable to a component of firm’s environmen-
tal management practices, specifically environmental recycling
practices (Sroufe, 2003). However, the positive outcome of waste
minimization through reverse logistics can be realized through
design changes that facilitate recovery of whole products and
usable subassemblies. According to Ayres et al. (1997), the com-
plexity of product disassembly requires the expertise of skilled
labour and this drives up the cost of inspection and disposition. Due
to intervention of source reduction strategy, reprocessed products
re-enters the market to generate revenue due to distinctly lower
cost of goods sold. Furthermore, a number of distribution channel
exist to liquidate recovered products at secondary market (Rogers
et al., 2010). Although the automotive industry is relatively more
mature than E&E, Amelia et al. (2009) suggested that development
of knowledge in regards to design for reuse is fundamental to facil-
itate reuse of parts and components. In the case of Taiwan, fund
management committee is established to oversee recycling system
established by waste treatment agencies to recycle end-of-life elec-
trical appliances and computers, but this system has singled out
product repair and remanufacturing initiatives (Shih, 2001). Since
recycling only recover value of material, more attention should
be invested on recovering end-of-use products including develop-
ment of green design and planned obsolescence strategy to raise
the content value of used returns. Zhu et al. (2007) showed that
eco design and reverse logistics practices are green supply chain
practices that are correlated at medium strength. Moreover, other
studies have suggested the prospective assistance of ecodesign
towards product recovery (Gottberg et al., 2006; Guide et al., 2000;
Kriwet et al., 1995; Talbot et al., 2007; Eltayeb et al., 2010) but their
interrelationships required empirical testing. This is also supported
by Olugo et al.’s (2011), who asserted that operational and strategic
considerations of product design should be revised to address the
complexity of product recovery operations.
Based on literature related to environmental management,
reverse supply chain management and green supply chain man-
agement, there are six most commonly found dispositions options
include repair, reuse, recondition, remanufacture, recycle and dis-
posal (Khor and Zulkifli, 2012). For this study, reuse will be excluded
from analysis as product reuse concerns redistribution into mar-
ket whereas part reuse overlaps with other disposition options.
Repair fixes and restores existing product to working order. Recon-
dition and remanufacturing is almost similar but different in extent
of recovery where recondition involves testing and replacement
of critical components or modules whereas remanufacture entails
restoration of core and requires extensive testing and so that prod-
ucts are recovered to as-new quality. Recycling is the extraction of
material to gather recyclable material for reuse in new products.
Disposal involves the process of landfilling or incinerating parts or
products if residual value of products is not worthy of recovery. It is
important to note that the value of recovery reduces in accordance
to products’ life cycle progression, where reuse of products, sub-
assemblies, and components are more worthy than recycling and
disposal (Krikke et al., 2013). Therefore, a product that is at maturity
stage or later may contain lower product value than its mate-
rial value as soon as logistics and marketing costs are accounted
for.
74 K.S. Khor, Z.M. Udin / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80
Fig. 2. Research framework.
2.4. Framework and hypothesis development
Literatures suggest that green product design (design for dis-
assembly, design for environment and design for recycling) and
resource commitment are associated with reverse logistics prod-
uct disposition options (repair, recondition, remanufacture, recycle
and disposal). Fig. 2 outlines the framework understudy.
Return management is overwhelmed by managing uncertain-
ties attributed to timing, quantity, variety and quality of products.
Evaluation of product’s residual value is one of the methods to
ensure that products with high residual value are treated in a
time-sensitive approach whereas products with low residual value
are handled in a cost-efficient manner (Hazen et al., 2012). For
most of the product recovery options, assessing the condition and
quality of the product for further reprocessing begins with the
product disassembly. Thierry et al. (1995) and Kriwet et al. (1995)
are pioneer authors who integrate design aspects related to dis-
assemblability and recyclability into products. On the other hand,
Dowie (1994), Mathieux et al. (2008) and Bogue (2007) proposed
that adjustments on choice of material, joints and product structure
be taken into consideration to improve recoverability of products.
For product repair and recondition, products are disassembled to
access non-conforming subassemblies whereas product remanu-
facture requires most of their parts and components to be sorted,
tested and graded to preserve product’s quality. Apart from stricter
reprocessing requirements, green product design also focuses on
environmentally friendly conducts such as avoid and/or minimize
use of heavy or toxic materials (Ninlawan et al., 2010; Zhu et al.,
2007). As previous studies highlight the importance of resource
commitment in managing operational activities related to reverse
logistics (Genchev, 2007; Jack et al., 2010; Richey et al., 2004;
Skinner et al., 2008), this study will look into the influence of
resource commitment on E&E industry.
Given the importance of design issues when recovering prod-
uct returns of various conditions including those that have reached
end of life or end of use stages, green product design and resource
commitment ought to share a strong and positive relationship with
reverse logistics product disposition options. Therefore, this study
hypothesizes that:
Hypothesis 1: Green product design is positively related to
reverse logistics product disposition options.
Hypothesis 1a: Design for disassembly is positively related to
reverse logistics product disposition options.
Hypothesis 1b: Design for environment is positively related to
reverse logistics product disposition options.
Hypothesis 1c: Design for recycling is positively related to
reverse logistics product disposition options.
Hypothesis 2: Resource commitment is positively related to
reverse logistics product disposition options.
2.5. Control variable
Based on previous studies (Eltayeb et al., 2010; Zhu and Sarkis,
2007), firm size will be used as a control variable and number
of employees reflects size of E&E manufacturing firms. Zhu and
Sarkis found that firm size affects the influence of green initiatives
towards firm’s performance whereas Bowen (2002) and González
et al. (2008) argued that larger firms are more inclined to adopt
green initiatives due to availability of resources and positive cor-
porate image.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Questionnaire development
The research collects empirical data by administering ques-
tionnaire survey to environmental management representatives
among E&E manufacturing firms in Malaysia. The survey instru-
ment is developed based on validated measurements found in
reverse supply chain, GSCM and environmental management lit-
eratures. The opinions from industry expert are sought to elevate
the relevance and coherence of measures in representing exam-
ined concept (Babbie, 1990; Sekaran, 2003). Nineteen items are
applied to measure green product design (Desai and Mital, 2003;
Eltayeb and Zailani, 2009; Kriwet et al., 1995; Zhu et al., 2007) and
thirty-four items are developed to measure reverse logistics prod-
uct disposition options (Ijomah et al., 2007; Krikke et al., 1998;
Thierry et al., 1995) based on Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(very low) to 5 (very high) extent of existence. With reference
to Daugherty et al. (2001) and Skinner et al. (2008), three items
measured the substantiveness of resource commitment on reverse
logistics based on five-point scale (1 = ‘not at all’ to 5 = ‘substantial’).
3.2. Data collection and sampling characteristics
The survey targeted ISO 14001 certified E&E manufacturing
firms operating in Malaysia because these firms are more conscious
of the environmental impact exerted by its processes and prod-
ucts. Based on Eltayeb et al. (2010), Sroufe (2003) and González
et al. (2008), organization is the unit of analysis and the repre-
sentatives of this study are managers of Environmental, Health and
Safety Department or environmental management representatives
who are responsible to ensure IS0 14001 compliant environment
management system. With reference to FMM-MATRADE Industry
Directory for Electrical and Electronics 2007/2008, the sampling
frame is 177 companies and Krejcie and Morgan (1970) recom-
mended a sample size of 122. Due to possibility of low response
rate, the survey was self-administered to each population element
to elevate the generalizability of findings. Some level of personali-
zation such as over-the-phone conversations took place to address,
brief and induce the interest of respondents. Both hardcopy and
softcopy of the survey questionnaire were mailed out to provide
convenience to respondents and a series of periodic reminders
derived a final sample of 89 organizations. Consequently, responses
that return with unclear answers are followed up to reduce non-
response error due to uncertainty or misinterpretation.
4. Survey results
4.1. Factor analysis, reliability and descriptive statistics
The study excludes nine returned survey which contain
incomplete and ambiguous responses and the final number of ques-
tionnaires used for hypothesis testing is 89, where response rate
is 50.28 percent. As the sampling frame of this study is small,
 K.S. Khor, Z.M. Udin / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80 75

Table 1
Demographic profile.

Variable Categories Frequency %

E&E industry subsector Electrical products 32 36.0

Electrical components 34 38.2
Consumer electronics 14 15.7
Industrial electronics 9 10.1
Type of business Original equipment manufacturer 23 25.8
Custom manufacturer – subcontractor 16 18.0
Distribution/trading/retail 1 1.1
Electronic manufacturing service 48 53.9
Others 1 1.1
Ownership Locally-owned 16 18.0
Joint venture ownership 9 10.1
American-owned company 7 7.9
Japanese-owned company 42 47.2
European-owned company 8 9.0
Others 7 7.9
Number of employees Less than 50 4 4.5
51–150 18 20.2
151–500 24 27.0
501–1000 21 23.6
1001–2000 12 14.5
More than 2000 10 11.2
Length of business Less than 5 years 1 1.1
6–10 years 2 2.2
11–15 years 8 9.0
16–20 years 16 18.0
More than 20 years 62 69.7
Designation Vice president or above 0 0
General manager 3 3.4
Senior manager 10 11.2
Department manager 31 34.8
Executive 32 36.0
Officer 10 11.2
Others 3 3.4
Department President’s office 1 1.1
Product design 2 2.2
Environmental, health and safety 45 50.6
Engineering 4 4.5
Warehouse/logistics 2 2.3
Operations 10 11.2
Planning 1 1.1
Quality 18 20.2
Others 6 6.7
Length of service Less than 2 years 13 14.6
2–5 years 14 15.7
6–10 years 18 20.2
11–20 years 32 36.0
More than 20 years 12 13.5

response rate is considerably high but the number of responses
is quite small. Questionnaires were mailed out continuously and
responses that return in a period of one month from first mail-
ing are considered early replies. Table 1 presents the demographic
profile of respondents. Ten characteristics of firms and respon-
dents were analyzed to identify significant differences between
responses such as ownership status, length of business, number
of employees, reverse logistics (products), reverse logistics (pack-
aging), total current assets, average annual revenue of firms and
designation, department and length of service of respondents. A
chi-square test is conducted to analyze the non-response bias
between fifty-four early and thirty-five late responses and the test
showed that speed of responses is not related to firm’s demographic
characteristics.
Based on Hair et al. (2010), they recommended the cut-off value
for factor loading during principal component analysis using Vari-
max rotation method is 0.57. In order to interpret extracted factors
in rotated component matrix, results of factor analysis must satisfy
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO-MSA)
and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Minimum acceptable value for
KMO-MSA statistics is 0.5 (Kaiser, 1970) and higher values signify
greater confidence in adequacy of sample size (Field, 2009). Results
of Bartlett’s test should be significant (p < 0.001) to ascertain that
correlation matrix is not an identity matrix, where correlation coef-
ficient signified the association between variables (Ho, 2006). The
KMO-MSA for all three variables is between 0.70 and 0.85 whereas
Bartlett’s test is significant, p = 0.000. For green product design,
the items load on three factors, i.e. design for disassembly, design
for environment and design for recycling. These factors exceeded
eigenvalue of 1.0 and account for 69.81 percent of variance to the
variable. Factor analysis for resource commitment produces one
factor that contributed 84.28 percent of variance whereas repair,
recondition, remanufacture, recycle and disposal are five factors
that account for 76.31 percent of variance to reverse logistics prod-
uct disposition. Several items are excluded from further analysis
due to insignificant loading and cross-loading above 0.45.
Thereafter, reliability analysis examines green product design,
resource commitment and reverse logistics product disposition and
the value of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for all the factors are above
0.86, exceeding the value of 0.70 proposed by Nunnally (1978).
Table 2 showed that the items contained internal consistency the
reliability coefficients of each variable are within the range of
0.86–0.97. Based on mean values in Table 2, the preference of green
design practices adopted by Malaysian E&E manufacturing firms is
76 K.S. Khor, Z.M. Udin / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80
Table 2
Descriptive statistics and reliability analysis.
Variables No. of items Mean ()
Green product design
Design for disassembly 11 3.12
Design for environment 5 4.04
Design for recycling 3 3.21
Resource commitment 3 3.41
Reverse logistics product disposition
Repair 5 3.46
Recondition 8 2.77
Remanufacture 8 2.42
Recycle 9 2.71
Disposal 4 3.87
highest for design for environment ( = 4.04), followed by design
for recycling ( = 3.21) and design for disassembly ( = 3.21) has the
lowest average score. The value of standard deviation is approxi-
mately 1.00, indicating that the distribution of data for existence of
environmentally oriented design is wide. In terms of commitment
of resources, firms invested substantial managerial, technologi-
cal and financial resources at slightly above ‘to some degree’. For
product disposition, recovery activities are present among firms as
repair ( = 3.46) and disposal ( = 3.87) is higher than ‘moderate
extent of existence’ whereas recondition ( = 2.77), remanufacture
( = 2.42) and recycle ( = 2.71) have slightly lower existence. The
initial results indicated that firms in Malaysia have adopted some
level of green supply chain practices in closing the supply chain
loop. Product recovery activities are avenue for firms to become
environmentally responsible to end-of-use and/or end-of-life prod-
ucts.
4.2. Relationship between green product design and resource
commitment on reverse logistics product disposition: regression
analysis
Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 stated that green product design
(DfE, DfD and DfR) and resource commitment is positively related
to reverse logistics product disposition (repair, recondition, reman-
ufacture, recycle and disposal). In testing the aforementioned
hypotheses, multiple regression analyses were applied and the
results are presented in Table 4. Step 1 of the regression analy-
ses takes the effect size as control variable into account to consider
its influence to reverse logistics implementation. Step 2 applies all
three factors of green product design and resource commitment as
independent variables in all five regression models to determine
the predictive ability of each factor on reverse logistics product
disposition options.
As Table 3 showed that most of the values of correlation coef-
ficient are significant and positive, the variables are associated at
various extent. Multicollinearity between variables are examined
based on value of variance inflation factor (VIF), where inverse
value of tolerance, must not exceed 10.0 (Bowerman and O’Connell,
1990). With reference to regression analyses presented at Table 4,
all the variables presented tolerance value slightly below 1.00 and
VIF value is slightly higher than 1.00 to dismiss issues pertaining
colinearity. In terms of independence of error terms, Ho (2006)
suggested that Durbin-Watson statistics of each regression mod-
els should be within the range of 2.00 ± 0.50. The adjacent error
terms of this study are not correlated.
Regression analyses in Table 4 showed that firm size do not
have significant influence on repair, recondition, remanufacture
and recycle. During Step 2, the inclusion of independent vari-
ables such as design for disassembly, design for environment and
resource commitment explained 53.3 percent of variance in repair
but resource commitment contributed negative beta coefficient
Standard deviation () Cronbach’s alpha
1.01 0.94
0.82 0.86
1.18 0.91
0.95 0.91
1.05 0.90
1.19 0.96
1.17 0.97
1.04 0.90
1.01 0.90
(b = −0.168, p < 0.10). When recondition, remanufacture and recy-
cle became dependent variables, only design for disassembly was a
significant predictor and the amount of variance explained by each
regression models were 32.2 percent for recondition (b = 0.524,
p < 0.001), 31.8 percent for remanufacture (b = 0.578, p < 0.001) and
32.2 percent for recycle (b = 0.411, p < 0.01). In addition, firm size
explained 3.8 percent of variance (b = 0.196, p < 0.10) in product
disposal whereas design environment (b = 0.447, p < 0.001) and
resource commitment (b = 0.117, p < 0.10) account for an additional
28.7 percent of variance. Relatively moderate implementation of
product recovery activities could be one of the possible rationales
that oppress design modification and commitment of resources.
This possibility is drawn because respondents indicated that only
65 percent and 72 percent of firms have implemented reverse
logistics on products and packaging, respectively. In truth, most
of the organizations operating in Malaysia are at initial phase in
developing GSCM practices and voluntarily participated at dis-
tinct enthusiasm. In conclusion, hypothesis 1a, hypothesis 1b and
hypothesis 2 were partially supported whereas hypothesis 1c was
not supported as design for recycling is not associated with any
product disposition options.
5. Discussion
The results of empirical analyses showed that environmen-
tally sensitive designs, also known as green product design, are
crucial product characteristics that elevate recoverability of elec-
trical and electronic equipments. Instead of designing products
that accommodate use of recycled material, design for disassem-
bly must be taken into consideration for value recovery purposes
whereas design for environment should be adopted for minimizing
threat of e-waste to the natural environment. Design for disassem-
bly facilitates accessibility and separability of modules, parts and
materials with secondary market value (Guide et al., 2000; Krikke
et al., 1998). This design aspect is a significant determinant to the
effectiveness of product disposition options. Consistent with mul-
tiple recovery loop approach for minimizing volume of e-waste,
usable constituents are inspected to reuse in new and/or used
product assembly. If the types of joints, fasteners and connectors
administered during product assembly were complex and difficult
to separate, firms have to engage skilled labour to gather bene-
fits from backward flowing products. Some assembly materials can
only be separated by application of heat and force, such as welding,
adhesives and mechanical joints (i.e. irreversible snap fits). These
joints challenged extraction of valuables as either both conjoined
parts are susceptible to damages during disassembly or only part
with more value is reused by preserving its aesthetic value at the
expense of the other part. Disassemblability of products influences
both time-sensitive recovery (i.e. repair, recondition, remanufac-
ture) and cost-efficient recovery (i.e. recycle). However, this design
factor is insignificant to disposal activities as returns with limited
 K.S. Khor, Z.M. Udin / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80 77

Table 3
Correlational analysis.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Green product design

(1) Design for disassembly 1 0.457*** 0.600*** 0.294** 0.704*** 0.559*** 0.552*** 0.530*** 0.313**
(2) Design for environment 0.457*** 1 0.432*** 0.341** 0.428*** 0.301** 0.203† 0.290** 0.525***
(3) Design for recycling 0.600*** 0.432*** 1 0.231* 0.443*** 0.364** 0.344** 0.423*** 0.197†
(4) Resource commitment 0.294** 0.341** 0.231* 1 0.092 0.142 0.067 0.221* 0.356***
Reverse logistics product disposition
(5) Repair 0.704*** 0.428*** 0.443*** 0.092 1 0.545*** 0.479*** 0.373*** 0.306**
(6) Recondition 0.559*** 0.301** 0.364** 0.142 0.545*** 1 0.704*** 0.346** 0.287*
(7) Remanufacture 0.552*** 0.203† 0.344** 0.067 0.479*** 0.704*** 1 0.494*** 0.188
(8) Recycle 0.530*** 0.290** 0.423*** 0.221* 0.373*** 0.346** 0.494*** 1 0.296**
(9) Disposal 0.313** 0.525*** 0.197† 0.356*** 0.306** 0.287* 0.188 0.296** 1

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; †p < 0.10.

Table 4
Multiple regression analysis: Effect of green product design and resource commitment on reverse logistics product disposition.

Variables Dependent variables (standardized beta coefficients)

Repair Recondition Remanufacture Recycle Disposal

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Control variable
Firm size 0.018 0.010 0.088 0.078 0.020 0.039 −0.104 −0.154 0.196† 0.055
Independent variables
Green product design
Design for disassembly 0.669*** 0.524*** 0.578*** 0.411** 0.118
Design for environment 0.175† 0.049 −0.050 0.037 0.447***
Design for recycling 0.005 0.047 0.046 0.129 −0.105
Resource commitment −0.168† −0.063 −0.108 0.104 0.177†
R2 0.000 0.533 0.008 0.322 0.000 0.318 0.011 0.322 0.038 0.325
Adjusted R2 −0.013 0.499 −0.007 0.270 −0.014 0.266 −0.003 0.273 0.025 0.276
F 0.023 15.740*** 0.532 6.182*** 0.029 6.152*** 0.804 6.563*** 2.945† 6.728***
Durbin–Watson 2.043 2.043 1.764 1.764 1.979 1.979 2.291 2.291 1.704 1.704

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; †p < 0.10.

recoverable value are best shredded and crushed for recovery of
precious materials.
This study presents evidence on the importance of designing
for the environment on product repair and disposal initiatives. In
regards to choice of materials used in EEEs, the avoidance and/or
substitution of heavy metals or hazardous substances with envi-
ronmentally compliant raw materials facilitate reduction of toxic
emissions. Repair activities are made easier when design for envi-
ronment is given attention because risks of exposures exerted
by hazardous materials are minimized thus mitigating the com-
plexity of handling environment and/or requirements. The desired
parts and/or subassemblies can be conveniently separated and
safely handled during asset recovery processes. As global envi-
ronment have acknowledged the need to preserve environmental
and human health, this design aspect plays a vital role in manag-
ing exposures related to disposable end-of-use or end-of-life EEEs
via landfill. With reference to Table 2, product repair and disposal
are the most implemented reprocessing options among firms who
participated in this study. However, the state of lower than moder-
ate existence of other recovery options may have downplayed the
effects of design for environment.
Unlike design for environment, design for recycling did not
contribute significant influence on reverse logistics product dis-
position options. Other than adjusting firm’s preference in types
of raw materials, product designers are advised to cluster com-
patible materials to ease identification of valuable, recyclable and
recycled materials. However, the absence of relationships between
design for recycling and product disposition options may have
resulted from manufacturer’s disinterest towards product take-
back except for manufacturing-related and distribution-related
returns. This view is supported by Eltayeb and Zailani (2010), who
revealed that manufacturers seldom accept products beyond sales
except for commercial returns and are more inclined to execute
minor reuse activity such as recycling of packaging. Take-back
legislation in Malaysia is under formulation and the absence of
coercive pressure has done little in motivating the introduction of
liberal return policy for collecting recyclable equipments (Tengku-
Hamzah, 2011). Among some developed and developing countries,
regulative requirements impose financial and physical obligations
(Lee and Na, 2010; Terazono et al., 2006) on producers to exercise
extended responsibility by taking back post-use consumer prod-
ucts for recycling and disposal. The threat of legal expenditures
due to non-compliance potentially induce the integration of DfE
and DfR attributes into EEEs so that the recoverable rate of prod-
ucts levels up with the standards outlined by WEEE. At the point
of writing, design for recycling is not as well received as product
safety and quality issues create daunting challenges to the use of
recycled material.
The findings of this study also observed that product repair
activities gain cost-effectiveness with higher commitment of
resources. Allocating resources on minimizing occurrence of defec-
tive products including semi-finished goods is necessary but not
desirable because it is better for manufacturing processes to get it
right the first time. Otherwise, defective products that require cor-
rective measures incur additional handling cost. Firms held more
interest in funding disposable activities such as investing resources
in appropriate storing, dumping and treatment of waste, where
engaging the service of third party service provider is the current
approach for handling waste. As responsible recycling and disposal
are voluntary based initiatives, the advantages and barriers related
to E&E product recovery have not been thoroughly rectified. In
fact, green practices are perceived to be unfavourable to business
because Chan and Fang (2007) present evidence on the absence
of relationship between eco-design initiative and economic
78 K.S. Khor, Z.M. Udin / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80
benefits whereas Eltayeb et al. (2010) revealed no direct relation-
ship between reverse logistics and economic outcome. Based on
Khor and Zulkifli (2012), they defined reverse logistics activities
distinctively and revealed that repair and recycling options positive
affects firm’s profitability. As the obscured benefits of reusables in
closed-loop supply chain are evident, this study reaffirmed their
assertion by analyzing green product designing vigilantly. Based
on the aforementioned discussion, design for disassembly is an
elementary characteristic that significantly alleviate the complexi-
ties related to reverse logistics product disposition whereas design
for environment minimize the risks of pollution due to expo-
sure of hazardous emission. This findings is imperative because
the business approach towards returns are evolving from ‘cost of
doing businesses’ to ‘value creation’ as a result of maturing drivers
of reverse logistics, including society, regulations, resources and
information (Krikke et al., 2013).
6. Study limitations, recommendations and conclusion
Results of this study cannot be generalized to other industries
because the nature of products manufactured by E&E industry sub-
sector is different as compared to those of food and beverage,
furniture, plastic, automotive, construction and service industry.
Future study should consider the inclusion of non-ISO14001 certi-
fied E&E manufacturing companies to expand the sampling frame
to obtain greater generalizability of findings. Additionally, future
studies ought to investigate the effect of other predictors such as
liberalized return policy (Autry, 2005), customer cooperation and
green purchasing (Zhu et al., 2007), perceived environmental pres-
sure and managerial environmental awareness (González-Benito
and González-Benito, 2006) towards implementation of reverse
logistics. The application of longitudinal study would be practical
for tracking the progression of green product designing in facilitat-
ing reverse logistics practices.
The development of green product design and reverse logis-
tics capabilities are green supply chain practices that are parallel
with the objectives of sustainable development via extended pro-
ducer responsibility. Other than elevating firm’s environmental
reputation due to the adoption of green supply chain management
practices, green product design or ecodesign directly affects recov-
erability by modifying certain product characteristics. Design for
disassembly facilitates the inspection and/or extraction of reusable
subassemblies, parts and materials for firms who considered the
prospects of product repairing, reconditioning, remanufacturing
and recycling options. As RL activities are primarily labour inten-
sive tasks, findings of this study gave academician and managers a
stronger basis to assimilate knowledge in redesigning attributes of
products that counteract with difficulties in identifying, assessing,
disengaging and handling functional parts of products, which may
or may not require special handling requirements. Through design
for environment, firms reduce complexities related to handling of
hazardous substances and e-waste destined for disposal shall exert
lesser environmental threat due to substitution of toxic materials.
It is also important to note that E&E manufacturing firms are com-
mitting resources in repairing and/or disposing backward flowing
in-process inventories and products that are internal to firms. In
conclusion, the economics of product recovery does not material-
ize over a short period of time as its potential can be realized when
selected components of FSC manufacturing operations collaborates
and align with the convenience required by distinct product dispo-
sition options. It is recommended that future studies examine the
influence other predictors such as liberalised return policy (Autry,
2005), reverse logistics program formalisation (Richey et al., 2005),
technical and financial capability (Chan and Fang, 2007), organi-
sational learning and management support (Zhu et al., 2008) in
developing reverse logistics capabilities.
Appendix A.
Variables and Measurement Items
1. Green product design
• Design for disassembly
- Design products that use modular components
- Design products that use snap fits in lieu of screws
- Design products that avoid use of weld or adhesive
- Design products that minimize the number of fasteners
- Design products that ease accessibility of valuable compo-
nents/materials
- Design products that ease accessibility of joining elements
- Design products that avoid use of special tools or destructive
disassembly techniques to disassemble joints
- Design products that protect joining elements from corrosions
and wear
- Design products that minimize the amount of force (or torque)
required for disengaging parts or components
- Design products that consider the weight, shape and size of struc-
ture for disassembly
- Design product with clear identification of parts or components
to facilitate disassembly
• Design for environment
- Use pollution-free raw materials in production
- Use raw materials that are compliant with environmental protec-
tion regulations
- Design products that reduce consumption of materials
- Design products to avoid or substitute the use of hazardous sub-
stances
- Design packaging that is recyclable
• Design for recycling
- Design products to allow use of recycled materials
- Design products to allow use of recycled subassemblies or com-
ponents
- Design products that cluster materials to utilize their compatibil-
ity
2. Resource Commitment
- Technological resource commitment to reverse logistics
- Managerial resource commitment to reverse logistics
- Financial resource commitment to reverse logistics
3. Reverse Logistics Product Disposition
• Repair
- Repair is the correction of faults in a product
- Repair restore product to working order
- Repair prolongs the product’s lifecycle
- Repair replaces broken parts that have failed
- Repair involves disassembly at product level
• Recondition
- This strategy involves collecting used product from customers for
reconditioning
- Recondition is the work for returning used product to a satisfac-
tory working condition
- Recondition inspects critical modules in the product
- Recondition extends functional use of the product
- Recondition replaces all major components that have failed or
that are on the point of failure
- Recondition involves disassembly up to module level
- Recondition involves product upgrade within specified quality
level
- Warranty for reconditioned product is less when compared to
remanufactured product
• Remanufacture
- This strategy involves collecting used product from customers for
remanufacturing
 K.S. Khor, Z.M. Udin / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80
- Remanufacture is the work for returning product to at least OEM
original performance specification
- Remanufacture inspects all modules and parts in the product
- Remanufacture involves disassembly up to part level
- Remanufacture involves product upgrade up to as-new quality
level
- Warranty for remanufactured product is highest compared to
other disposition options
- Remanufacture is the work of building a new product on the base
of a used product
- Suppliers are required to collect back remanufacturable product
• Recycle
- This strategy involves collecting used products from customers
for recycling
- This strategy involves collecting used packaging from customers
for recycling
- Procedures for recycling have been established
- Procedures for handling hazardous materials for end-of-life prod-
ucts have been established
- Recycling procedures reduce the amount of energy required for
extracting virgin material
- Material recycling is the re-melt of materials to make new prod-
ucts
- Energy recycling is the extraction of heat from burning materials
- Recycle involves disassembly up to material level
- Recycle involves reusing materials from used products and com-
ponents
• Disposal
- The amount of waste for disposal is minimized
- Disposal involves appropriate storage of waste
- Disposal involves appropriate dumping of waste
- Disposal involves appropriate treatment of waste
References
Agamuthu P, Victor D. Policy trends of extended producer responsibility in Malaysia.
Waste Manage Res 2011;29(9):945–53.
Aizawa H, Yoshida H, Sakai S-i. Current results and future perspectives for
Japanese recycling of home electrical appliances. Resour Conserv Recy
2008;52:1399–410.
Amelia L, Wahab DA, Che Haron CH, Muhamad N, Azhari CH. Initiating automotive
component reuse in Malaysia. J Clean Prod 2009;17:1572–9.
Argument L, Lettice F, Bhamra T. Environmentally conscious design: matching indus-
try requirements with academic research. Des Stud 1998;19:63–80.
Autry CW. Formalization of reverse logistics programs: a strategy for managing
liberalized returns. Ind Market Manag 2005;34:749–57.
Ayres R, Ferrer G, Van Leynseele T. Eco-efficiency, asset recovery and remanufactur-
ing. Eur Manag J 1997;15(5):557–74.
Babbie ER. Survey research methods. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company; 1990.
Baumann H, Boons F, Bragd A. Mapping the green product development field: engi-
neering, policy and business perspectives. J Clean Prod 2002;10:409–25.
Bogue R. Design for disassembly: a critical twenty-first century discipline. Assembly
Autom 2007;27(4):285–9.
Bowen FE. Does size matter? Organizational slack and visibility as alternative expla-
nation for environmental responsiveness. Bus Soc 2002;20(2):141–59.
Bowerman BL, O’Connell RT. Linear statistical models: An applied approach. 2nd ed.
Belmont, CA: Duxbury; 1990.
Cerdan C, Gazulla C, Raugei M, Martinez E, Fullana-i-Palmer P. Proposal for
new quantitative eco-design indicators: a first case study. J Clean Prod
2009;17:1638–43.
Chan S-C, Fang W. Antecedents and performance outcomes of environmental man-
agement levels. In: Paper presented at the International Conference on Business
and Information; 2007.
Chen Y-S, Lai S-B, Wen C-T. The influence of green innovation performance on cor-
porate advantage in Taiwan. J Bus Ethics 2006;67:331–9.
Dangelico RM, Pontrandolfo P. From green product definitions and classifications to
the Green Option Matrix. J Clean Prod 2010;18(16–17):1608–28.
Daugherty PJ, Autry CW, Ellinger AE. Reverse logistics: the relationship
between resource commitment and program performance. J Bus Logist
2001;22(1):107–23.
Desai A, Mital A. Evaluation of disassemblability to enable design for disassembly in
mass production. Int J Ind Ergonom 2003;32:265–81.
Diabat A, Govindan K. An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of
green supply chain management. Resour Conserv Recy 2011;55:659–67.
79
Dowie T. Green design. World Class Des Manuf 1994;1(4):32–8.
Eltayeb TK, Zailani S. Going green through green supply chain initiatives towards
environmental sustainability. Oper Suppl Chain Manag 2009;2(2):93–110.
Eltayeb TK, Zailani S. Green business among certified companies in Malaysia towards
environmental sustainability: benchmarking on the drivers, initiatives and out-
comes. Int J Environ Technol Manag 2010;12(1):95–125.
Eltayeb TK, Zailani S, Ramayah T. Green supply chain initiatives among certified
companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: investigating the out-
comes. Resour Conser Recy 2010;55(5):495–506.
Fernández I, Kekäle T. The influence of modularity and industry clockspeed on
reverse logistics strategy: implications for the purchasing function. J Purchas
Suppl Manag 2005;11:193–205.
Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications;
2009.
Flapper SDP. Product recovery strategies. In: Guide VDR Jr, Van Wassenhove LN,
editors. Business aspects of closed-loop supply chains. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
Carnegie Bosch Institute; 2003. p. 71–92.
Genchev SE. Assessing reverse logistics complexity: Conceptual model, scale devel-
opment and a case study. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma; 2007.
Gobbi C. Designing the reverse supply chain: the impact of the product residual
value. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 2011;41(8):768–96.
González-Benito J, González-Benito Ó. The role of stakeholder pressure and man-
agerial values in the implementation of environmental logistics practices. Int J
Prod Res 2006;44(7):1353–73.
González P, Sarkis J, Adenso-Díaz B. Environmental management system certifica-
tion and its influence on corporate practices: evidence from the automotive
industry. Int J Oper Prod Manag 2008;28(11):1021–41.
Gordon RL. Reverse logistics management: beyond 3.4 defects per million. SAM Adv
Manag J 2012;77(4):12–8.
Gottberg A, Morris J, Pollard S, Mark-Herbert C, Cook M. Producer responsibility,
waste minimisation and the WEEE Directive: case studies in eco-design from
the European lighting sector. Sci Total Environ 2006;359:38–56.
Green KW Jr, Zelbst PJ, Meacham J, Bhadauria VS. Green supply chain management
practices: impact on performance. Suppl Chain Manag Int J 2012;17(3):290–305.
Guide VDR Jr, Jayaraman V, Srivastava R, Benton WC. Supply-chain management for
recoverable manufacturing systems. Interfaces 2000;30(3):125–42.
Department of Environment. Guidelines for the classification of used electrical and
electronic equipment in Malaysia. 2nd ed. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Department of
Environment; 2010.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis: A global per-
spective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education; 2010.
Hanafi J, Kara S, Kaebernick H. Reverse logistics strategies for end-of-life products.
Int J Logist Manag 2008;19(3):367–88.
Hart SL. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad Manage Rev
1995;20(4):986–1014.
Hauschild M, Jeswiet J, Alting L. From life cycle assessment to sustainable
production: status and perspectives. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 2005;54(2):
70–87.
Hazen BT, Hall DJ, Hanna JB. Reverse logistics disposition decision-making: devel-
oping a decision framework via content analysis. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag
2012;42(3):244–74.
Hervani AA, Helms MM, Sarkis J. Performance measurement of green supply chain
management. Benchmark Int J 2005;12(4):330–53.
Ho R. Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with
SPSS. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall; 2006.
Ijomah WL, McMahon CA, Hammond GP, Newman ST. Development of design for
remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable manufacturing. Robot Com-
put Integr Manuf 2007;23:712–9.
Jack EP, Powers TL, Skinner L. Reverse logistics capabilities: antecedents and cost
savings. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 2010;40(3):228–46.
Kaiser HF. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 1970;35(4):401–15.
Knemeyer AM, Ponzurik TG, Logar CM. A qualitative examination of factors affecting
reverse logistics systems for end-of-life computers. Int J Phys Distribution & Log
Manag 2002;32(6):455–79.
Khor KS, Zulkifli MU. Impact of reverse logistics product disposition towards
business performance in Malaysian E&E companies. J Suppl Chain Customer
Relationship Manag 2012;19.
Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ
Psychol Meas 1970;30:607–10.
Krikke H, Hofenk D, Wang Y. Revealing an invisible giant: a comprehensive survey
into return practices within original (closed-loop) supply chains. Resour Conserv
Recy 2013;73:239–50.
Krikke HR, van Harten A, Schuur PC. On a medium term product recovery and dis-
posal strategy for durable assembly products. Int J Prod Res 1998;36(1):111–40.
Kriwet A, Zussman E, Seliger G. Systematic integration of design-for-recycling into
product design. Int J Prod Econ 1995;38:15–22.
Kumar S, Putnam V. Cradle to cradle: reverse logistics strategies and opportunities
across three industry sectors. Int J Prod Econ 2008;115:305–15.
Kuo T-C, Huang SH, Zhang H-C. Design for manufacture and design for ‘X’: concepts,
application and perspectives. Comput Ind Eng 2001;41:241–60.
Lee S-c, Na S-i. E-waste recycling systems and sound circulative economies in East
Asia: a comparative analysis of systems in Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan.
Sustainability 2010;2:1632–44.
Mathieux F, Froelich D, Moszkowicz P. ReSICLED: A new recovery-conscious design
method for complex products based on a multicriteria assessment of the recov-
erability. J Clean Prod 2008;16:277–98.
80 K.S. Khor, Z.M. Udin / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 81 (2013) 71–80
Mills J, Platts K, Bourne M. Applying resource-based theory: methods, outcomes and
utility for managers. Int J Oper Prod Manag 2003;23(2):148–66.
Mollenkopf DA, Closs DJ. The hidden value in reverse logistics. Suppl Chain Manag
Rev 2005;9:34–43.
Navinchandra D. Steps toward environmentally compatible product and process
design: A case of green engineering. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University;
1990, Report No.: CMU-RI-TR-90-34.
Ninlawan C, Seksan P, Tossapol K, Pilada W. The implementation of green supply
chain management practices in electronics industry. In: Paper presented at the
International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists; 2010.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
Olavarrieta S, Ellinger AE. Resource-based theory and strategic logistics research. Int
J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 1997;27(9/10):559–87.
Olugo EU, Wong KY, Shaharoun AM. Development of key performance measures
from the automobile green supply chain. Resour Conserv Recy 2011;55:567–79.
Pokharel S, Mutha A. Perspectives in reverse logistics: a review. Resour Conserv Recy
2009;53:175–82.
Prahinski C, Kocabasoglu C. Empirical research opportunities in reverse supply
chains. Int J Manag Sci 2006;34:519–32.
Richey RG, Daugherty PJ, Genchev SE, Autry CW. Reverse logistics: the impact of
timing and resources. J Bus Logist 2004;25(2):229–50.
Richey RG, Tokman M, Wright RE, Harvey MG. Monitoring reverse logistics pro-
grams: a roadmap to sustainable development in emerging markets. Multinat
Bus Rev 2005;13(3):41–65.
Rogers DS, Rogers ZS, Lembke R. Creating value through product stewardship and
take-back. Sustain Account Manag Policy J 2010;1(2):133–60.
Rogers DS, Tibben-Lembke R. Going backwards: Reverse logistics trends and
practices:. Pittsburgh, PA: Reverse Logistics Executive Council (RLEC);
1999.
Sarkis J. Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices. Eur J Oper Res
1998;107:159–74.
Sekaran U. Research methods for business: A skill building approach. 4th ed. New
York, NY: John Willey & Sons; 2003.
Shih LH. Reverse logistics system planning for recycling electrical appliances and
computers in Taiwan. Resour Conserv Recy 2001;32:55–72.
Skinner LR, Bryant PT, Richey RG. Examining the impact of reverse logistics disposi-
tion strategies. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 2008;38(7):518–39.
Srividya R. Don’t throw it away: the corporate role in product disposition. J Bus
Strategy 2010;31(3):50–5.
Sroufe R. Effect of environmental management systems on environmental manage-
ment practices and operations. Prod Oper Manag 2003;12(3):416–31.
Talbot S, Lefebvre É, Lefebvre L-A. Closed-loop supply chain activities and derived
benefits in manufacturing SMEs. J Manuf Technol Manag 2007;18(6):627–58.
Tengku-Hamzah TAA. Making sense of environmental governance: A study of e-
waste in Malaysia. Old Elvet, Durham: Durham University; 2011, Doctoral thesis
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/670/
Terazono A, Murakami S, Abe N, Inanc B, Moriguchi Y, Sakai S-i, Williams E. Current
status and research on e-waste issues in Asia. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage
2006;8:1–12.
Thierry M, Salomon M, Van Nunen J, Van Wassenhove LN. Strategic issues in product
recovery management. Calif Manage Rev 1995;37(2):114–35.
Toffel MW, Stein A, Lee KL. Extending producer responsibility: An evaluation frame-
work for product take-back policies. Harvard Business School; 2008. p. 27.
Van Hoek RI. From reversed logistics to green supply chains. Suppl Chain Manag
1999;4(3):129–34.
Zhang HC, Kuo TC, Lu H, Huang SH. Environmentally conscious design and manu-
facturing: a state-of-the-art survey. J Manuf Syst 1997;16(5):352–71.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emer-
gent green supply chain practices and performance. Int J Prod Res
2007;45(18–19):4333–55.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Cordeiro JJ, Lai K-h. Firm-level correlates of emergent green
supply chain management practices in the Chinese context. Int J Manag Sci
2008;36:577–91.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai K-h. Green supply chain management: pressures, prac-
tices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. J Clean Prod
2007;15:1041–52.