Received: 19 May 2021 Revised: 19 November 2021 Accepted: 6 December 2021

DOI: 10.1002/bse.2970

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Circular economy adoption barriers: An extended fuzzy

best–worst method using fuzzy DEMATEL and
Supermatrix structure

Kannan Govindan1,2,3 | Arash Khalili Nasr4 | Farzane Karimi5 | Hassan Mina1

1
China Institute of FTZ Supply Chain, Shanghai
Maritime University, Shanghai, China Abstract
2
Yonsei Frontier Lab, Yonsei University, Seoul, In the real world, there are complex decision-making problems in which a variety of
South Korea
intertwined factors and hierarchical structures exist, and it is difficult or impossible to
3
Center for Sustainable Supply Chain
Engineering, Department of Technology and solve these problems using classical methods. The prioritization of circular economy
Innovation, Danish Institute for Advanced (CE) adoption barriers is one such complex problem that cannot be solved using cur-
Study, University of Southern Denmark,
Odense M, Denmark rent classical methods. Hence, in this paper, for the first time, a new method, namely,
4
Graduate School of Management and FBWDS, is developed. FBWDS derives from the combination of fuzzy best–worst
Economics, Sharif University of Technology,
method (BWM), fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL),
Tehran, Iran
5
Faculty of Economics, University of Tehran,
and Supermatrix structure. This proposed method establishes weights of the inter-
Tehran, Iran twined factors in hierarchical networks under uncertainty; these weighted factors

Correspondence
and their interdependencies are calculated using the fuzzy BWM and fuzzy
Arash Khalili Nasr, Graduate School of DEMATEL techniques, respectively. In addition, the Supermatrix structure is applied
Management and Economics, Sharif University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
to integrate the results of these two techniques. The proposed approach efficiency is
Email: Khalilinasr@sharif.edu evaluated in the field of the CE adoption barriers using data from a cable and wire
industry in Iran. The results showed that “high setup costs,” “financial limitations,”
and “absence of public awareness about CE” rank as the most challenging barriers,
and “lack of standards for designing recycled products” and “absence of standard
system to evaluate performance” are the least important barriers to CE adoption in
the cable and wire industry.

KEYWORDS
best–worst method, circular economy adoption barriers, DEMATEL, fuzzy theory, multi-
criteria decision-making

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N demands for such resources have risen as well (García-Quevedo

Different factors, including the rising population, booming economy,
and the personal demands of individuals, have led to an unprece-
dented growth in the exploitation of natural resources. Accordingly,
et al., 2020). As a result, organizations and companies are facing
some critical issues with regard to natural resources. This leads to
increased input costs and less sustainability of products in the mar-
ket (Kumar et al., 2021; Lahane & Kant, 2021; Yawar & Kuula,
2021). Factors such as increasing environmental awareness, need for

Abbreviations: AHP, analytic hierarchy process; ANP, analytic network process; BSC,
social responsibility, and environmental legislation have directed
balanced scorecard; BWM, best–worst method; CE, circular economy; CSFs, critical success companies and organizations to seek new methods to accomplish
factors; DEMATEL, decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory; MCDM, multi-criteria
their affairs (Kerdlap et al., 2019). There is an agreement among the
decision-making; PVC, polyvinyl chloride; SMEs, small- and medium-sized enterprises;
WINGS, weighted influence non-linear gauge system. scholars that a shift from the present “linear” model to a circular

1566 © 2022 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse Bus Strat Env. 2022;31:1566–1586.
GOVINDAN ET AL.
economy (CE) is the only approach towards sustainability and devel-
opment that will contribute to the development of a more environ-
mentally responsible and equal society (Acerbi & Taisch, 2020; Allen
et al., 2021; Niero & Kalbar, 2019). The major function of CE, based
on the circular flow of material and energy, is to change the tradi-
tional linear “take–make–dispose” model into the circular “resource–
product–regenerated resource” model (Elia et al., 2017;
et al., 2010). In fact, CE aims to decrease virgin resources, waste,
and existing pollution; moreover, it attempts to increase the recov-
ery rate and efficiency of resources (Hu et al., 2011; Kravchenko
et al., 2019). CE has come into play with the main purpose of
increasing the application of resources and creating value by the
repeated usage and generation of resources (Pauliuk, 2018). At first,
it was developed to assist with the improvement of China's econ-
omy and some other developed countries. However, it has the
potential to be used in a number of developing countries in order to
improve their resource consumption patterns and to bring sustain-
ability into their production sectors. CE has indeed assumed impor-
tance in developing countries for reducing wastes and enhancing the
environmental situation and public health (Agrawal et al., 2021; Liu
et al., 2018). Considering all this information, CE has received little
attention in developing countries (Qu et al., 2019). Countries like
Bangladesh and India can put CE into practice with the enhance-
ment of waste electronics products from such countries as China for
the purpose of reuse and recycling (Agrawal et al., 2021). This is
indicative of the advantages of CE with regard to social, economic,
and environmental conditions. It is of high importance these days to
implement CE to tackle such issues as the increased wastes and
environmental pollution; in this regard, a wealth of research has
been conducted to evaluate the benefits of CE in terms of sustain-
ability (Govindan et al., 2020; Kannan et al., 2020; Nasr et al., 2021).
These studies have touched upon various visions of CE in different
types of applications and have addressed several sectors such as
manufacturing industries (Lieder & Rashid, 2016; Mina et al., 2021),
supply chain (Dev et al., 2020; Tseng et al., 2020; Yadav
et al., 2020), the automotive sector (Pisitsankkhakarn
Vassanadumrongdee, 2020; Saidani et al., 2018), and service sectors
(Heyes et al., 2018; Mendoza et al., 2019). In the related literature, a
large number of initiatives have been discussed with regard to the
adoption of CE recently, whereas some developing countries have
made no attempt to do so.
In general, the implementation of CE in manufacturing indus-
tries, in addition to reducing costs, leads to a reduction in the detri-
mental effects of the environment, and this leads to an increase in
sustainability. The cable and wire industry is one of the manufactur-
ing industries that CE implementation can lead to reduced waste
production, reduced production costs, reduced resource consump-
tion, and increased efficiency. The first step in CE adoption is to
identify the barriers. Prioritizing identified barriers is the next step in
implementing CE in the manufacturing industry. Therefore, it is
important to provide a proper approach for ranking CE adoption bar-
riers. Because CE adoption barriers are intertwined in the cable and
wire industry, classical methods to rank them are not appropriate.
1567
Therefore, for the first time, in this paper, using multi-criteria
decision-making (MCDM) methods and the balanced scorecard (BSC)
concept, an approach for ranking CE adoption barriers in the cable
and wire industry is presented. In the proposed approach, CE adop-
tion barriers are identified from the BSC perspective and weighted
using the fuzzy best–worst method (BWM), and interdependencies
Li among components are calculated by the fuzzy decision-making trial
and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL); finally, with the help of Sup-
ermatrix structure, barriers are ranked. The aim of this study is to
respond to the following questions:
• Which barriers from financial, customer, learning and growth, and
internal process perspectives are effective for adoption to CE in
the cable and wire industry?
• Because CE adoption barriers are intertwined in the cable and wire
industry, which approach can consider interdependencies among
these barriers and is the most suitable for ranking them?
In general, the contributions of this study can be expressed as follows:
• identification of CE adoption barriers from BSC perspective in
manufacturing industries and in particular in cable and wire
industry;
• development of a novel Supermatrix-based method consisting of
fuzzy BWM and fuzzy DEMATEL to rank these barriers; and
• validation of the proposed method using expert knowledge and
information in a cable and wire industry in Iran.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. We investigate
the related literatures in Section 2. The proposed method is presented
in Section 3. We implement a case study in Iran to validate the appli-
cability of the proposed method in Section 4. Section 5 is allocated to
a discussion of the practical and theoretical implications, and, finally,
the conclusion is stated in Section 6.
&
2 | LI T E RA T U R E RE V I E W
Since the emergence of the concept of CE by the European Union,
numerous studies have been carried out to identify CE adoption bar-
riers in various fields (Smol et al., 2015). In the same vein, a survey
using questionnaire was done by Xue et al. (2010) to assess the CE
status in China at two national and municipal levels. It was found
that there is an acceptable awareness of the CE concept; however,
16% of the employees had only heard about the CE concept.
Besides, it was revealed that “lack of public awareness” and “lack of
financial support” were among the main barriers to CE. Another
research conducted by Liu and Bai (2014) led us to the conclusion
that structural, contextual, and cultural barriers constituted the main
barriers to CE from an organizational angle. In that study, the bar-
riers were recognized and it was revealed that the promotion of CE
implementation is possible through the provision of incentives for
companies. In addition, Adams et al. (2017) carried out research on
1568
barriers to CE in the construction sector in the UK. They found that
the CE implementation in the construction sector lies in its primary
developmental stages and more research should be done on this
area. Ritzén and Sandström (2017) studied CE and stated that it is
fragmentally implemented since it is a multi-dimensional and multi-
domain concept that deals with related barriers. They enumerated
nine barriers with a review on the related literature. They reached
the conclusion that it is necessary to go for innovations and trans-
formative changes to eliminate the barriers. The number of 30 bar-
riers was prioritized by Mangla et al. (2017) to obtain sustainability
and have access to the production trends in every supply chain via
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP). In that study, the first barrier
rated was the absence of proper methods, equipment items, indica-
tors, and techniques towards cleaner production practices. In this
regard, regional barriers to CE implementation and CE drivers in
China, the USA, and Europe were also assessed by Ranta et al. (2018)
via institutional theory. Their research led to the identification of
institutional barriers and drivers in the cases under study. It was also
reported that the CE holistic vision had been banned by high
emphasis on “the recycle and underuse of reuse and reduce.”
Mangla et al. (2018) reported the availability of 16 barriers to circu-
lar supply chain, especially in developing countries like India in the
related literature. Moreover, they carried out “ISM” and “MICMAC”
analyses. From among these 16 barriers, two barriers, namely, “lack
of environmental laws and regulations” and “lack of preferential tax
policies for promoting the circular models,” were recognized as the
main barriers. A review was also done on the related literature by
Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) where they reached 39 barriers
through content analysis. These barriers were believed to prevent
the CE implementation in the area of the supply chain. The results
represented that the main responsibility is on the shoulders of the
government regarding CE implementation due to the required costs.
In another study on CE and barriers to its implementation, Masi
et al. (2018) introduced 23 barriers to CE at the organizational level.
From among the obtained barriers, “lack of awareness and sense
urgency” was revealed to be the major one. “Lack of knowledge and
expertise” is one of the most important barriers to CE implementa-
tion, which unfortunately has not been considered in this research.
They argued that about 65.33% of the firms had awareness about
the CE concept. In Spain, Ormazabal et al. (2018) also addressed
barriers to CE in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Their
findings showed that companies are thinking of their own profits;
therefore, these companies may not assign much credit to the envi-
ronment and are not willing to pay upfront costs to close the loop.
They introduced two classes of barriers, namely, hard and soft ones.
Then, they asserted that “lack of support from public institutions”
was the major barrier to CE. In a similar study in this domain, a cul-
tural barrier was referred to as the main barrier to CE in the
European Union by Kirchherr et al. (2018). To their understanding,
“lacking consumer interest and awareness” and “hesitant company
culture” were the most critical barriers to CE and the two mentioned
barriers may negatively impact the CE transition or may destroy it
entirely. They focus more on cultural barriers and ignore important
GOVINDAN ET AL.
barriers such as “lack of proper partners,” “lack of senior manage-
ment support,” “risk aversion,” and “lack of knowledge and exper-
tise.” They argued that technological barriers cannot be categorized
among the main barriers to CE. A study conducted by De Jesus and
Mendonça (2018) put its emphasis on the identification of soft and
hard barriers to CE through the review of academic and gray litera-
ture. The results showed that the main focus of academic literature
was on technological innovations for the purpose of transformation
and movement towards CE; however, gray literature mainly focused
on systemic innovation. According to them, the innovation system
needs to be regarded for transformation towards CE. Mahpour (2018)
introduced 22 barriers to CE adoption for construction waste man-
agement and ranked these barriers by fuzzy TOPSIS using behav-
ioral, technical, and legal criteria. One of the criticisms of this
research is the lack of financial and organizational criteria for ranking
barriers. In a paper presented by Paletta et al. (2019), plastics valori-
zation barriers from technical, legislative, economic, and socio-
cultural perspectives were studied, and a precise definition of these
barriers was given. In the process of reusing plastics, “lack of public
interest” and “lack of standards for designing recycled products” are
important barriers that have not been addressed in this study. In the
scope of manufacturing, organizations try hard to show a superior
status while no suitable strategies have been introduced to them. In
fact, the lack of research in this area in the literature towards CE
implementation is evident. In this regard, Kumar et al. (2019)
referred to both opportunities and barriers to CE adoption in
manufacturing companies from economic, environmental, and socio-
political perspectives. In their paper, they reported “low level of pub-
lic awareness on CE” and “lack of understanding of CE principles” as
main barriers in the socio-political class. When it comes to the envi-
ronmental vision, “inadequate water resource systems” was recog-
nized as the most important one. The adoption of an exploratory
method by Agyemang et al. (2019) aimed at revealing the drivers
and barriers of micro-level CE and its acceptance in the automobile
industry of Pakistan. The main focus of their study was on decreas-
ing implementation costs. Indeed, this barrier referred to the reason
for undergoing delay by organizations in the realm of CE implemen-
tation. Moreover, the critical success factors (CSFs) of CE application
were assessed and studied by Moktadir et al. (2020) in the leather
industry. They made use of the BWM to assess the CSFs and uti-
lized DEMATEL to find the cause and effect relationship among
CSFs of CE practices. Singh et al. (2020) studied the adoption bar-
riers to CE in the mining industry. To this end, they extracted the
CE adoption barriers from five perspectives, including “government
policies and regulations,” “market,” “financial,” “operational,” and
“organizational,” and a hybrid method based on graph-based theo-
retic approach and AHP to rank them was used. They considered
“lack of initial capital” and “lack of funds for R&D, training, and CE
operations” as financial barriers. The results showed that “govern-
ment policies and regulations” is the largest barrier to CE implemen-
tation in the Indian mining industry. In this paper, although a precise
definition of financial barriers is provided, barriers such as the
absence of proper partners, lack of appropriate standards to manage
GOVINDAN ET AL.
waste, and risk aversion are ignored. In this area, the implementation
of CE and sustainability in a retail return system was studied by Frei
et al. (2020) where they emphasized different barriers and issues
ahead of CE implementation and sustainability and proposed some
remedies to deal with these challenges. A hybrid approach consisting
of AHP and elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE) to
rank the barriers for achieving the objectives of sustainability and
CE was developed by Kumar et al. (2021). They introduced
15 generic barriers for this purpose and ranked these barriers using
nine sustainability parameters. Providing a generic definition for
identified barriers and not considering some barriers such as lack of
proper partners, lack of guidelines, and lack of sustainable cultural
behavior are among the weaknesses of their research. Ranking bar-
riers from a sustainability perspective is one of the strengths of this
study that has been studied for the first time. The purpose of the
paper presented by Grafström and Aasma (2021) is to examine the
barriers to CE implementation from technological, market, institu-
tional, and cultural perspectives. Although they have studied these
barriers precisely, they have ignored some barriers, such as organiza-
tional and financial barriers. Another study conducted by Ethirajan
et al. (2021) placed emphasis on the risks and threats pertaining to
CE affairs in the supply chain of manufacturing companies. They
reported the availability of 31 risks in this area and employed
DEMATEL approach to assess these risks. It was shown that trans-
parent process was the most critical risk factor relating the CE prac-
tices in supply chain. Agrawal et al. (2021) presented a practical
approach based on TOPSIS technique for identifying and ranking
adoption barriers to CE in the Indian automotive industry. They
identified 20 barriers to CE in the automotive industry by reviewing
the literature and consulting with experts. Although they examined a
comprehensive set of barriers, they did not provide a precise defini-
tion of some barriers, such as financial barriers. The results showed
that “lacking ability to deliver high-quality remanufactured products”
was the most important barrier to the adoption of CE in the Indian
automotive industry. Table 1 shows a comprehensive set of adop-
tion barriers derived from the literature review.
A review of the literature shows that there are many articles for
identifying CE adoption barriers in the various fields, but so far, CE
adoption barriers from the BSC perspective have not been studied.
Also, in this paper, CE adoption barriers in the wire and cable industry
are examined for the first time (see Table 1). In addition, in this paper,
for the first time, a novel structural method based on fuzzy BWM,
fuzzy DEMATEL, and Supermatrix structure is presented for prioritiz-
ing (weighting) intertwined alternatives (criteria) in a network with a
hierarchical structure.
3 | PROPOSED APPROACH
The AHP is one of the most well-known and widely used MCDM
methods first proposed by Saaty (1977). AHP is based on pairwise
comparisons where factors are considered independent. Several
years after introducing AHP, Saaty (1996) introduced a general form
1569
of this method called the analytic network process (ANP), which,
unlike AHP, considered interdependency among factors. Recently,
Rezaei (2015) developed a new MCDM method entitled the BWM
using the concepts of “comparison of the best criterion with the
other criteria” and “comparison of the other criteria with the worst
criterion”; it also utilizes a non-linear mathematical model. This
method, like AHP, is based on pairwise comparisons; however, the
difference is that the number of pairwise comparisons in this
method is 2n
3 while it equals nðn
1Þ=2 in AHP (n is the number
of criteria). Therefore, this method has fewer pairwise comparisons
than AHP, which leads to a high consistency. Since the birth of BWM,
numerous papers have been presented on its development.
Rezaei (2016) developed this method in a deterministic and interval
mode using a linear mathematical model. Combining BWM presented
by Rezaei (2015) and fuzzy theory, Guo and Zhao (2017) proposed a
fuzzy BWM for weighting factors under uncertainty. Hafezalkotob
and Hafezalkotob (2017) developed a new fuzzy BWM via the combi-
nation of group and individual decisions, fuzzy theory, and linear
BWM presented by Rezaei (2016). The literature review shows that
although many efforts have been made to develop BWM (Kannan
et al., 2021), DEMATEL (Ferreira, Kannan, et al., 2022; Ferreira, Spahr,
et al., 2022; Govindan, 2022; Govindan et al., 2022) and only few
studies have used the combination of BWM and DEMATEL to con-
sider the interdependency among factors (Kannan, 2021; Liu
et al., 2020; Yazdani et al., 2020; Yazdi et al., 2020). Therefore, to the
best of the authors' knowledge, a combination of fuzzy BWM, fuzzy
DEMATEL, and Supermatrix structure is introduced in this paper for
the first time as a new MCDM method, to be called the FBWDS
method. In the proposed method, the weights of factors and inter-
dependency between them are calculated by fuzzy BWM and fuzzy
DEMATEL, respectively. Finally, the final weights of factors are deter-
mined using the Supermatrix structure. Because the proposed
approach uses both influence intensity and strength of components in
the prioritization (weighting) process, it has a higher accuracy than
other methods such as BWM and DEMATEL. In addition, the pro-
posed approach can be easily implemented in networks that have
intertwined components and a hierarchical structure. Figure 1 shows
the general structure of under study network. The following FBWDS
method is proposed in 12 steps based on network presented in
Figure 1.
Step 1: Determine the criteria, their sub-criteria (if any), and
alternatives.
i, j ¼ 1, 2,…, n Criteria
li ¼ 1i ,2i , …, mi Sub-criteria of criterion i
k ¼ 1, 2,…, K Alternatives
Step 2: Determine the best (most important) and worst (least impor-
tant) criteria (sub-criteria).
Step 3: Compare the best criterion (sub-criterion) in pairs with the
other criteria (sub-criteria) by verbal terms presented in Table 2, and
construct the fuzzy best-to-others vectors. Similarly, compare other
 1570

TABLE 1 Barriers to CE adoption

Galv~ao Govindan & Kirchherr Masi Ranta Kumar Paletta Zhang Akinade Bilal Singh Agrawal Grafström Kumar van Keulen
et al., Hasanagic, et al., Mahpour, et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., & Aasma, et al., & Kirchherr,
2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021
Absence of public awareness about CE * * * * * * * * * * *
High setup costs * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Absence of knowledge and expertise * * * * * * * * *
Lack of public interest in recycled products * * * * * * * * *
Lack of sufficient legal and government * * * * * * * * * * * * *
supports
Absence of standard system to evaluate * * * * * * * * * *
performance
Absence of qualified partners * * *
Absence of access to environmental * * * * * * * *
management facilities and programs
Absence of sufficient incentives * * * * * * * *
Absence of appropriate standards to manage * * * * * * * * *
wastes
Absence of CE infrastructure * * * * * * * * * *
Financial limitations * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Absence of customers and stockholders * * *
pressures
Absence of senior management support * * * * *
Manufacturers' resistance to producing * * * *
sustainable products
Absence of sustainable cultural behavior * * * * * * *
Absence of sufficient technologies for * * * * * * *
wastes disposal/recycled materials
Lack of standards for designing recycled * * * * *
products
Lack of guidelines * * * * *
Risk aversion * * * *
GOVINDAN ET AL.
GOVINDAN ET AL. 1571

FIGURE 1 The general structure of network under study

TABLE 2 The fuzzy linguistic expressions for pairwise comparison Mathematical model

Linguistic expressions Triangular fuzzy numbers

Min e
α
Equally important (1,1,1)
s:t:
 
Slightly important (2/3,1,3/2)  ej  ≤ e
ωeB
ω
ej  B α 8j
 
Important (3/2,2,5/2)  e j  ≤ e
ωej
ω
eW  W α 8j
X ð1Þ
Very important (5/2,3,7/2)  
Def ωej ¼ 1
Absolutely important (7/2,4,9/2) j

ωlj ≤ ωm
j ≤ ωj
u

ωlj > 0
TABLE 3 The fuzzy linguistic terms

Linguistic terms Triangular fuzzy numbers Assume α is the optimal value of objective function (α ≤ αl ). There-

No influence (N) (0,0,0.25)

fore, the proposed model is developed as follows:

Very low influence (VL) (0,0.25,0.5)

Min α
Low influence (L) (0.25,0.5,0.75)
s:t:
    
High influence (H) (0.5,0.75,1)  l m u 
 ωB , ωB ,ωB
Bjl , Bjm ,Bju  ωjl , ωjm ,ωju  ≤ ðα , α , α Þ 8j
Very high influence (VH) (0.75,1,1)      
 l m u u 
 ωj , ωj ,ωj
Wjl ,Wjm ,Wju  ωW l
, ωW
m
,ωW  ≤ ðα , α , α Þ 8j
ð2Þ
X ωjl þ 4  ωjm þ ωju
¼1
j
6

criteria (sub-criteria) in pairs with the worst criterion (sub-criterion) ωjl ≤ ωjm ≤ ωju
and construct the fuzzy others-to-worst vectors. ωjl > 0

By running the developed model in GAMS software using CPLEX

Step 4: Form the following fuzzy linear model using the fuzzy best-to- solver, the optimal fuzzy and defuzzified weights of factors and objec-
others and others-to-worst vectors. tive function are specified. If α is less than 0.1, the consistency of
pairwise comparisons is acceptable; therefore, the obtained weights
Notations are approved.
j Criterion j
 
e B ¼ ωlB , ωm
ω B , ωB The fuzzy weight of the best criterion
u
Step 5: Schematically draw the causal relationships between the
 l 
e W ¼ ωW , ωm
ω W,ω
u
The fuzzy weight of the worst criterion criteria (sub-criteria).
 W
ω
e j ¼ ωlj , ωm ,ω u
The fuzzy weight of the criterion j Step 6: Determine the influence intensity of criteria (sub-criteria) on
 j j
ej ¼ Bl , Bm , Bu The fuzzy best-to-others vector
B each other by verbal terms presented in Table 3 and construct fuzzy
j j j 
We j ¼ W l , W m , W u The fuzzy others-to-worst vector direct-relation matrix.
j j j n  o
 l m u 
e
α ¼ α , α ,α Max ω eB
ω ej , ω
ej  B ej
ω e j 
eW  W
  ωj þ4ωj þωj
l m u
Def ω ej ¼ 6 Defuzzified weight of criterion j The fuzzy direct-relation matrix for criteria:
1572 GOVINDAN ET AL.

h i h i  h i
1
t00 ðili Þðjlj Þ ¼ n00 ðili Þðjlj Þ  I
n00 ðili Þðjlj Þ
l l l
2e 3
að1Þð1Þ  eað1Þð jÞ   e
að1ÞðnÞ
h i h i  h i
1
6 . .. .. .. .. 7 t00 ðili Þðjlj Þ ¼ n00 ðili Þðjlj Þ  I
n00 ðili Þðjlj Þ ð8Þ
m m m
6 .. . . . . 7
6 7
6 7   h i h i  h i
1
e 6
A ¼ 6 aðiÞð1Þ  aðiÞð jÞ   aðiÞðnÞ 7
e e e 7¼ e
aðiÞð jÞ ð3Þ t00 ðili Þðjlj Þ ¼ n00 ðili Þðjlj Þ  I
n00 ðili Þðjlj Þ
u u u
6 . .. .. .. .. 77
6 .
4 . . . . . 5
aðnÞð1Þ  e
e aðnÞð jÞ   e
aðnÞðnÞ
Step 9: Calculate the defuzzified total relation matrix for criteria and
their sub-criteria using Equations 9 and 10, respectively.

 
where e
aðiÞð jÞ ¼ alðiÞð jÞ , am u
ðiÞð jÞ , aðiÞð jÞ denotes the influence intensity of The defuzzified total relation matrix for criteria:
criterion i on criterion j.
" 0l #
The fuzzy direct-relation matrix for sub-criteria: h i t ðiÞð jÞ þ 4  t0 ðiÞð jÞ þ t0 ðiÞð jÞ
m u
t0ðiÞð jÞ ¼ ð9Þ
6
2 3
e
bð11Þð11Þ  e bð11Þðjlj Þ  e bð11Þðnmn Þ
6 7
6 .. .. .. .. .. 7 The defuzzified total relation matrix for sub-criteria:
6 . . . . . 7
6 7 h i
6 e 7
e ¼ 6 bðil Þð11Þ  e bðili Þðjlj Þ  e bðili Þðnmn Þ 7 e
B 6 i 7 ¼ bðili Þðjlj Þ ð4Þ
2 l 3
6 7

6 7 t00 ðili Þðjlj Þ þ 4  t00 ðili Þðjlj Þ þ t00 ðili Þðjlj Þ

m u
6 .. .. .. .. .. 7
4 . . . . . 5 00
tðil Þðjl Þ ¼ 4 5 ð10Þ
e 6
bðnmn Þð11Þ  ebðnmn Þðjlj Þ  e
i j
bðnmn Þðnmn Þ

Step 10: Construct the defuzzified interdependency matrix for criteria

 
where e
bðili Þðjlj Þ ¼ blðili Þðili Þ , bm , bu
ðili Þðjl Þ ðili Þðjl Þ
denotes the influence inten- and their sub-criteria via Equations 11 and 12, respectively.
j j

sity of the lth sub-criterion pertain to criterion i on lth sub-criterion

out of criterion j. The defuzzified interdependency matrix for criteria:

Step 7: Normalize the fuzzy direct-relation matrix for criteria and their 2 3
sub-criteria via Equations 5 and 6, respectively. 6 t0ðiÞð jÞ 7 h 0 i
W0 ¼ 6
4Pn
7¼ w
5 ðiÞð jÞ ð11Þ
t0ðiÞð jÞ
i¼1
  1  
ne0 n0 ðiÞð jÞ , n0 ðiÞð jÞ , n0 ðiÞð jÞ
l m u
ðiÞð jÞ ¼ ¼  alðiÞð jÞ ,am u
ðiÞð jÞ , aðiÞð jÞ
H
ð5Þ The defuzzified interdependency matrix for sub-criteria:
X
n
H ¼ max auðiÞð jÞ
1≤i≤n 2 3
j¼1
6 t00ðil Þðjl Þ 7

6 7
W 00 ¼ 6 nmn 7 ¼ w00ðili Þðjl Þ
i
ð12Þ
j
  1   4 P 00 5 j
ne00 ðili Þðjlj Þ ¼ n00 ðili Þðjlj Þ , n00 ðili Þðjlj Þ , n00 ðili Þðjlj Þ ¼  blðili Þðjl Þ , bm
l m u
ðil Þðjl Þ , buðili Þðjl Þ tðil Þ jl
i ð jÞ
S j i j j
il ¼1 i
X
n
u
S ¼ max bðili Þðjl Þ
1≤i≤n j
j¼1

ð6Þ Step 11: Construct the initial Supermatrix (S) according to structure
shown in Figure 2.

Step 8: Form the fuzzy total relation matrix for criteria and their sub- Step 12: Calculate final Supermatrix (F) using Equation 13.
criteria using Equations 7 and 8, respectively.

The fuzzy total relation matrix for criteria: F ¼ Sd ð13Þ

d!∞

h i h i  h i
1
t0 ðiÞð jÞ ¼ n0 ðiÞð jÞ  I
n0 ðiÞð jÞ
l l l
The final weights of criteria, sub-criteria, and score of alternatives are
h i h i  h i
1
t0 ðiÞð jÞ ¼ n0 ðiÞð jÞ  I
n0 ðiÞð jÞ
m m m
ð7Þ calculated by final Supermatrix.
h i h i  h i
1
t0 ðiÞð jÞ ¼ n0 ðiÞð jÞ  I
n0 ðiÞð jÞ
u u u
Remark. The proposed approach considers a general
network including criteria, sub-criteria, alternatives, and
interdependencies between criteria and sub-criteria.
The fuzzy total relation matrix for sub-criteria: The network under consideration is flexible and capable
GOVINDAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 Structure of
Supermatrix formed by fuzzy
BWM and fuzzy DEMATEL
of adapting to many different network structures and
configurations. For example, if there are no interdepen-
dencies between sub-criteria (i.e., sub-criteria are inde-
pendent), in the proposed initial Supermatrix, we should
00
set W matrix to zero. As another example, assume a
network that contains intertwined criteria and sub-
criteria (a network without alternatives), whose purpose
is to calculate the weights of the criteria and sub-
criteria. For this purpose, we should delete the rows and
columns that pertain to alternatives in the proposed ini-
tial Supermatrix.
4 | C A S E S TU D Y
Copper and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are two main materials in the
cable and wire industry that are recyclable. Therefore, the cable and
wire industry could benefit from using the concept of CE in their pro-
duction of products. Using copper 8 mm and PVC granules, the com-
pany under study produces more than 1100 million meters of cables
annually, including telecommunication cables, low voltage cables,
instrumentation cables, and other cables. This company is one of the
largest manufacturers of cables used in the automotive industry. To
1573
collect the required data and fill in the questionnaires, the knowledge
of four experts with more than 8 years of experience, including quality
assurance manager, R&D manager, procurement manager, and pro-
duction manager, was used. It should be noted that the brainstorming
method has been used to create a consensus among experts and to
converge their views. The use of brainstorming method helps to con-
trol potential bias in identifying barriers and filling out questionnaires,
and thus, there will be no ethical concerns in the process of
implementing the proposed approach.
4.1 | Results
In this sub-section, the performance of the proposed approach is eval-
uated using the knowledge of experts in the mentioned cable and wire
industry in Iran. The following is the implementation of the proposed
approach in the case study company, listed step by step:
Step 1: Based on the literature review presented in Table 1 and with
the help of experts, adoption barriers to CE in the cable and wire
industry were identified from the BSC perspective. These barriers are
listed in Table 4.
1574
TABLE 4 The CE adoption barriers from BSC perspective in cable and wire industry
Perspective Barriers
Customer (CST) Lack of public interest in recycled products
(CST1)
Absence of public awareness about CE
(CST2)
Absence of customers and stockholders
pressures (CST3)
Financial (FNC) High setup costs (FNC1)
Absence of qualified partners (FNC2)
Financial limitations (FNC3)
Learning and growth (L&G) Absence of knowledge and expertise
(L&G1)
Lack of sufficient legal and government
supports (L&G2)
Absence of sufficient incentives (L&G3)
Absence of CE infrastructure (L&G4)
Lack of standards for designing recycled
products (L&G5)
Lack of guidelines (L&G6)
Absence of sufficient technologies for
wastes disposal/recycled materials
(L&G7)
Internal process (INPR) Absence of standard system to evaluate
performance (INPR1)
Absence of access to environmental
management facilities and programs
(INPR2)
Absence of appropriate standards to
manage waste (INPR3)
Absence of senior management support
(INPR4)
Manufacturers' resistance to producing
sustainable products (INPR5)
Absence of sustainable cultural behavior
(INPR6)
Risk aversion (INPR7)
GOVINDAN ET AL.
Description
Customers are not aware of recycled products.
Customers think that the recycled products are
of lower quality than new products.
Lack of clear understanding of CE and its
benefits.
One of the most important factors in transition
towards the CE is customers and stockholders
pressures.
High setup costs with long-term return.
The reluctance of the shareholders, government,
and investors to participate in CE
implementation projects.
High short-term costs and low short-term
economic benefits are problems to implement
CE.
Lack of skilled users and experienced experts due
to newness of technology.
Lack of government support for CE; ordaining the
strict regulations for CE projects' executors.
Lack of sufficient incentives to promote
environmental practices and implement CE.
Limited access to appropriate facilities to
implement CE in manufacturing industries.
Limited access to ample knowledge and proper
facilities to design recycled products.
Lack of guidelines for the proper implementation
of CE.
Limited access to appropriate facilities to
dispose/recycle materials.
Lack of standard indicators to evaluate the
performance of companies from CE
perspective.
Lack of availability of environmental management
programs and facilities both under
governmental bodies and at academic
institutions.
Limited access to appropriate facilities to manage
waste.
Willingness of managers to use traditional
technologies and lack of awareness of them
about the advantages of CE.
Adopting new systems would require altering or
replacing legacy systems. This issue may cause
hesitation and resistance from manufacturers.
Adopting the CE changes or transforms current
organizational culture. Organizational culture
includes proper behavior through organizations
and work culture guidelines.
The CE stakeholders prefer taking smaller and
safer steps rather being involved in disruptive
changes of moving towards CE.
GOVINDAN ET AL. 1575

TABLE 5 The best and worst barriers

Min α
Perspective The best barriers The worst barriers s:t:
2 2
Customer CST2 CST3 ωlFNC
 ωlL&G ≤ α ; ωlFNC
 ωlL&G ≥
α
3 3
Financial FNC1 FNC2 ωm  
FNC
ωL&G ≤ α ;ωFNC
ωL&G ≥
α
m m m

Learning and growth L&G4 L&G5 3 3

ωuFNC
 ωuL&G ≤ α ; ωuFNC
 ωuL&G ≥
α
Internal process INPR4 INPR1 2 2
2 2
ωlFNC
 ωlINPR ≤ α ; ωlFNC
 ωlINPR ≥
α
3 3
 
ωmFNC
ωINPR ≤ α ; ωFNC
ωINPR ≥
α
m m m
Step 2: In this step, the best and worst barriers are identified by
3 3
experts. In this regard, Customer and Financial are determined as the ωuFNC
 ωuINPR ≤ α ; ωuFNC
 ωuINPR ≥
α
2 2
best and worst BSC perspectives, respectively, and the best and worst 3 3
ωlFNC
 ωlCST ≤ α ; ωlFNC
 ωlCST ≥
α
barriers of each perspective are presented in Table 5. 2 2
 
ωmFNC
2  ωCST ≤ α ; ωFNC
2  ωCST ≥
α
m m m

5 5
Step 3: In this step, to make the fuzzy best-to-others vector, the best ωuFNC
 ωuCST ≤ α ; ωuFNC
 ωuCST ≥
α
2 2
perspective (barrier) is compared with other perspectives (barriers) in 2 2
ωINPR
 ωCST ≤ α ;ωINPR
 ωlCST ≥
α
l l  l
pairs. The fuzzy best-to-others vectors for BSC perspectives, financial 3 3
 
ωmINPR
ωCST ≤ α ; ωINPR
ωCST ≥
α
m m m
barriers, customer barriers, learning and growth barriers, and internal
3 3
process barriers are shown in Table 6a–e, respectively. Similarly, to ωuINPR
 ωuCST ≤ α ;ωuINPR
 ωuCST ≥
α
2 2
make the fuzzy others-to-worst vector, the other perspectives (bar- 2 2
ωL&G
 ωCST ≤ α ; ωL&G
 ωlCST ≥
α
l l  l

riers) are compared with the worst perspective (barrier) in pairs. The 3 3
 
ωmL&G
ωCST ≤ α ; ωL&G
ωCST ≥
α
m m m
fuzzy others-to-worst vectors for BSC perspectives, financial barriers,
3 3
customer barriers, learning and growth barriers, and internal process ωuL&G
 ωuCST ≤ α ; ωuL&G
 ωuCST ≥
α
2 2
barriers are shown in Table 7a–e, respectively. ωlFNC þ 4  ωm FNC þ ωFNC
u
ωlCST þ 4  ωm CST þ ωCST
u
ωl þ 4  ωm
L&G þ ωL&G
u
þ þ L&G þ
6 6 6
ωINPR þ 4  ωINPR þ ωINPR
l m u
Step 4: In this step, the fuzzy linear mathematical model is developed ¼1
6
by fuzzy best-to-others and others-to-worst vectors and by running ωFNC ≤ ωFNC ≤ ωFNC ;ωFNC > 0
l m u l

the model in GAMS software. Then, the optimal value of the objective ωlCST ≤ ωm
CST ≤ ωCST ; ωCST > 0
u l

function and the weights of the perspectives (barriers) are calculated. ωlL&G ≤ ωm
L&G ≤ ωL&G ; ωL&G > 0
u l

For example, using the data presented in Tables 6a and 7a, the fuzzy ωINPR ≤ ωINPR ≤ ωINPR ; ωlINPR > 0
l m u

linear model is developed as follows:

TABLE 6 The fuzzy best-to-others vectors

(a) The fuzzy best-to-others vector for BSC perspectives

Customer Financial Learning and growth Internal process

Best: Financial (3/2,2,5/2) (1,1,1) (2/3,1,3/2) (2/3,1,3/2)

(b) The fuzzy best-to-others vector for customer barriers

CST1 CST2 CST3

Best: CST2 (2/3,1,3/2) (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2)

(c) The fuzzy best-to-others vector for financial barriers

FNC1 FNC2 FNC3

Best: FNC1 (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) (2/3,1,3/2)

(d) The fuzzy best-to-others vector for learning and growth barriers

L&G1 L&G2 L&G3 L&G4 L&G5 L&G6 L&G7

Best: L&G4 (2/3,1,3/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (1,1,1) (7/2,4,9/2) (5/2,3,7/2) (2/3,1,3/2)

(e) The fuzzy best-to-others vector for internal process barriers

INPR1 INPR2 INPR3 INPR4 INPR5 INPR6 INPR7

Best: INPR4 (5/2,3,7/2) (2/3,1,3/2) (2/3,1,3/2) (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (2/3,1,3/2)
1576 GOVINDAN ET AL.

TABLE 7 The fuzzy others-to-worst vectors perspective (see Appendix A). Similarly, the optimal value of α and
the weights of the barriers are calculated as shown in Table 9.
(a) The fuzzy others-to-worst vector for BSC perspectives

Worst: Customer α ¼ 0:036:

Customer (1,1,1)
Financial (3/2,2,5/2) Step 5: In this step, the experts draw the effect of the components on
Learning and growth (2/3,1,3/2) each other, which is illustrated in Figure 3.
Internal process (2/3,1,3/2)

(b) The fuzzy others-to-worst vector for customer barriers

Step 6: In this step, the experts determine the influence intensity of
Worst: CST3
the perspectives on each other using linguistic terms presented in
CST1 (2/3,1,3/2)
Table 3. Then, by substituting triangular fuzzy numbers, the fuzzy ini-
CST2 (3/2,2,5/2) tial direct-relation matrix is formed, which is given in Table 10.
CST3 (1,1,1)

(c) The fuzzy others-to-worst vector for financial barriers

Step 7: In this step, the matrix obtained from the previous step is nor-
Worst: FNC2
malized by Equation 5, as shown in Table 11.
FNC1 (3/2,2,5/2)
FNC2 (1,1,1)
FNC3 (2/3,1,3/2)
Step 8: In this step, the fuzzy total relation matrix is calculated via
(d) The fuzzy others-to-worst vector for learning and growth barriers Equation 7. Table 12 presents the fuzzy total relation matrix.
Worst: L&G5
L&G1 (5/2,3,7/2)
Step 9: In this step, the defuzzified total relation matrix is calculated
L&G2 (3/2,2,5/2)
by Equation 9, as shown in Table 13.
L&G3 (3/2,2,5/2)
L&G4 (7/2,4,9/2)
L&G5 (1,1,1)
Step 10: In this step, the defuzzified interdependency matrix is calcu-
L&G6 (2/3,1,3/2)
lated using Equation 11. Table 14 represents the defuzzified inter-
L&G7 (5/2,3,7/2) dependency matrix.
(e) The fuzzy others-to-worst vector for internal process barriers

Worst: INPR1
Step 11: In this step, in order to form the initial Supermatrix, the cal-
INPR1 (1,1,1)
culated weights for perspectives and their barriers, and the defuzzified
INPR2 (3/2,2,5/2)
interdependency matrix for perspectives are placed in the Supermatrix
INPR3 (3/2,2,5/2)
presented in Figure 2. The obtained initial Supermatrix is shown in
INPR4 (5/2,3,7/2)
Table 15.
INPR5 (2/3,1,3/2)
INPR6 (2/3,1,3/2)
INPR7 (3/2,2,5/2) Step 12: In this step, the final Supermatrix is calculated by Equa-
tion 13. Table 16 presents the final Supermatrix. It should be noted
that this matrix is formed for d ≥ 7. The CE adoption barriers can be
TABLE 8 The weights of BSC perspectives
ranked based on their calculated weights presented in Table 16.
BSC perspective Fuzzy weights Defuzzified weights Table 17 shows the rank of barriers.
Customer (0.091,0.108,0.504) 0.171
Financial (0.1,0.18,1.224) 0.341 Table 16 is also known as the stable weighted Supermatrix, which
Learning and growth (0.097,0.144,0.792) 0.244 means that the weights obtained in the final Supermatrix are stable. In
Internal process (0.097,0.144,0.792) 0.244 the obtained Supermatrix, the total weight of the perspectives is
1 and, similarly, the total weight of the barriers is 1. The results show
that Financial perspective has the most weight and Customer per-
Using CPLEX solver and running the model in GAMS software, the spective has the least weight. It should be noted that, in this Super-
weights of BSC perspectives are calculated, which are shown in matrix, the weight of perspectives and barriers is calculated by
Table 8. These operations are also performed for barriers of each considering interdependencies among perspectives.
GOVINDAN ET AL. 1577

T A B L E 9 The weights of CE
BSC perspective Barriers Fuzzy weights Defuzzified weights α
adoption barriers
Customer CST1 (0.128,0.19,1.048) 0.323 0.048
CST2 (0.133,0.238,1.619) 0.451
CST3 (0.12,0.143,0.667) 0.226
Financial FNC1 (0.133,0.238,1.619) 0.451 0.048
FNC2 (0.12,0.143,0.667) 0.226
FNC3 (0.128,0.19,1.048) 0.323
Learning and growth L&G1 (0.113,0.212,0.22) 0.196 0.024
L&G2 (0.077,0.13,0.132) 0.122
L&G3 (0.077,0.13,0.132) 0.122
L&G4 (0.099,0.236,0.305) 0.225
L&G5 (0.035,0.062,0.062) 0.058
L&G6 (0.048,0.087,0.094) 0.081
L&G7 (0.113,0.212,0.22) 0.196
Internal process INPR1 (0.028,0.046,0.217) 0.072 0.015
INPR2 (0.057,0.108,0.527) 0.17
INPR3 (0.057,0.108,0.527) 0.17
INPR4 (0.053,0.124,0.774) 0.221
INPR5 (0.034,0.062,0.316) 0.1
INPR6 (0.034,0.062,0.316) 0.1
INPR7 (0.057,0.108,0.527) 0.17

FIGURE 3 The effect of components (perspectives) on each other

TABLE 10 Fuzzy initial direct-relation matrix

CST FNC L&G INPR

CST (0,0,0.25) (0,0.25,0.5) (0,0.25,0.5) (0.25,0.5,0.75)
FNC (0.5,0.75,1) (0,0,0.25) (0.75,1,1) (0.75,1,1)
L&G (0.25,0.5,0.75) (0.25,0.5,0.75) (0,0,0.25) (0.25,0.5,0.75)
INPR (0.25,0.5,0.75) (0.5,0.75,1) (0,0.25,0.5) (0,0,0.25)

As shown in Table 17, “high setup costs,” “financial evaluate performance” are the least significant CE adoption barriers
limitations,” “absence of public awareness about CE,” and “absence in the cable and wire industry. In the discussion section, these bar-
of qualified partners” are the largest, and “lack of standards for riers are described based on the findings presented in the
designing recycled products” and “absence of standard system to literature.
1578 GOVINDAN ET AL.

TABLE 11 Normalized matrix

CST FNC L&G INPR

CST (0,0,0.0769) (0,0.0769,0.1538) (0,0.0769,0.1538) (0.0769,0.1538,0.2308)
FNC (0.1538,0.2308,0.3077) (0,0,0.0769) (0.2308,0.3077,0.3077) (0.2308,0.3077,0.3077)
L&G (0.0769,0.1538,0.2308) (0.0769,0.1538,0.2308) (0,0,0.0769) (0.0769,0.1538,0.2308)
INPR (0.0769,0.1538,0.2308) (0.1538,0.2308,0.3077) (0,0.0769,0.1538) (0,0,0.0769)

TABLE 12 Fuzzy total relation matrix

CST FNC L&G INPR

CST (0.0084,0.0990,0.7005) (0.0126,0.1643,0.7275) (0.0029,0.1538,0.6648) (0.0807,0.2432,0.8339)
FNC (0.2037,0.4287,1.2264) (0.0618,0.2195,0.9621) (0.2451,0.4474,1.0627) (0.2796,0.5100,1.2264)
L&G (0.1016,0.2795,0.9812) (0.0953,0.2631,0.9198) (0.0220,0.1253,0.7169) (0.1084,0.2970,0.9812)
INPR (0.1089,0.2895,0.9974) (0.1643,0.3270,0.9892) (0.0379,0.2134,0.8065) (0.0492,0.1780,0.8641)

TABLE 13 Defuzzified total relation matrix various fields (Grafström & Aasma, 2021; Kirchherr et al., 2018;
Kumar et al., 2019). Due to high investment costs and long payback
CST FNC L&G INPR
periods, manufacturing industries are reluctant to move to CE
CST 0.1841 0.2329 0.2138 0.3146
(Grafström & Aasma, 2021). In this study, “financial limitations” is the
FNC 0.5241 0.317 0.5162 0.591
second barrier to CE implementation in the cable and wire industry.
L&G 0.3668 0.3446 0.2067 0.3796
The lack of financial support mechanisms and tax incentives reduces
INPR 0.3774 0.4102 0.283 0.2708
the willingness to invest in CE projects (Kumar et al., 2021). Govern-
ment supports, and the absence of strict regulations, can create favor-
able conditions for investment (Agrawal et al., 2021). The barrier
TABLE 14 Defuzzified interdependency matrix
“absence of public awareness about CE” stands at third place
CST FNC L&G INPR between all barriers. Although CE provides many opportunities,
CST 0.1268 0.1785 0.1753 0.2022 society's level of awareness level about CE is still poor (Agrawal
FNC 0.3609 0.2430 0.4232 0.3798 et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2019). From the economic barriers perspec-
L&G 0.2525 0.2641 0.1695 0.2440 tive, the unavailability of appropriate partners is a major barrier to CE

INPR 0.2598 0.3144 0.2320 0.1740
5 | DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In this section, first, the results of the research in the discussion sub-
section are examined, and then practical and theoretical implications
are presented.
5.1 | Discussion
In this paper, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to
identify CE adoption barriers in various fields, and with the help of
experts, adoption barriers to CE in the cable and wire industry were
extracted from the BSC perspective. Then, an integrated approach of
combining fuzzy BWM, fuzzy DEMATEL, and Supermatrix structure
was developed to rank these barriers. The results showed that the
barrier “high setup costs” is ranked the first among all considered bar-
riers. A review of the literature reveals that this barrier has always
been one of the most important barriers in implementing CE in
adoption (Kumar et al., 2019). “Absence of qualified partners” is intro-
duced as the fourth major barrier in the implementation of CE in the
cable and wire industry. Further, this paper cites “lack of public inter-
est in recycled products” as the fifth barrier in CE adoption. This bar-
rier is known as a crucial barrier in the manufacturing industry
(Akinade et al., 2020; Mahpour, 2018; van Keulen & Kirchherr, 2021).
A common misconception is that recycled products are of low quality;
for this reason, people are not interested in using them. Awareness of
the benefits of using recycled products, such as reducing pollution,
reducing resource consumption, reducing energy consumption, reduc-
ing waste, and so forth, can increase the desire of people in the com-
munity to use these products. As can be seen, the results obtained in
this study are consistent with the results presented in previous
research, which indicates the correct selection of barriers by experts
and the effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed approach.
5.2 | Practical implications
In this paper, 20 significant barriers from the BSC perspective that
prevent the implementation of CE in the cable and wire industry were
identified and ranked using a novel integrated approach.
 GOVINDAN ET AL.

TABLE 15 The initial Supermatrix

Goal CST FNC L&G INPR CST1 CST2 CST3 FNC1 FNC2 FNC3 L&G1 L&G2 L&G3 L&G4 L&G5 L&G6 L&G7 INPR1 INPR2 INPR3 INPR4 INPR5 INPR6 INPR7
Goal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CST 0.171 0.1268 0.1785 0.1753 0.2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FNC 0.341 0.3609 0.2430 0.4232 0.3798 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G 0.244 0.2525 0.2641 0.1695 0.2440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR 0.244 0.2598 0.3144 0.2320 0.1740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CST1 0 0.323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CST2 0 0.451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CST3 0 0.226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FNC1 0 0 0.451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FNC2 0 0 0.226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FNC3 0 0 0.323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G1 0 0 0 0.196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G2 0 0 0 0.122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G3 0 0 0 0.122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G4 0 0 0 0.225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G5 0 0 0 0.058 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G6 0 0 0 0.081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G7 0 0 0 0.196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR1 0 0 0 0 0.072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR2 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR3 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR4 0 0 0 0 0.221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR5 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR6 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR7 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1579
 1580

TABLE 16 The final Supermatrix

Goal CST FNC L&G INPR CST1 CST2 CST3 FNC1 FNC2 FNC3 L&G1 L&G2 L&G3 L&G4 L&G5 L&G6 L&G7 INPR1 INPR2 INPR3 INPR4 INPR5 INPR6 INPR7
Goal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CST 0.1747 0.1747 0.1747 0.1747 0.1747 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FNC 0.3402 0.3402 0.3402 0.3402 0.3402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G 0.2348 0.2348 0.2348 0.2348 0.2348 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR 0.2504 0.2504 0.2504 0.2504 0.2504 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CST1 0.0564 0.0564 0.0564 0.0564 0.0564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CST2 0.0788 0.0788 0.0788 0.0788 0.0788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CST3 0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FNC1 0.1534 0.1534 0.1534 0.1534 0.1534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FNC2 0.0769 0.0769 0.0769 0.0769 0.0769 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FNC3 0.1099 0.1099 0.1099 0.1099 0.1099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G1 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G2 0.0286 0.0286 0.0286 0.0286 0.0286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G3 0.0286 0.0286 0.0286 0.0286 0.0286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G4 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G5 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G6 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L&G7 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR1 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR2 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR3 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR4 0.0553 0.0553 0.0553 0.0553 0.0553 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR5 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR6 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INPR7 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GOVINDAN ET AL.
GOVINDAN ET AL. 1581

TABLE 17 The rank of CE adoption barriers in cable and wire the literature, many methods such as AHP (Singh et al., 2020), TOPSIS
industry (Agrawal et al., 2021; Mahpour, 2018), and DEMATEL (Ethirajan
Barriers Weight Rank et al., 2021) have been proposed to prioritize CE adoption barriers,

CST1 0.0564 5 which is developed by the nature of the problem under study. In this
paper, a combination of fuzzy BWM, fuzzy DEMATEL, and Super-
CST2 0.0788 3
matrix, a novel method termed FBWDS for ranking barriers with inter-
CST3 0.0395 10
dependencies among them, is presented. The development of an
FNC1 0.1534 1
efficient and effective method for prioritizing adoption barriers to CE
FNC2 0.0769 4
allows researchers to use appropriate strategies to grow the sustain-
FNC3 0.1099 2
ability of organizations in a dynamic business environment.
L&G1 0.046 8
L&G2 0.0286 11
L&G3 0.0286 11 6 | CONC LU SION
L&G4 0.0528 7
L&G5 0.0136 15 In this paper, a novel method, FBWDS, was presented to solve
L&G6 0.019 13 decision-making problems, including intertwined and hierarchical
L&G7 0.046 8 structures under uncertainty. In the proposed method, the weights of

INPR1 0.018 14 the factors are calculated by the fuzzy BWM method, and interdepen-
dencies among them are determined using the fuzzy DEMATEL. The
INPR2 0.0426 9
Supermatrix is applied to integrate the weights and the inter-
INPR3 0.0426 9
dependency matrix. This method has a general flexible structure,
INPR4 0.0553 6
which also allows to evaluate and rank alternatives in addition to
INPR5 0.025 12
weighting the intertwined factors. The proposed approach was used
INPR6 0.025 12
to rank CE adoption barriers from BSC perspectives in the cable and
INPR7 0.0426 9
wire industry in Iran. The results showed that “high setup costs” and
“financial limitations” are the largest CE adoption barriers in the cable
and wire industry.
Implementing CE has multiple benefits for customers, governments, In addition to its benefits, no doubt every research suffers from
and industry owners (stakeholders), and the lack of awareness of its certain limitations that will pave the way for future research. This
benefits leads to its neglect. Reduction of pollution and resource con- paper is no exception and faces some limitations. In this paper, a real
sumption, waste management, reduction of destructive environmental case in the cable and wire industry was used to evaluate the perfor-
effects, and increase of sustainability are among the benefits of CE mance of the proposed method; however, the benchmarking process
implementation. The results of this paper can be useful for managers of the proposed method with other methods was not examined.
of manufacturing industries, especially cable and wire industry man- Weighted influence non-linear gauge system (WINGS) is one of the
agers, government, and researchers. The results of this study help structural methods that consider both influence intensity and strength
industry owners (especially in the cable and wire industry) to focus on of components in the prioritization process. It is suggested that, in
strategies that facilitate the CE implementation process. future research, the case study of this paper be solved using the
The proposed approach has a general and flexible structure, WINGS method, and the results could be compared with the results
weighs intertwined factors, and prioritizes alternatives. This method of FBWDS method. Also, in this paper, the triangular fuzzy numbers
can also be easily implemented in networks that have an intertwined were employed to develop the FBWDS method; no general structure
and hierarchical structure. Finally, one of the criticisms of managers was provided to develop this method through other fuzzy numbers.
on analytical methods is that subjective judgments are ignored in Thus, it is suggested that future studies include other fuzzy numbers
these methods. But one of the features of the FBWDS method is to such as trapezoidal and type-2 in the development of the FBWDS.
consider subjective judgments in the weighting and prioritization
process. OR CID
Kannan Govindan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6204-1196

5.3 | Theoretical implications RE FE RE NCE S

Identifying CE adoption barriers in various fields encourages
researchers and academics to come up with solutions to overcome
these barriers. The identified barriers do not have the same priorities,
so it is important to provide an approach to prioritize these barriers. In
Acerbi, F., & Taisch, M. (2020). A literature review on circular economy
adoption in the manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production,
273, 123086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123086
Adams, K. T., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T., & Thornback, J. (2017). Circular
economy in construction: Current awareness, challenges and enablers.
In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Waste and Resource
1582
Management (Vol. 170, No. 1, pp. 15–24). Thomas Telford Ltd..
https://doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.16.00011
Agrawal, R., Wankhede, V. A., Kumar, A., & Luthra, S. (2021). Analysing the
roadblocks of circular economy adoption in the automobile sector:
Reducing waste and environmental perspectives. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 30(2), 1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2669
Agyemang, M., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Khan, S. A., Mani, V., Rehman, S. T., &
Kusi-Sarpong, H. (2019). Drivers and barriers to circular economy
implementation: An explorative study in Pakistan's automobile indus-
try. Management Decision, 57(4), 971–994. https://doi.org/10.1108/
MD-11-2018-1178
Akinade, O., Oyedele, L., Oyedele, A., Davila Delgado, J. M., Bilal, M.,
Akanbi, L., Ajayi, A., & Owolabi, H. (2020). Design for deconstruction
using a circular economy approach: Barriers and strategies for
improvement. Production Planning and Control, 31(10), 829–840.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1695006
Allen, S. D., Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Expanding conceptual boundaries
of the sustainable supply chain management and circular economy
nexus. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 2, 100011. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100011
Bilal, M., Khan, K. I. A., Thaheem, M. J., & Nasir, A. R. (2020). Current state
and barriers to the circular economy in the building sector: Towards a
mitigation framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123250
De Jesus, A., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Lost in transition? Drivers and bar-
riers in the eco-innovation road to the circular economy. Ecological
Economics, 145, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.
08.001
Dev, N. K., Shankar, R., & Qaiser, F. H. (2020). Industry 4.0 and circular
economy: Operational excellence for sustainable reverse supply chain
performance. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153, 104583.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104583
Elia, V., Gnoni, M. G., & Tornese, F. (2017). Measuring circular economy
strategies through index methods: A critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 142, 2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.
10.196
Ethirajan, M., Arasu, M. T., Kandasamy, J., KEK, V., Nadeem, S. P., &
Kumar, A. (2021). Analysing the risks of adopting circular economy
initiatives in manufacturing supply chains. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 30(1), 204–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2617
Ferreira, F. A. F., Kannan, D., Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I., & Vale, I. M. T.
(2022). A sociotechnical approach to vaccine manufacturer selection
as part of a global immunization strategy against epidemics and
pandemics. Annals of Operations Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10479-021-04347-y
Ferreira, F. A. F., Spahr, R. W., Sunderman, M. A., Govindan, K., &
Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I. (2022). Urban blight remediation strategies
subject to seasonal constraints. European Journal of Operational
Research, 296(1), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.03.045
Frei, R., Jack, L., & Krzyzaniak, S. A. (2020). Sustainable reverse supply
chains and circular economy in multichannel retail returns. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 29(5), 1925–1940. https://doi.org/10.
1002/bse.2479
Galv~ao, G. D. A., de Nadae, J., Clemente, D. H., Chinen, G., & de Carvalho,
M. M. (2018). Circular economy: Overview of barriers. Procedia CIRP,
73, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.04.011
García-Quevedo, J., Jové-Llopis, E., & Martínez-Ros, E. (2020). Barriers to
the circular economy in European small and medium-sized firms. Busi-
ness Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2450–2464. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.2513
Govindan, K. (2022). How artificial intelligence drives sustainable frugal
innovation: A multitheoretical perspective. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2021.
3116187
GOVINDAN ET AL.
Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, bar-
riers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspec-
tive. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1–2), 278–311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141
Govindan, K., Mina, H., Esmaeili, A., & Gholami-Zanjani, S. M. (2020). An
integrated hybrid approach for circular supplier selection and closed
loop supply chain network design under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 242, 118317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
118317
Govindan, K., Nasr, A. K., Saeed Heidary, M., Nosrati-Abarghooee, S., &
Mina, H. (2022). Prioritizing adoption barriers of platforms based on
blockchain technology from balanced scorecard perspectives in
healthcare industry: A structural approach. International Journal of
Production Research, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.
2013560
Grafström, J., & Aasma, S. (2021). Breaking circular economy barriers. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.126002
Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making
method and its applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.01.010
Hafezalkotob, A., & Hafezalkotob, A. (2017). A novel approach for combi-
nation of individual and group decisions based on fuzzy best-worst
method. Applied Soft Computing, 59, 316–325. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.asoc.2017.05.036
Heyes, G., Sharmina, M., Mendoza, J. M. F., Gallego-Schmid, A., &
Azapagic, A. (2018). Developing and implementing circular economy
business models in service-oriented technology companies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 177, 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2017.12.168
Hu, J., Xiao, Z., Zhou, R., Deng, W., Wang, M., & Ma, S. (2011). Ecological
utilization of leather tannery waste with circular economy model. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, 19(2–3), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2010.09.018
Kannan, D. (2021). Sustainable procurement drivers for extended multi-
tier context: A multi-theoretical perspective in the Danish supply
chain. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, 146, 102092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102092
Kannan, D., Mina, H., Nosrati-Abarghooee, S., & Khosrojerdi, G. (2020).
Sustainable circular supplier selection: A novel hybrid approach. Sci-
ence of the Total Environment, 722, 137936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.137936
Kannan, D., Moazzeni, S., Darmian, S. M., & Afrasiabi, A. (2021). A hybrid
approach based on MCDM methods and Monte Carlo simulation for
sustainable evaluation of potential solar sites in east of Iran. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 279, 122368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2020.122368
Kerdlap, P., Low, J. S. C., & Ramakrishna, S. (2019). Zero waste
manufacturing: A framework and review of technology, research, and
implementation barriers for enabling a circular economy transition in
Singapore. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 151, 104438.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104438
Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J.,
Huibrechtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the
circular economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological
Economics, 150, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.
04.028
Kravchenko, M., Pigosso, D. C., & McAloone, T. C. (2019). Towards the ex-
ante sustainability screening of circular economy initiatives in
manufacturing companies: Consolidation of leading sustainability-
related performance indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241,
118318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118318
Kumar, P., Singh, R. K., & Kumar, V. (2021). Managing supply chains for
sustainable operations in the era of industry 4.0 and circular economy:
GOVINDAN ET AL.
Analysis of barriers. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164,
105215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105215
Kumar, V., Sezersan, I., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Gonzalez, E. D., & Moh'd
Anwer, A. S. (2019). Circular economy in the manufacturing sector:
Benefits, opportunities and barriers. Management Decision, 57(4),
1067–1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-1070
Lahane, S., & Kant, R. (2021). Evaluating the circular supply chain imple-
mentation barriers using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP-DEMATEL approach.
Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 2, 100014. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.clscn.2021.100014
Li, H., Bao, W., Xiu, C., Zhang, Y., & Xu, H. (2010). Energy conservation
and circular economy in China's process industries. Energy, 35(11),
4273–4281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.04.021
Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation:
A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 115, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2015.12.042
Liu, P. C., Lo, H. W., & Liou, J. J. (2020). A combination of DEMATEL and
BWM-based ANP methods for exploring the green building rating sys-
tem in Taiwan. Sustainability, 12(8), 3216. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12083216
Liu, Y., & Bai, Y. (2014). An exploration of firms' awareness and behavior
of developing circular economy: An empirical research in China.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 87, 145–152. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.04.002
Liu, Z., Adams, M., & Walker, T. R. (2018). Are exports of recyclables from
developed to developing countries waste pollution transfer or part of
the global circular economy? Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
136, 22–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.005
Mahpour, A. (2018). Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in con-
struction and demolition waste management. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 134, 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2018.01.026
Mangla, S. K., Govindan, K., & Luthra, S. (2017). Prioritizing the barriers to
achieve sustainable consumption and production trends in supply
chains using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 151, 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.099
Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N. P., Dora, M., &
Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Barriers to effective circular supply chain manage-
ment in a developing country context. Production Planning & Control,
29(6), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449265
Masi, D., Kumar, V., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Godsell, J. (2018). Towards a
more circular economy: Exploring the awareness, practices, and bar-
riers from a focal firm perspective. Production Planning and Control,
29(6), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449246
Mendoza, J. M. F., Gallego-Schmid, A., & Azapagic, A. (2019). Building a
business case for implementation of a circular economy in higher edu-
cation institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 553–567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.045
Mina, H., Kannan, D., Gholami-Zanjani, S. M., & Biuki, M. (2021). Transition
towards circular supplier selection in petrochemical industry: A hybrid
approach to achieve sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 286, 125273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.
125273
Moktadir, M. A., Kumar, A., Ali, S. M., Paul, S. K., Sultana, R., & Rezaei, J.
(2020). Critical success factors for a circular economy: Implications for
business strategy and the environment. Business Strategy and the Envi-
ronment, 29(8), 3611–3635. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2600
Nasr, A. K., Tavana, M., Alavi, B., & Mina, H. (2021). A novel fuzzy
multi-objective circular supplier selection and order allocation model
for sustainable closed-loop supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production,
287, 124994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124994
Niero, M., & Kalbar, P. P. (2019). Coupling material circularity indicators
and life cycle based indicators: A proposal to advance the assessment
of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resources,
1583
Conservation and Recycling, 140, 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.10.002
Ormazabal, M., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Puga-Leal, R., & Jaca, C. (2018). Circu-
lar economy in Spanish SMEs: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 185, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2018.03.031
Paletta, A., Leal Filho, W., Balogun, A. L., Foschi, E., & Bonoli, A. (2019).
Barriers and challenges to plastics valorisation in the context of a cir-
cular economy: Case studies from Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production,
241, 118149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118149
Pauliuk, S. (2018). Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard
BS 8001: 2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for
its implementation in organizations. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 129, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.
10.019
Pisitsankkhakarn, R., & Vassanadumrongdee, S. (2020). Enhancing pur-
chase intention in circular economy: An empirical evidence of
remanufactured automotive product in Thailand. Resources, Conserva-
tion and Recycling, 156, 104702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2020.104702
Qu, S., Guo, Y., Ma, Z., Chen, W. Q., Liu, J., Liu, G., Wang, Y., & Xu, M.
(2019). Implications of China's foreign waste ban on the global circular
economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 144, 252–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.004
Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Ritala, P., & Mäkinen, S. J. (2018). Exploring
institutional drivers and barriers of the circular economy: A cross-
regional comparison of China, the US, and Europe. Resources, Conser-
vation and Recycling, 135, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2017.08.017
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method.
Omega, 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some
properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001
Ritzén, S., & Sandström, G. Ö. (2017). Barriers to the circular economy—
Integration of perspectives and domains. Procedia Cirp, 64, 7–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.
Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The ana-
lytic network process (Vol. 4922). RWS Publications.
Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., & Cluzel, F. (2018). Heavy vehicles on
the road towards the circular economy: Analysis and comparison with
the automotive industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135,
108–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.017
Singh, R. K., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & de Sá, M. M. (2020). Manag-
ing operations for circular economy in the mining sector: An analysis
of barriers intensity. Resources Policy, 69, 101752. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resourpol.2020.101752
Smol, M., Kulczycka, J., Henclik, A., Gorazda, K., & Wzorek, Z. (2015). The
possible use of sewage sludge ash (SSA) in the construction industry
as a way towards a circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 95,
45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.051
Tseng, M. L., Chiu, A. S., Liu, G., & Jantaralolica, T. (2020). Circular econ-
omy enables sustainable consumption and production in multi-level
supply chain system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 154,
104601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104601
van Keulen, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2021). The implementation of the circular
economy: Barriers and enablers in the coffee value chain. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 281, 125033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2020.125033
Xue, B., Chen, X. P., Geng, Y., Guo, X. J., Lu, C. P., Zhang, Z. L., & Lu, C. Y.
(2010). Survey of officials' awareness on circular economy develop-
ment in China: Based on municipal and county level. Resources,
1584 GOVINDAN ET AL.

Conservation and Recycling, 54(12), 1296–1302. https://doi.org/10. ωlCST1 þ 4  ωmCST1 þ ωCST1

u
ωl þ 4  ωmCST2 þ ωCST2
u
þ CST2
1016/j.resconrec.2010.05.010 6 6
Yadav, G., Luthra, S., Jakhar, S. K., Mangla, S. K., & Rai, D. P. (2020). A ωl þ 4  ωm CST3 þ ωCST3
u
þ CST3
framework to overcome sustainable supply chain challenges through 6
¼1
solution measures of industry 4.0 and circular economy: An automo-
tive case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 120112. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120112
Yawar, S. A., & Kuula, M. (2021). Circular economy and second-hand firms:
Integrating ownership structures. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 2, ωlCST1 ≤ ωm
CST1 ≤ ωCST1 ;ωCST1 > 0
u l

100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100015 ωCST2 ≤ ωCST2 ≤ ωCST2 ;ωlCST2 > 0

l m u

Yazdani, M., Torkayesh, A. E., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). An integrated ωlCST3 ≤ ωm

CST3 ≤ ωCST3 ;ωCST3 > 0
u l

decision-making model for supplier evaluation in public healthcare sys-

tem: The case study of a Spanish hospital. Journal of Enterprise Informa-
tion Management, 33(5), 965–989. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09- The fuzzy linear model developed by Tables 6c and 7c for financial
2019-0294 barriers:
Yazdi, M., Khan, F., Abbassi, R., & Rusli, R. (2020). Improved DEMATEL
methodology for effective safety management decision-making. Min α
Safety Science, 127, 104705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.
104705
s:t:
Zhang, A., Venkatesh, V. G., Liu, Y., Wan, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019).
Barriers to smart waste management for a circular economy in China.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 3 3
ωlFNC1
 ωlFNC2 ≤ α ; ωlFNC1
 ωlFNC2 ≥
α
jclepro.2019.118198 2 2
 
ωmFNC1
2  ωFNC2 ≤ α ; ωFNC1
2  ωFNC2 ≥
α
m m m

5 5
ωuFNC1
 ωuFNC2 ≤ α ; ωuFNC1
 ωuFNC2 ≥
α
2 2
How to cite this article: Govindan, K., Nasr, A. K., Karimi, F., &
Mina, H. (2022). Circular economy adoption barriers: An 2 2
ωlFNC1
 ωlFNC3 ≤ α ; ωlFNC1
 ωlFNC3 ≥
α
extended fuzzy best–worst method using fuzzy DEMATEL 3 3
 
and Supermatrix structure. Business Strategy and the ωmFNC1
ωFNC3 ≤ α ;ωFNC1
ωFNC3 ≥
α
m m m

3 3
Environment, 31(4), 1566–1586. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. ωuFNC1
 ωuFNC3 ≤ α ; ωuFNC1
 ωuFNC3 ≥
α
2 2
2970
2 2
ωlFNC3
 ωlFNC2 ≤ α ; ωlFNC3
 ωlFNC2 ≥
α
3 3
 
ωmFNC3
ωFNC2 ≤ α ;ωFNC3
ωFNC2 ≥
α
m m m
APPENDIX A
3 3
ωuFNC3
 ωuFNC2 ≤ α ; ωuFNC3
 ωuFNC2 ≥
α
2 2
The fuzzy linear model developed by Tables 6b and 7b for customer
barriers: ωlFNC1 þ 4  ωm
FNC1 þ ωFNC1
u
ωl þ 4  ωm
FNC2 þ ωFNC2
u
þ FNC2
6 6
ωl þ 4  ωmFNC3 þ ωFNC3
u
Min α þ FNC3
6
¼1
s:t:

ωlFNC1 ≤ ωm
FNC1 ≤ ωFNC1 ; ωFNC1 > 0
u l
2 2
ωlCST2
 ωlCST1 ≤ α ; ωlCST2
 ωlCST1 ≥
α ωlFNC2 ≤ ωm
FNC2 ≤ ωFNC2 ; ωFNC2 > 0
u l
3 3
ωm 
CST2
ωCST1 ≤ α ; ωCST2
ωCST1 ≥
α
m m m  ωlFNC3 ≤ ωm
FNC3 ≤ ωFNC3 ; ωFNC3 > 0
u l

3 3
ωuCST2
 ωuCST1 ≤ α ; ωuCST2
 ωuCST1 ≥
α
2 2
The fuzzy linear model developed by Tables 6d and 7d for learning
and growth barriers:
3 3
ωlCST2
 ωlCST3 ≤ α ; ωlCST2
 ωlCST3 ≥
α
2 2
ωm   Min α
CST2
2  ωCST3 ≤ α ; ωCST2
2  ωCST3 ≥
α
m m m

5 5
ωuCST2
 ωuCST3 ≤ α ; ωuCST2
 ωuCST3 ≥
α
2 2 s:t:

2 2
ωlCST1
 ωlCST3 ≤ α ; ωlCST1
 ωlCST3 ≥
α
3 3 2 2
ωm 
CST1
ωCST3 ≤ α ; ωCST1
ωCST3 ≥
α
m m m  ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G1 ≤ α ; ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G1 ≥
α ; ωm m 
L&G4
ωL&G1 ≤ α ;
3 3
3 3 3 3
ωuCST1
 ωuCST3 ≤ α ; ωuCST1
 ωuCST3 ≥
α ωm   
L&G4
ωL&G1 ≥
α ;ωL&G4
 ωL&G1 ≤ α ;ωL&G4
 ωL&G1 ≥
α
m u u u u
2 2 2 2
GOVINDAN ET AL. 1585

3 3
ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G2 ≤ α ; ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G2 ≥
α ; 2 2
ωlL&G6
 ωlL&G5 ≤ α ; ωlL&G6
 ωlL&G5 ≥
α ; ωm 
L&G6
ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m
2 2 3 3

ωmL&G4
2  ωL&G2 ≤ α ;
m
3 3
  
5 ωmL&G6
ωL&G5 ≥
α ;ωL&G6
 ωL&G5 ≤ α ;ωL&G6
 ωL&G5 ≥
α
m u u u u
  2 2
ωmL&G4
2  ωL&G2 ≥
α ;ωL&G4
 ωL&G2 ≤ α ;
m u u
2
5
ωuL&G4
 ωuL&G2 ≥
α
2
5 5
ωlL&G7
 ωlL&G5 ≤ α ; ωlL&G7
 ωlL&G5 ≥
α ;
2 2

3 3 ωmL&G7
3  ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m
ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G3 ≤ α ; ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G3 ≥
α ;
2 2  7 
 ωmL&G7
3  ωL&G5 ≥
α ; ωL&G7
 ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m u u
ωmL&G4
2  ωL&G3 ≤ α ;
m
2
5 7
ωm 
L&G4
2  ωL&G3 ≥
α ;ωL&G4
 ωL&G3 ≤ α ;
m u u  ωuL&G7
 ωuL&G5 ≥
α
2 2
5
ωuL&G4
 ωuL&G3 ≥
α
2
ωlL&G1 þ 4  ωmL&G1 þ ωL&G1
u
ωl þ 4  ωm
L&G2 þ ωL&G2
u
þ L&G2
6 6
ωl þ 4  ωmL&G3 þ ωL&G3
u
7 7 þ L&G3
ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G5 ≤ α ; ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G5 ≥
α ; 6
2 2
 ωl þ 4  ωmL&G4 þ ωL&G4
u
ωmL&G4
4  ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m
þ L&G4
6
 9 
ωmL&G4
4  ωL&G5 ≥
α ;ωL&G4
 ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m u u ωlL&G5 þ 4  ωmL&G5 þ ωL&G5
u
2 þ
6
9
ωuL&G4
 ωuL&G5 ≥
α ωl þ 4  ωmL&G6 þ ωL&G6
u
2 þ L&G6
6
ωl þ 4  ωmL&G7 þ ωL&G7
u
þ L&G7
6
¼1
5 5
ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G6 ≤ α ; ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G6 ≥
α ;
2 2

ωmL&G4
3  ωL&G6 ≤ α ;
m

 7 
ωmL&G4
3  ωL&G6 ≥
α ;ωL&G4
 ωL&G6 ≤ α ;
m u u
ωlL&G1 ≤ ωm
L&G1 ≤ ωL&G1 ; ωL&G2 ≤ ωL&G2 ≤ ωL&G2 ; ωL&G3 ≤ ωL&G3 ≤ ωL&G3 ;
u l m u l m u
2
7 ωlL&G4 ≤ ωm
L&G4 ≤ ωL&G4 ; ωL&G5 ≤ ωL&G5 ≤ ωL&G5 ; ωL&G6 ≤ ωL&G6 ≤ ωL&G6 ;
u l m u l m u
ωuL&G4
 ωuL&G6 ≥
α
2 ωlL&G7 ≤ ωm
L&G7 ≤ ωL&G7 ;
u

ωL&G1 > 0;ωL&G2 > 0;ωlL&G3 > 0;ωlL&G4 > 0;

l l

2 2 ωlL&G5 > 0;ωlL&G6 > 0;ωlL&G7 > 0

ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G7 ≤ α ;ωlL&G4
 ωlL&G7 ≥
α ;ωm 
L&G4
ωL&G7 ≤ α ;
m
3 3
 3  3 
ωmL&G4
ωL&G7 ≥
α ; ωL&G4
 ωL&G7 ≤ α ; ωL&G4
 ωL&G7 ≥
α
m u u u u
The fuzzy linear model developed by Tables 6e and 7e for internal
2 2
process barriers:
5 5
ωlL&G1
 ωlL&G5 ≤ α ; ωlL&G1
 ωlL&G5 ≥
α ;
2 2 Min α

ωmL&G1
3  ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m

 7 
ωmL&G1
3  ωL&G5 ≥
α ;ωL&G1
 ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m u u
s:t:
2
7
ωuL&G1
 ωuL&G5 ≥
α
2 5 5
ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR1 ≤ α ; ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR1 ≥
α ;
2 2

3 3 ωmINPR4
3  ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m

ωlL&G2
 ωlL&G5 ≤ α ; ωlL&G2
 ωlL&G5 ≥
α ; 7

2 2  

ωmINPR4
3  ωINPR1 ≥
α ; ωINPR4
 ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m u u
ωmL&G2
2  ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m 2
7
ωm  5  ωuINPR4
 ωuINPR1 ≥
α
L&G2
2  ωL&G5 ≥
α ;ωL&G2
 ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m u u
2 2
5
ωuL&G2
 ωuL&G5 ≥
α
2 2 2
ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR2 ≤ α ; ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR2 ≥
α ; ωm 
INPR4
ωINPR2 ≤ α ;
m
3 3
3 3  3  3 
ωlL&G3
 ωlL&G5 ≤ α ; ωlL&G3
 ωlL&G5 ≥
α ; ωmINPR4
ωINPR2 ≥
α ; ωINPR4
 ωINPR2 ≤ α ; ωINPR4
 ωINPR2 ≥
α
m u u u u

2 2 2 2

ωmL&G3
2  ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m

5 2 2
ωm 
L&G3
2  ωL&G5 ≥
α ;ωL&G3
 ωL&G5 ≤ α ;
m u u  ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR3 ≤ α ; ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR3 ≥
α ; ωm m 
INPR4
ωINPR3 ≤ α ;
2 3 3
5  3  3 
ωuL&G3
 ωuL&G5 ≥
α ωmINPR4
ωINPR3 ≥
α ; ωINPR4
 ωINPR3 ≤ α ; ωINPR4
 ωINPR3 ≥
α
m u u u u
2 2 2
1586 GOVINDAN ET AL.

2 2
ωlINPR6
 ωlINPR1 ≤ α ; ωlINPR6
 ωlINPR1 ≥
α ; ωm 
INPR6
ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m
3 3 3 3
ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR5 ≤ α ; ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR5 ≥
α ; 3 3
2 2   
ωmINPR6
ωINPR1 ≥
α ; ωINPR6
 ωINPR1 ≤ α ; ωINPR6
 ωINPR1 ≥
α
m u u u u
 2 2
ωmINPR4
2  ωINPR5 ≤ α ;
m

 5 
ωmINPR4
2  ωINPR5 ≥
α ;ωINPR4
 ωINPR5 ≤ α ;
m u u
2 3 3
ωlINPR7
 ωlINPR1 ≤ α ; ωlINPR7
 ωlINPR1 ≥
α ;
5 2 2
ωuINPR4
 ωuINPR5 ≥
α 
2 ωmINPR7
2  ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m

 5 
ωmINPR7
2  ωINPR1 ≥
α ; ωINPR7
 ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m u u
3 3 2
ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR6 ≤ α ; ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR6 ≥
α ; 5
2 2 ωuINPR7
 ωuINPR1 ≥
α
 2
ωmINPR4
2  ωINPR6 ≤ α ;
m

 5 
ωmINPR4
2  ωINPR6 ≥
α ;ωINPR4
 ωINPR6 ≤ α ;
m u u
2 ωlINPR1 þ 4  ωmINPR1 þ ωINPR1
u

5 6
ωuINPR4
 ωuINPR6 ≥
α
2 ωlINPR2 þ 4  ωmINPR2 þ ωINPR2
u
þ
6
2 2 ωlINPR3 þ 4  ωmINPR3 þ ωINPR3
u
ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR7 ≤ α ; ωlINPR4
 ωlINPR7 ≥
α ; ωm 
INPR4
ωINPR7 ≤ α ;
m
þ
3 3 6
 3  3  ωl þ 4  ωmINPR4 þ ωINPR4
u
ωmINPR4
ωINPR7 ≥
α ; ωINPR4
 ωINPR7 ≤ α ; ωINPR4
 ωINPR7 ≥
α
m u u u u
þ INPR4
2 2 6
ωl þ 4  ωmINPR5 þ ωINPR5
u
þ INPR5
3 3 6
ωlINPR2
 ωlINPR1 ≤ α ; ωlINPR2
 ωlINPR1 ≥
α ; ωlINPR6 þ 4  ωmINPR6 þ ωINPR6
u
2 2 þ

ωmINPR2
2  ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m
6
 5 
ωl þ 4  ωmINPR7 þ ωINPR7
u
ωmINPR2
2  ωINPR1 ≥
α ;ωINPR2
 ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m u u þ INPR7
2 6
5 ¼1
ωuINPR2
 ωuINPR1 ≥
α
2
ωlINPR1 ≤ ωm
INPR1 ≤ ωINPR1 ;ωINPR2 ≤ ωINPR2 ≤ ωINPR2 ; ωINPR3 ≤ ωINPR3 ≤ ωINPR3 ;
u l m u l m u

3 3 ωlINPR4 ≤ ωm
INPR4 ≤ ωINPR4 ;ωINPR5 ≤ ωINPR5 ≤ ωINPR5 ; ωINPR6 ≤ ωINPR6 ≤ ωINPR6 ;
u l m u l m u
ωlINPR3
 ωlINPR1 ≤ α ; ωlINPR3
 ωlINPR1 ≥
α ;
2 2
 ωlINPR7 ≤ ωm
INPR7 ≤ ωINPR7 ;
u
ωmINPR3
2  ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m

5 ωINPR1 > 0;ωINPR2 > 0; ωlINPR3 > 0;ωlINPR4 > 0;

l l
 
ωmINPR3
2  ωINPR1 ≥
α ;ωINPR3
 ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m u u
ωlINPR5 > 0;ωlINPR6 > 0; ωlINPR7 > 0
2
5
ωuINPR3
 ωuINPR1 ≥
α
2

2 2
ωlINPR5
 ωlINPR1 ≤ α ; ωlINPR5
 ωlINPR1 ≥
α ; ωm 
INPR5
ωINPR1 ≤ α ;
m
3 3
 3  3 
ωmINPR5
ωINPR1 ≥
α ; ωINPR5
 ωINPR1 ≤ α ; ωINPR5
 ωINPR1 ≥
α
m u u u u
2 2