The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-038X.htm
JMTM
32,1
176
Received 13 February 2020
Revised 30 April 2020
26 May 2020
Accepted 27 May 2020
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
Vol. 32 No. 1, 2021
pp. 176-198
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-02-2020-0053
Analyzing barriers of Green Lean
practices in manufacturing
industries by DEMATEL approach
Charanjit Singh, Davinder Singh and J.S. Khamba
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala, India
Abstract
Purpose – Green Lean concepts offer methods for managing manufacturing organizations with the goal of
improving organizational performance. Green Lean practices are good options to increase the environmental
and operational performance of manufacturing industries. However, there are some barriers to implement
Green Lean in manufacturing industries. This paper aims to identify these barriers by reviewing the literature
and analyze inter-relationships amongst selected barriers.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper deals with the identification of barriers to the adoption of
Green Lean practices in manufacturing industries. Using the DEMATEL approach and using the insights of
experts, a cause and effect relationship diagram was generated through which the effect of barriers was
analyzed.
Findings – Twelve barriers were categorized in terms of cause and effect, and the interrelationships of barriers
were also analyzed. Threshold value is calculated as 0.134 and the values lower than a were eliminated to obtain
the digraph. “Resistance to change,” “lack of top management commitment” and “lack of training to employees”
are the most prominent barriers on the basis of their prominent score.
Research limitations/implications – Analysis in the research is highly dependent on expert judgments
and opinions may be biased. However, the initial matrix obtained from the experts is hindered by the ambiguity
about some relationships. But this can be improved by using fuzzy and grey set theories. The barriers used for
the analysis are not from a specific type of manufacturing industry.
Practical implications – The findings will help the manufacturing organizations to simplify the most
important barriers, the least significant barriers and the relationships between these barriers. This Berlin
knowledge will enable administrators to increase awareness of the barriers in Green Lean implementation.
“The top management commitment” and “government support” are most important for the removal of barriers
to Green Lean strategies.
Originality/value – Very few scholars have used the DEMATEL approach to examine the sequence of the
barriers to Green Lean implementation. The present study attempts to incorporate the DEMATEL model to
assess the sequence of barriers to the implementation of Green Lean. This study investigates the degree of
influence of barriers on each other and categorizes the barriers into cause and effect groups. This study is also
intended to pave the way for future research in the path of the elimination of barriers to Green Lean strategies.
Keywords Green manufacturing, Lean manufacturing, Barriers, DEMATEL, Green Lean practices
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Many manufacturing organizations are fine-tuning their operations and taking a proactive
role in developing cleaner processes in response to fast changes in the business arena,
globalization and increasing concerns for the environment (Cherrafi et al., 2017). Green Lean
concepts offer methods to managing manufacturing organizations with the goal of improving
organizational performance. Especially, the combination of Green Lean concepts embraces
capacity for addressing triple bottom line that is: economic, environmental and social
dimensions of an industrial manufacturing system (Verrier et al., 2016). Green manufacturing
appears as a strong link of lean manufacturing toward the improvement of environmental
efficiency of organizations. The attention on lessening of waste has led manufacturing
industries to jointly adopt green and lean practices. The combination of green and lean (which
is also known as Green Lean) could help manufacturing industries to make decisions that
have a positive impression on the environment (Farias et al., 2019; Cherrafi et al., 2017).
 The credit of coining a name of “Lean Production” goes to Womack et al. (1990) Analyzing
(Sawhney and Chason, 2005). As per Society of Manufacturing Engineers, lean strategy barriers of
employs fewer resources and results in a broader variety of products and at the same time,
better levels quality of product is obtained. It has proven to be a successful approach to
Green Lean
increase productivity and cost effectiveness (Upadhye et al., 2016). Lean manufacturing is practices
defined as a combination of multiple tools to help eliminate activities that do not add value
to the product, process and/or service by increasing the value of each activity. Lean is aimed
to eliminate or reduce waste and improve operations (Garc
ıa-Alcaraz et al., 2014). The dual 177
focus on eliminating the waste and increasing business value made lean one of the most
popular business performance improvement approaches of the last decade (Jadhav et al.,
2014). As a result, various manufacturing industries of different types and sizes are
working hard to turn their manufacturing base from conventional low-cost, labor-intensive
production to more efficient, higher-value and more competitive lean production systems
(Haynes et al., 2017). Many manufacturing industries in India aim to improve their
competitive capacity also introduced lean practices to improve business performance
(Sharma et al., 2015).
Green manufacturing deals with manufacturing practices, which in any of their phases
reduce or eliminate negative environmental effects. It stresses the use of processes,
technology and practices which do not contaminate the environment or harm customers,
employees or others concerned stakeholders (Rehman et al., 2017). Several researchers have
argued that the implementation of lean production will increase the social good directly by
enhancing the environmental performance of adopting industries (King and Lenox, 2001).
Environmental concerns impact corporate policy and strategy at all levels of society,
particularly corporate, functional and operational (Rothenberg et al., 2001).
Although Green Lean practices have been attempted across a broad range of industries
including manufacturing, service, construction, hospitals and many more, however, the
rate of adoption is still very low in developing countries (Panwar et al., 2016). Studies
suggest that the familiarity with Green Lean practices is more in developed countries in
comparison to developing economies (Hokoma et al., 2010) and thus the barriers to
implement lean in developing countries are more prevailing. Especially, developing
countries have to face more intensified cultural obstacles in the form of internal resistance
and openness to change, in comparison to developed economies (Delgado et al., 2010).
Therefore, the present research has been carried out in a generalized manner so that
manufacturing industries in developing countries are probably able to implement green
lean practices by rising above these barriers.
Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) approach is incorporated in
the present study. Chung-Wei and Gwo-Hshiung (2009) claimed that the DEMATEL method
was developed by the Science and Human Affairs program of the Battelle Memorial Institute
of Geneva between 1972 and 1976 (Fontela and Gabus, 1976). This is a useful tool of causal
analysis that helps the researchers to divide the criteria of any system into the categories of
cause and effect (Sharma et al., 2016). DEMATEL method can confirm interdependence
between factors. This method helps to establish a chart which depicts contextual
relationships within factors. This can be used to examine and solve complicated and
interrelated problems (Si et al., 2018).

1.1 Significance and purpose of the study:

As happens in all cases of radical innovations, challenges or barriers are also anticipated to be
present in case of the adoption of Green Lean practices (Kaur et al., 2018). It is very important
to identify these barriers in employing Green Lean practices in manufacturing industries.
There is a need to investigate the barriers affecting the implementation of Green Lean in
JMTM manufacturing operations (Cherrafi et al., 2017; Garza-Reyes, 2015; Mittal et al., 2016).This
32,1 motivates the present study to explore and examine the barriers to Green Lean. Identification
and analysis of the inter-relationships of the barriers to Green Lean may support
practitioners, manufacturers, researchers and other stakeholders. It is expected that the
present study may help policymakers to remove the barriers in manufacturing industries.
Hence, the main purpose of this study is in twofold as following:
178 (1) To identify barriers to the adoption of Green Lean in manufacturing industries by
reviewing existing literature and choosing the most relevant barriers by
incorporating expert opinions.
(2) Developing contextual relationships between targeted barriers to Green Lean using
the DEMATEL model.
So, in the present study, barriers to Green Lean implementation have been divided into cause
and effect categories by utilizing the DEMATEL approach. All steps of the DEMATEL
approach has been explained in Section 4. Remaining part of this research article is spread as
follows: Section 2 offers a literature review to identify the barriers accompanied by a research
methodology in section 3. Section 4 presents the DEMATEL analyses carried out to establish
the contextual relationships among the Green Lean barriers. Section 5 contains calculations,
results and discussion on the results is presented in section 6. Section 7 presents the
conclusion from the study followed by future scope and limitations.

2. Literature review
In this article, an obstacle which does not help or hinder the progress of industries toward the
successful implementation of Green Lean is recognized as a barrier to Green Lean. To identify
these barriers, an extensive review of the existing literature was carried out. This section
describes the existing literature on barriers to Green Lean approaches in manufacturing
operations. The performing of a literature review is an important aspect of any academic effort
(Tranfield et al., 2003). So, existing literature has been explored to identify barriers to Green
Lean in manufacturing operations. A fair number of existing research publications on the
barriers to green manufacturing and lean manufacturing are available separately. There are,
however, a few studies available which simultaneously dealt with the issue of barriers to Green
Lean. Search terms such as (Green Lean) (Green Lean barrier) have been inserted in the
electronic database of several publishers to seek the most relevant research papers. Electronic
databases included Elsevier (sciencedirect.com), Emerald (emeraldinsight.com), Taylor &
Francis (T&F) (tandfonline.com), IEEE (ieeexplore.iee.org), Springer (springerlink.com), Wiley
(onlinelibrary.wiley.com) and Inderscience Publishers (inderscience.com). Furthermore, Google
Scholar (scholar.google.com) has also been included. The research articles, which seem to be
most relevant to the topic under investigation, have been selected for the literature review.
The existing literature acknowledges that Green Lean is the outcome of a balance of
profitability output, efficiency, customer satisfaction, quality and sensitivity to green
priorities and initiatives (Garza-Reyes, 2015; Mittal et al., 2016). Certain studies suggest that
lean drives Green, some agree that green drives lean, others think that either can go first, yet
some felt that both (green and lean) should be applied simultaneously (Inman and Green,
2018). The literature also reported that green and lean shared identical capabilities. Likewise,
the lean strategy will reduce the marginal cost of green policies by either reducing their
implementation costs or offering additional inputs into their significant benefit, that would
also result in improved environmental practices (Hajmohammad et al., 2013).Simultaneous
implementation of these approaches helps the organization to enhance its financial and
environmental efficiency (Gaikwad and Sunnapwar, 2020). The literature states that Green
Lean activities are not easy to adopt because of the presence of different barriers (Kumar et al., Analyzing
2016). Only a few studies have been recorded in the existing literature that have studied the barriers of
barriers to Green Lean (Cherrafi et al., 2017; Sindhwani et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2016). There is
little research from our best understanding to identify a comprehensive list of barriers which
Green Lean
need to be removed for green lean. There is a literature gap in the direction of identifying of an practices
extensive list of barriers to green lean as well as the analysis of the most relevant barriers by
the DEMATEL methods. Graza-Reyes (2015) has also suggested that further research is also
needed to simplify the complex relationship between the various barriers to Green Lean and 179
to analyze the degree of impact of one barrier on the other barrier. Also, more research is
needed to simplify the complex relationship of different barriers to Green lean and it is needed
to analyze the degree of influence of one barrier on the other barrier. In this direction, the
initial list of fifty-seven barriers has been reported based on the review of the literature which
is represented in Table 1.

2.1 Identification of barriers from the existing literature

It is not feasible to include all the barriers for the analysis in the present study. An initial list of
barriers was obtained using literature review in Table 1. The authors of this research study
performed brainstorming sessions after literature review to narrow down the list of barriers and
they have manually examined in the research publications about the repetitions of barriers.
Depending on this, we have selected twelve most relevant barriers to Green Lean for the analysis.
This list is also discussed with the group of experts they agreed on this list. The group of experts
was consisting of three experts from the manufacturing industry sector and five experts from
academic world. Three experts from industry have more than the ten-year working experience at
the manager level in different manufacturing industries in the Northern part of India. Five
academic experts in this group have also more than ten-year experience in teaching and research
in the domain of industrial engineering. The final list of barriers to be analyzed under DEMATEL
method is shown in Table 2. This section describes these barriers to the implementation of Green
Lean identified through the exploration of literature. These barriers have been summarized in
Table 2 and coded as B1, B2, B3, B4, . . ... and B12 and explained as follows:
2.1.1 Lack of environmental knowledge (B1). In these days, although environment has
attracted the attention of decision makers in manufacturing operations, industrialists,
scientists and even consumers in various parts of the world. But, in some studies it is
emphasized that environmental knowledge is not an enough component for positive
environmental behavior (Sadik and Sadik, 2014). The issues of environment are important
because the absence of their answers is more horrifying. Unless environmental problems are
not resolved or not taken care of, the coming generations may find Earth worth not living.
The lack of environment knowledge seems a significant barrier in implementing the green
lean practices.
2.1.2 Lack of top management commitment (B2). Lack of top management commitment a
leading barrier for successful implementing green practices (Ravi and Shankar, 2005).
Competent leader in management are needed to implement Green Lean practices. Will power
of the top management matters the most. Continuous motivation to employees is very much
required to adopt newer practices in the manufacturing operations. Manufacturing industries
will be able to efficiently implement their Green Lean initiatives if sound commitment is
shown by top management (Yusliza et al., 2019). The Green Lean implementation specifically
requires active participation by the top management of the manufacturing industries (Yadav
et al., 2019). Li et al. (2019) concluded that top management must track and assess constantly
how the institutional environment helps to create the importance of Green Lean for a
company. Further, it must track how internal organizational factors require or disable the
introduction of green practice and react accordingly.
JMTM Initial list of key barriers to green lean based on literature review
32,1
[1] Absence of good communication [30] Lack of organizational encouragement
[2] Absence of sound planning systems [31] Lack of organizational resources
[3] Complex distribution networks [32] Lack of positive culture
[4] Complex to measure and monitor the [33] Lack of support and guidance from regulatory
environmental practice authorities
180 [5] Complexity of design to reduce consumption of [34] Lack of technical expertise
resource/energy [35] Lack of technology
[6] Conversion cost of renewable energy [36] Lack of top management commitment
[7] Cost implications [37] Lack of training to employees
[8] Cross-functional conflicts [38] Less involvement in environmental related
[9] Fear of failure programs and meetings
[10] Financial constraints [39] Location constraints
[11] High cost for disposing hazardous wastes [40] Low customer demand
[12] High investments and less Return-on [41] Low public pressure
investment [42] Market competition
[13] High short-term costs [43] Non-adoption of cleaner technology
[14] Inadequate adoption of reverse logistic [44] Non-availability of bank loans to encourage green
practices products/processes
[15] Insufficient government support [45] Perception of “out-of-responsibility” zone
[16] Lack of awareness about potential benefits [46] Poor quality of human resources
[17] Lack of awareness about reverse logistics [47] Problems with machines and plant configuration
adoption [48] Resistance to change and adopt innovation
[18] Lack of corporate social responsibility [49] Resistance to technology advancement adoption
[19] Lack of customer awareness about green [50] Restrictive company policies toward product/
[20] Lack of dedicated supplier process stewardship
[21] Lack of effective environmental measures [51] Technological risk
[22] Lack of empowerment of employees [52] Top management resistance
[23] Lack of environmental knowledge [53] Uncertain benefits
[24] Lack of human resource [54] Uncertain future legislation
[25] Lack of implementing green practices [55] Underdeveloped infrastructures
[26] Lack of integrated information system [56] Weak legislation
[27] Lack of IT implementation [57] Workers’ resistance
[28] Lack of mutual trust
[29] Lack of new technology, materials and
processes
Source(s): Sindhwani et al. (2019), Yadav et al. (2019), Caldera et al. (2019), Li et al. (2019), Yusliza et al. (2019),
Birou et al. (2019), Hussain et al. (2019), Thanki and Thakkar (2018) , Kaur et al. (2018), Vinodh and Asokan
(2018), Yadav and Desai (2017), Cherrafi et al. (2017), Zhang et al. (2017), Neto et al. (2017), Mittal et al. (2016),
Table 1. Jabbour et al. (2016), Kumar et al. (2016), Abdullah et al. (2016), Gandhi et al. (2015), Srivastav and Gaur (2015),
Initial list of key Pakdil and Leonard (2015), Govindan et al. (2014), Aly (2014), Jadhav et al. (2014), Mittal et al. (2013),
barriers based on Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013), Wee et al. (2012), Darabi et al. (2012), Hu and Hsu (2010), Harich (2010), Luthra et al.
literature review (2011), Mudgal et al. (2010), Ravi and Shankar (2005)

2.1.3 Resistance/fear to change (B3). In India, certain management practices are usually
prone to acceptance of the karma doctrine, including the principles of duty, loyalty to others,
compliance and the desire to do one’s job although it may be personally uncomfortable
(Pihlak and Alas, 2012). Resistance to change is a reluctance for a system to continue its
current behavior, despite any use of pressure to change that attitudes (Harich, 2010).
Employee of organizations, show resistance for any changes in daily routine work and also
unease comes amongst them because of unpredictable output (Sindhwani et al., 2019). The
resistance associated with the existence of values that make all of this difficult to change
remains unchanged. Resistance to change is an important factor in any change process, as
S.No Barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Analyzing
barriers of
1 Lack of environmental B1 U U U U Green Lean
knowledge
2 Lack of top management B2 U U U U U U U practices
commitment
3 Resistance/ fear to change B3 U U U U U U U
4 Financial restrictions B4 U U U U U U U U U 181
5 Lack of training of employees B5 U U U U U U U
6 Insufficient government support B6 U U U U U U U
7 Technological constraints B7 U U U U
8 Absence of good communication B8 U U U
9 Lack of dedicated supplier B9 U U U U
10 Absence of sound planning B10 U U U
systems
11 Lack of awareness about B11 U U U
potential benefits
12 Lack of positive culture B12 U U U
Note(s): 1. Sindhwani et al. (2019); 2. Yadav et al. (2019); 3. Kaur et al. (2018), 4. Sivakumar et al. (2018); 5. Table 2.
Cherrafi et al. (2017); 6. Zhang et al. (2017); 7. Upadhye et al. (2016); 8. Kumar et al. (2016); 9. Govindan et al. (2014); Barriers used for the
10. Jadhav et al. (2014); 11. Mudgal et al. (2010) DEMATEL

proper resistance management is the key to success in change or failure (Del Val and
Fuentes, 2003).
2.1.4 Financial restrictions (B4). Implementation of Green Lean practices needs an initial
investment, which is risky for every business leader. Unavailability of financial resources
may make hurdles in implementing the new policies. Profit making is always prioritized by
many of the business organizations (Sindhwani et al., 2019). A lack of financial resources is an
influential barrier that many previous studies have reported (Caldera et al., 2019; Bhanot et al.,
2017; Cagno et al., 2017). Financial constraints implementing for green practice is the
important barrier especially for small companies (Neto et al., 2017).
2.1.5 Lack of training of employees (B5). To implement Green Lean practices, having
proper training and knowledge is needed for both managers as well as employees. Training
may play a major role in developing organizational skills and knowledge in Green Lean
practices. Training is becoming urgently needed to make industries more resource-effective
and environmentally sustainable (Birou et al., 2019). Continuous training must be delivered to
the employees of the manufacturing industries for implementing Green Lean practices. In
implementation of Green Lean approach, proper knowledge and training are required for
both managers as well as employees (Zhang et al., 2017). Professionals working in
manufacturing industries need training to adopt green systems in their industries. They also
need training to sustain and monitor growth in these implementations (Mathiyazhagan et al.,
2013). As such, policies and practices are typically much nuanced, and green values may not
be known to some employees of the industries. Various education and training programme
needs to be started to encourage their employees’ knowledge of the environment and lean
policies (Hu and Hsu, 2010).
2.1.6 Insufficient government support (B6). For the suitable functioning of any enterprises
including the environment in which they operate, legislation and regulation are very much
necessary. Manufacturing industries must operate according to the environmental laws and
regulations (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). These laws may be altered by the political factors of
the countries. Somewhat swift political changes in a particular area can be a disaster for any
reforming attempts in these directions (Aly, 2014). Government aid may boost appropriate
JMTM policies to replace obsolete technology by arranging certain subsidies and other benefits
32,1 (Neto et al., 2017). Likewise, government may encourage Green Lean policy education
initiatives.
2.1.7 Technological constraints (B7). Changing in the technical factors in manufacturing
industries may change in various features in its operations. But these technology
upgradations require incorporations, cares and skilled manpower to manage (Hasan et al.,
2007). Various types of technologies in computer-aided manufacturing or computer-aided
182 design and robotics need skilled manpower to manage the things (Sindhwani et al., 2019).
This barrier arises from the use of redundant industrial technology and tight-skilled labor
(Neto et al., 2017).
2.1.8 Absence of good communication (B8). Possessing good communication skills are very
helpful in the work environment. Healthy communication skills convey their exact message
and mitigate problems in implementing newer policies like Green Lean. But on the contrary,
lack of effective communication skills dents the confidence of the workers in the
manufacturing industries. Employees of the industries need to be appropriately informed
about the variations in context of Green Lean practices that are being implemented (Jadhav
et al., 2014). The use of Green Lean principles includes effective communication, team
management and coordination at different levels (Hussain et al., 2019). Therefore, the lack of
good communication may impair the use of Green Lean.
2.1.9 Lack of dedicated supplier (B9). Collective strategic actions involving all members of
the supply chain will lead to the successful implementation of the Green Lean toward
competitiveness (Kumar et al., 2016). The reluctance of suppliers to switch toward Green Lean
initiative is due to their traditional thinking (Srivastav and Gaur, 2015). Manufacturing
industries may provide suppliers with rewards and incentives for the establishment of
stricter environmental regulations and the promotion of Green Lean strategies (Luthra et al.,
2015). Suppliers may serve as a cohesive element of the organization in order to survive and
grow in today’s competitive environment However, according to some studies suppliers were
not actively involved in the implementation lean (Yadav et al., 2019).
2.1.10 Lack of sound planning system (B10). Before Green Lean implementations, it is
worthwhile to have a good work experience. Their skills may provide the base for the success
of Green Lean outcomes. Every method and activity to implement “Green Lean” should be
clear and well-defined to search the particular knowledge required for Green Lean operations
(Mudgal et al., 2010). Every activity should be carried out in compliance with the guidelines
set out in the context of Lean initiatives (Darabi et al., 2012). Mutingi (2013) stated that there is
a lack among industries in applying proper product planning and setting appropriate green
performance standards. Further, Sindhwani et al. (2019) also submitted that in Lean
initiatives, it is important to plan properly that is if a task is supposed to be finished on a given
day, it must not be pushed the next day, but it may cause a catastrophic situation for the
organization.
2.1.11 Lack of awareness about potential benefits (B11). Some studies claim that if new
initiatives are made clear to participants, they are interested in the implementation of these
initiatives. Indicators of the degree of improvements also encourage the stakeholders (Yadav
et al., 2019; Bhasin, 2012). Hence, if potential benefits of Green Lean are not clear to the
managers and employees, it will provide a hurdle in implementing Green Lean of that
industry. Lack of understanding concerning Green Lean’s possible benefits may also create a
negative attitude across employees.
2.1.12 Lack of positive culture (B12). “The culture of an organisation may be defined as rule
and behaviours which cover trust, hierarchy, working environment and fellow-feeling” (Dora
et al., 2016). Organizational culture is an organization’s belief system, including ways of
working, rituals, tales and appropriate ways of achieving goals of the industry. Culture of any
industry affects performance because it influences human behavior. If the culture of the
manufacturing organization does not support Green Lean practices, then the culture needs to Analyzing
be changed (Pakdil and Leonard, 2015). Friendly organizational culture may serve as an barriers of
encouragement to adopt the Green Lean. On the other side, if there is a lack of trust and
cooperation in the organization, this type of culture may become a barrier in implementing
Green Lean
Green Lean (Yadav et al., 2019). practices

3. Research methodology 183

The complete structure of the research framework adopted in this study is presented in
Figure 1. The barriers to the effective implementation of Green Lean were identified from the
existing literature while the contextual relationships among the barriers were examined with
the help of the DEMATEL method. Barriers in the adoption of Green Lean practices in
manufacturing were found through the literature review. There might be a long list of
barriers to Green Lean and we have included 12 barriers that are often used in past research
studies. The authors of this study have manually examined in the research publications
about the repetitions of barriers. Depending on this, we listed twelve barriers and the group of
experts examined this list and they agreed on this. And hence the list of 12 barriers was
finalized for analyzing these barriers through the DEMATEL method. Table 1 shows the
exhaustive list of 57 barriers depending on the past literature. Initially, twelve experts were
approached for this study. In this group, the academic experts are comprised of five
professors, two assistant professors actively engaged in the teaching and research in

Figure 1.
Methodology
framework used in
the study
JMTM industrial engineering. Five industry experts include a production manager, a project
32,1 manager, a deputy manager, two senior executives working with various manufacturing
expertise. Finally, eight experts were ready to participate in this study. This final group of
eight experts was comprised of three industry experts (a design manager, a deputy manager
and a senior executive) and five academic experts (three professors and two assistant
professors). All experts have experience of more than ten years in their profession. Kaur et al.
(2018) employed a team of three academic experts and seven industrial experts for analyzing
184 barriers of green supply chain management in manufacturing firms using the DEMATEL
approach. Sivakumar et al. (2018) used the opinions of five experts to use the DEMATEL.
While Lin (2013) conducted a study on the responses collected from eight experts to employ
the DEMATEL method. Further, Fu et al. (2012) used opinions from four experts to use the
DEMATEL.
So, the opinions of eight experts have been collected in the form of pairwise relationship
matrix. It had been discussed with experts to use a scale from 0 to 5 to demonstrate a pairwise
relationship between barriers. The scale to be used has been represented in Table 3
(Sivakumar et al., 2018). By meeting personally, the experts have been asked to provide a
response by pairwise correlation in the matrix. All the steps incorporated in the DEMATEL
methodology have been explained in the next section.

4. DEMATEL based model of green lean barriers

To find the interrelationship among the identified barriers, the DEMATEL method is
incorporated in the present study. First, the DEMATEL method was established by the
Battelle Memorial Institute of Geneva between 1972 and 1976 that was projected to learn and
resolve the complex and intertwined problem group. DEMATEL is usually used for the
assessment of decision problems and this is a well-known technique in Japan (Gandhi et al.,
2016). The DEMATEL reflects the inter-relationship among causes and the effects of various
factors and offers a structural framework for system. A key advantage of DEMATEL over
other models is the ability to generate possible findings with minimum information (Wu and
Lee, 2007; Sivakumar et al., 2018). Although some other methods like interpretive structural
modeling (ISM) and analytical network process (ANP) may also be used for the evaluating
interrelationships of factors. In comparison to ISM, the DEMATEL’s approach helps to
obtain the contextual relationships between variables in the system and also emphasizes the
impact of their interactive relations. Further, this method also states the strength of inter-
relationships of the elements as well (Gandhi et al., 2015, 2016). The DEMATEL is effective
about not only demonstrating direct subsystem relations but also of specifying the degree of
interactions between subsystems. Thus, to analyze a complex system, DEMATEL is
seemingly more helpful than the ISM if we really want to capture the cause-effect relationship
among subsystems (Tzeng and Huang, 2011). The DEMATEL method not only converts the
interdependency relationships into a cause and effect cluster via matrixes but it also
discovers the critical factors of an intricate system of factors with the aid of an impact relation

Numerical value Description

0 No influence
1 Very low influence
2 Low influence
Table 3. 3 Medium influence
Scale used in 4 High influence
DEMATEL method 5 Very high influence
diagram (Si et al., 2018). Compared with other modeling methods like ANP, total interpretive Analyzing
structural modeling (TISM) and graph theory and matrix approach (GTMA), the DEMATEL barriers of
model enables researchers understand the conceptual correlations between the variables
used within the problem structure and helps determine the effects of their interrelationships
Green Lean
(Yadav et al., 2020). practices
All stages for developing a DEMATEL based model are shown with the help of flow
diagram in Figure 1 and all the steps of DEMATEL (Kaur et al., 2018; Gandhi et al., 2016;
Sivakumar et al., 2018) have been discussed as follows: 185

4.1 Step 1
Obtain the initial relationship matrix from each expert as given in Equation (1).
The matrix is a pair-wise comparison generated using the scale as shown in Table 3.
The scale ranging from 0 to 5 used to depict the inter-relationship among identified
barriers. The matrix Ak is collected from each expert where each element aijk represents the
influence of barrier i over j. Here n designates the total number of barriers identified. Also, the
crosswise of pairwise comparison matrix has a value of 0 which tells that barriers do not have
any effect on itself that is i ¼ j. In total, z matrices are obtained. Here z represents the number
of experts. The equation (Sivakumar et al., 2018) is as follows:
2 3
0 a12z a13z    a1ðn−1Þz a1nz
6 a21z 0 a23z . . . a2ðn−1Þz a2nz 7
6 7
6       7
Az ¼ 6
6
7
7 (1)
6       7
4 aðn−1Þ1z aðn−1Þ2z aðn−1Þ3z  0 aðn−1Þnz 5
an1z an2z an3z    anðn−1Þz 0

4.2 Step 2
This step assimilates the judgments of all the experts. The overall direct relationship matrix
A is obtained by equation (2) as follows:

A ¼ ½aij  (2)

In equation 2, A ¼ is the overall direct relation matrix; aij ¼ the average of aijz of all experts
and z is total number of experts (Gandhi et al., 2016).

4.3 Step 3
In this step, the normalized overall direct-relation matrix X is calculated. It can be
accomplished by the formula given as in following equation:

A
X ¼ ½xij n3n ¼ Pn ; where 0 ≤ xij ≤ 1 (3)
max j¼1 aij
1≤i≤n

Where “X” denotes normalized overall direct relation matrix.

This must be noted that the sum of each column in the normalized relation matrix must be
less than one for the feasibility of the DEMATEL method (Singh and Sarkar, 2020).
JMTM 4.4 Step 4
32,1 In this step the total relation matrix T is found using the following equation:
T ¼ ½tij n3n ¼ X ½I  X −1 (4)

Here I denotes Identity matrix, T is total relation matrix and S is as per (equation 3).

186 4.5 Step 5

The sum of numbers of the rows (D) and the sum of numbers in columns (R) are computed in
the total relation matrix T. In the total relation matrix, D and R are calculated as follows:
Sum of the elements in the rows,
" #
Xn
ðDÞ ¼ ½dij n31 ¼ dij (5)
j¼1 n31

The sum of element in columns,

" #
X
n
ðRÞ ¼ ½rij 13n ¼ rij (6)
i¼1 13n

4.6 Step 6
The average figures of all the elements present in the matrix T are added and divided by the
number of elements present in the matrix to provide the threshold value (α). This computation
is done by utilizing the following equation:
Pn Pn
rij
α ¼ j¼1 2 i¼1 (7)
n
in this equation “n2” represents the total number of elements in total relation matrix “T”.
As The number of barriers ¼ n, So; Number of total elements in matrix T ¼ n3n ¼ n2
(Sivakumar et al., 2018)

4.7 Step 7
In this step a connecting diagram is drawn by plotting the values of (D þ R) and (RC). In this
diagram, the vertical axis refers to the values of (DR) while the horizontal axis refers to the
values of (D þ R).

4.8 Step 8
To comprehend the interrelationships among the identified barriers, a directed graph is
drawn. The values in the total matrix “T”, which meet or surpass α are measured to have
significant influential strength. The directed graph is drawn by using the influential strength
matrix.

5. Calculations and results

The interrelationship of identified barriers is established with the application of the proposed
framework. In Table 4, the overall direct relationship matrix is computed using equation (2) as
mentioned above in section 4.2. This Table 4 has been developed by entering the average value
of all aijz entries collected from all the experts (Gandhi et al., 2016; Sivakumar et al., 2018).
Barriers B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 Analyzing
barriers of
Lack of B1 0 4.5 4 0 5 1.25 2.25 3 1.25 3 4.5 2.25
environmental Green Lean
knowledge practices
Lack of top B2 5 0 5 4.25 5 4.75 5 4 1.5 5 3.25 4.75
management
commitment
Resistance/fear B3 4.75 4.75 0 2.75 5 0 1.5 4.75 1 4 1 4.5 187
to change
Financial B4 0.25 4.5 4 0 1.75 2 4 3.25 4 1.25 1.25 3.25
restrictions
Lack of training B5 5 1 4.25 1.75 0 1 3 5 2 4 5 4
of employees
Insufficient B6 3 0 1.75 5 1.25 0 4.25 3 2.25 2.5 4.5 4.5
government
support
Technological B7 0 0 2 2 2 0.25 0 1.25 2 1 1 4.5
constraints
Absence of B8 4.25 3.25 3.25 1.25 1 3.25 1 0 1 3.25 1.5 1.5
good
communication
Lack of B9 0.25 0 1 3.25 1 1.25 0 1 0 1 1.5 1
dedicated
supplier
Absence of B10 0 1.5 4.25 2 4.25 1 1 4 2 0 0.75 2.75
sound planning
systems
Lack of B11 4.25 4.25 5 1.75 4.25 2.75 2 1.75 1 1.25 0 2
awareness
about potential
benefits Table 4.
Lack of positive B12 4.5 0.75 4.25 0.75 4.5 3 1 4.25 1 3 4.25 0 Overall direct
culture relationship matrix

Further, as shown in Table 5, the initial normalized matrix is calculated using (Equation 3). By
using (Equation 4), total relationship matrix is calculated and represented in Table 6.
For attaining a reflection of the noteworthy connection, the inner dependence matrix is
established by rejecting the least significant relationship. So, to construct the causal digraph
the threshold value (α) is calculated. For this purpose, Equation (7) is used. The threshold
value in the total relation matrix represents how one barrier affects other barrier; thus the
threshold value allows to differentiate between the significant and insignificant results
(Gandhi et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2008).
The α value is computed as 0.134, and the values lower than α were eliminated for
obtaining the inter-relationships of barriers. In Table 6, values beyond the threshold value
are shown in bold numbers. The final results are shown in Table 6. As shown in Figure 2,
the net cause/effect graph is drawn. Finally, after the elements are compared with the
threshold value shown in Table 6 the directed graph for the barriers is developed to show
the relationship.

6. Findings and discussions

The objective of this study is to analyze the interrelationship among the identified barriers
seen in implementing Green Lean practices in manufacturing industries. The designated
expert team to obtain the data for the pairwise comparison matrix and DEMATEL method is
used to understand the causal interrelationships. The results are presented in Table 6. On the
 32,1

188

matrix
Table 5.
JMTM

Initial normalized
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12

B1 0 0.094737 0.084211 0 0.105263 0.026316 0.047368 0.063158 0.026316 0.063158 0.094737 0.047368
B2 0.105263 0 0.105263 0.089474 0.105263 0.1 0.105263 0.084211 0.031579 0.105263 0.068421 0.1
B3 0.1 0.1 0 0.057895 0.105263 0 0.031579 0.1 0.021053 0.084211 0.021053 0.094737
B4 0.005263 0.094737 0.084211 0 0.036842 0.042105 0.084211 0.068421 0.084211 0.026316 0.026316 0.068421
B5 0.105263 0.021053 0.089474 0.036842 0 0.021053 0.063158 0.105263 0.042105 0.084211 0.105263 0.084211
B6 0.063158 0 0.036842 0.105263 0.026316 0 0.089474 0.063158 0.047368 0.052632 0.094737 0.094737
B7 0 0 0.042105 0.042105 0.042105 0.005263 0 0.026316 0.042105 0.021053 0.021053 0.094737
B8 0.089474 0.068421 0.068421 0.026316 0.021053 0.068421 0.021053 0 0.021053 0.068421 0.031579 0.031579
B9 0.005263 0 0.021053 0.068421 0.021053 0.026316 0 0.021053 0 0.021053 0.031579 0.021053
B10 0 0.031579 0.089474 0.042105 0.089474 0.021053 0.021053 0.084211 0.042105 0 0.015789 0.057895
B11 0.089474 0.089474 0.105263 0.036842 0.089474 0.057895 0.042105 0.036842 0.021053 0.026316 0 0.042105
B12 0.094737 0.015789 0.089474 0.015789 0.094737 0.063158 0.021053 0.089474 0.021053 0.063158 0.089474 0
Note(s): Italic values are above the threshold value
 Cause/
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 D R D þ R Rank D-R effect

B1 0.117326 0.17545 0.21011 0.077852 0.22069 0.094306 0.125348 0.18082 0.082919 0.16403 0.18435 0.15981 1.793 1.8157 3.6087 5 0.0226 Effect
B2 0.25233 0.122381 0.28041 0.19134 0.26669 0.18678 0.2128 0.25017 0.11816 0.2406 0.2003 0.25691 2.5788 1.4286 4.0076 2 1.1502 Cause
B3 0.2161 0.18859 0.14435 0.132682 0.23003 0.07802 0.117507 0.2268 0.085235 0.19322 0.12673 0.20996 1.9492 2.1491 4.0984 1 0.1999 Effect
B4 0.103645 0.16063 0.18926 0.072449 0.13831 0.10186 0.14995 0.16873 0.133238 0.115491 0.106693 0.1671 1.6074 1.304 2.9114 9 0.3032 Cause
B5 0.21762 0.119595 0.22369 0.112241 0.131517 0.09293 0.14036 0.22532 0.102535 0.18649 0.19825 0.19694 1.9475 1.975 3.9225 3 0.0275 Effect
B6 0.15523 0.082957 0.15458 0.16627 0.133517 0.062088 0.15614 0.16603 0.103387 0.13653 0.17372 0.19096 1.6814 1.1363 2.8178 10 0.5451 Cause
B7 0.054796 0.040665 0.10193 0.075242 0.096881 0.038031 0.034953 0.084438 0.069706 0.068223 0.066353 0.14215 0.8734 1.3508 2.2242 11 0.4774 Effect
B8 0.17053 0.13454 0.16597 0.087523 0.118138 0.118213 0.086067 0.095373 0.067809 0.14605 0.106514 0.121503 1.4182 1.9879 3.4061 6 0.5697 Effect
B9 0.042092 0.033031 0.065701 0.092569 0.059647 0.049403 0.029836 0.06221 0.023565 0.053561 0.062121 0.059615 0.6333 1.0275 1.6609 12 0.3942 Effect
B10 0.086493 0.093906 0.17712 0.096312 0.16856 0.069768 0.077265 0.16974 0.084319 0.076611 0.08423 0.13799 1.3223 1.6706 2.9929 8 0.3483 Effect
B11 0.19782 0.17166 0.22559 0.111804 0.2047 0.120974 0.123252 0.15661 0.079484 0.129837 0.097268 0.15627 1.7753 1.5856 3.3609 7 0.1896 Cause
B12 0.20169 0.105203 0.21042 0.087786 0.20634 0.124004 0.0973 0.2017 0.077216 0.15999 0.17914 0.109156 1.7599 1.9083 3.6683 4 0.1485 Effect
Note(s): Italic values are above the threshold value
practices
Green Lean

189
barriers of
Analyzing

and direct-indirect
impact matrix
Total relation matrix
Table 6.
JMTM
32,1

190

Figure 2.
Net cause-effect
diagram

basis of importance according to (D þ R), the identified barriers are ranked as B3, B2, B5, B12,
B1, B8, B11, B10, B4, B6, B7 and B9 (as shown in Table 6). We can see in Table 6, that B3
(Resistance/Fear of Change) is ranked 1st on the basis of (D þ R) value of 4.0984, while B2
(lack of top management commitment) is ranked 2nd with (D þ R) value of 4.0076. B2 is
affecting all other barriers except B9. Likewise, B5 (lack of training of employees) has (D þ R)
score of 3.9225. These scores are relatively close to each other and roughly equal (D þ R)
values. On the basis of (D þ R) score, B3, B2 and B5 and B12 are top barriers to Green Lean
deployment. Among all the identified barriers, B9 is ranked on 12th position and it is the least
significant barrier.
In the past studies also concluded that, “resistance to change” is very significant barrier,
therefore, it must be solved first to implement Green Lean practices (Harich, 2010). Other
studies also emphasized on top management commitment (B2) to undertaking Green Lean
related practices (Caldera et al., 2019). This finding is also consistent with other studies like
Yadav et al. (2019), which concluded “lack of top management commitment” as an immensely
important barrier to such initiative.
The twelve barriers were divided into two groups, based on (D-R) values: (1) cause group
and (2) effect group. All those barriers having ðD − RÞ > 0 were classified as a cause barrier
and have influenced the others directly. Whilst, the barriers with ðD − RÞ < 0 were
categorized in the effect category and influenced primarily by others. This classification of
cause and effect barriers is depicted in Table 6. A total four barriers namely B2 (lack of top
management commitment), B4 (financial restrictions), B6 (insufficient government support)
and B11 (lack of awareness about potential benefits) are categorized as cause barriers. In the
net cause-effect diagram (Figure 2), the cause barriers are shown on the positive side of Y-axis
while “effect barriers” are on the negative Y-axis. In Figure 2, horizontal axis includes (D þ R)
values showing the prominence of the barriers while vertical axis contains (D-R) values
showing the degree of influence (Seker and Zavadskas, 2017).
Further, on the basis of (D-R) score, B1 (lack of environment knowledge), B3 (Resistance to
change), B5 (lack of training of employees), B7 (technological constraints), B8 (absence of good
communication), B9 (lack of dedicated suppliers), B10 (lack of sound planning system) and B12
(lack of positive culture) are the barriers which are classified as “effect barriers”. These
barriers (B1, B3, B5, B7, B8, B9, B10 and B12) are influenced by the cause barrier which hampers
the implementation of Green Lean practices. Absence of good communication (B8) was the
most affected by B2, B4, B6 and B11. The causal interactions of all identified barriers are
shown in Figure 3. In this Figure 3, B9 (Lack of dedicated supplier) has no relationship to other
 Analyzing
barriers of
Green Lean
practices

191

Figure 3.
Causal inter
relationships of
barriers

barriers. In Figure 3, arrow-headed lines indicate the causal interactions of one barrier to
another, whereas causal interactions of barriers between each other have been shown as a line
without an arrow. It has been found that B1 (Lack of environment knowledge) is having a 5th
rank (Table 6). In Figure 3, B1 (Lack of environment knowledge) is further related to B2 (Lack
of top management commitment), B3 (Resistance to change), B8 (Absence of good
communication), B10 (Absence of sound planning systems), B11(lack of awareness of
potential benefits) and B12 (Lack of positive culture). Therefore, eliminating environmentally
conscious (Green) barriers would also benefit in removing Lean barriers.
In light of the results of barrier B2 (lack of top management commitment), previous studies
have also identified this barrier as significant barriers. For example, Mittal et al. (2016) have
undertaken a study on barriers to Green Lean using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and
found that “lack of management engagement” has a considerable impact across the list of
barriers. It would be difficult to introduce Green Lean initiatives without the engagement of
the top management of the industrial industries (Leong et al., 2019). From Figure 3, we can see
that “B2” have causal interactions on B4 (financial restrictions) and B11 (lack of awareness
about potential benefits). In addition, as already discussed, barriers B1, B3, B5, B7, B8, B10 and
B12 are classified as being an effect barrier that would be impacted by B2, B6, B4 and B11.

7. Conclusions
In this paper, an attempt has been made to identify the barriers to implement Green Lean in
manufacturing industries through an extensive literature review and to analyze inter-
relationships amongst selected barriers. Green Lean concept has been recognized as an
emerging research area in today’s environmentally conscious world. Due to increasing
environmental issues, global competition and demand for high-quality products,
manufacturing organizations are under huge pressure for implementing Green Lean practices.
In the recent past, researchers have correlated Lean practices to the environment by
advocating the “Lean is Green” mantra, because lean strives to efficiency in production with
waste removal as well as green waste elimination (Baumer-Cardoso et al., 2020). Some studies
stated that lean is positive toward green, green is positive to lean but Green Lean are even
better together instead of just one alone (Carvalho et al., 2011). Scholars also argue that green
JMTM manufacturing is the same as sustainable manufacturing (Sangwan and Mittal, 2015;
32,1 Sangwan, 2011). Therefore, “Green Lean” paradigm may also be perceived as “sustainable
lean”. But, the execution of Green Lean is not an easy job, as several challenges may occur
during these initiatives (Cherrafi et al., 2017; Thanki and Thakkar, 2018).
This study contributes to the existing literature in three ways. First, it identifies the
exhaustive list of fifty-seven barriers to Green Lean based on the past literature. Second, it
categorizes the most relevant barriers to cause and effect groups. Third, it also presents the
192 degree of impact of barriers on each other.

7.1 Conclusions based on results

This paperexploresthe application of DEMATEL approachin the studyof barriers to theadoption
of Green Lean practices in manufacturing organizations. The DEMATEL model provides the
cause and effect diagram by using the opinions of experts. Twelve barriers were reported based on
the literature examination and discussions with eight experts. The DEMATEL paradigm is used
to explain the interrelationships with prominence development and net cause/effect diagram and
prominence—causal relationship diagram. On this basis, the categories of the primary barriers, the
most prominent barriers and the group of causes and effects have been made. The twelve selected
barriers are classified as cause and effect groups. The present study has attempted to strengthen
our understanding by identifying the challenges which could pose a critical and impedimental
function in Green Lean deployment. Among all the barriers most prominent barriers are B3, B2, B5,
B12 and B1 (Figure 2). But from Figure 3, it is concluded that these prominent barriers are caused by
the barriers B2, B4, B6 and B11 out of which B2 has the highest impact value. Similarly, B6 has second
highest impact value. So, it is suggested that B2 and B6 should be given due consideration. By
comparison, “lack of dedicated supplier” (B9) is the least prominent or affected barrier based on the
diagram of the prominence/causal relationship (Figure 3).

7.2 Practical implications

The explanation above illustrates the observations from the findings, which will help the
manufacturing organizations to clarify the most important barriers, the least significant barriers
and the relationships between these barriers. This knowledge will enable administrators to
increase awareness of the barriers in Green Lean implementation. Enhanced comprehension and
knowledge on these issues would allow manufacturers, researchers and policymakers to
effectively remove crucial hindrances to Green Lean initiatives. In addition, researchers from
other fields of industrial management could follow finding and discussions on the derived
findings. This analysis will thus serve as a basis for managers to improve their Green Lean
activities within their manufacturing organizations. The study may help the management of
manufacturing organizations to use its resources efficiently to focus attention on the most
significant barriers. The cause barriers are B2 (lack of top management commitment), B6
(insufficient government support), B4 (financial restrictions) and B11 (lack of awareness about
potential benefits). Results indicate that the commitment of the organization’s top management
to use Green Lean is very important. Similarly, government support and financial resources are
highly required if Green Lean strategies are to be successfully incorporated. Practitioners and
managers in manufacturing industries should more intensely address barriers enlisted under
cause category in the present study. Governments and policy-makers should implement various
programs and policies to make all stakeholders aware of Green Lean’s potential benefits.

7.3 Limitations
This study has some limitations too. The model used in this study relies on expert judgments
and this judgment may be biased. The initial matrix obtained from the experts may, however,
have been affected by the uncertainty of those relationships. Another limitation could be a Analyzing
selection of barriers to Green Lean adoption in manufacturing industries. Also, the influence barriers of
of ambiguity and human bias in the evaluation of the barriers have not been included in this
analysis. The barriers used for the analysis are not from a specific type of manufacturing
Green Lean
industry. practices

7.4 Future research 193

Researchers may extend this research work by analyzing a larger number of barriers in the
specific type of manufacturing industries and region. Future research may be carried out on
using ANP to understand the hierarchical inter-relationships between barriers to Green Lean.
Besides, researchers may extend this work by using other relevant multi-criteria decision
analysis methods to prioritize the barriers provided in Table 1.

References
Abdullah, M., Zailani, S., Iranmanesh, M. and Jayaraman, K. (2016), “Barriers to green innovation
initiatives among manufacturers: the Malaysian case”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 683-709.
Aly, W.O. (2014), “Lean production role in improving public service performance in Egypt: challenges
and opportunities”, Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 90-105.
Baumer-Cardoso, M.I., Campos, L.M., Santos, P.P.P. and Frazzon, E.M. (2020), “Simulation-based
analysis of catalyzers and trade-offs in Lean and Green manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 242, p. 118411.
Bhasin, S. (2012), “Prominent obstacles to lean”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 403-425.
Bhanot, N., Rao, P.V. and Deshmukh, S. (2017), “An integrated approach for analysing the enablers
and barriers of sustainable manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 No. 4,
pp. 4412-4439.
Birou, L.M., Green, K.W. and Inman, R.A. (2019), “Sustainability knowledge and training: outcomes
and firm performance”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 294-311.
Cagno, E., Trianni, A., Spallina, G. and Marchesani, F. (2017), “Drivers for energy efficiency and their
effect on barriers: empirical evidence from Italian manufacturing enterprises”, Energy efficiency,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 855-869.
Caldera, H., Desha, C. and Dawes, L. (2019), “Evaluating the enablers and barriers for successful
implementation of sustainable business practice in ’lean’ SMEs”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 218, pp. 575-590.
Carvalho, H., Duarte, S. and Machado, V.C. (2011), “Lean, agile, resilient and green: divergencies and
synergies”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 151-179.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K. and Mokhlis, A. (2017), “Barriers in Green Lean
implementation: a combined systematic literature review and interpretive structural modelling
approach”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 829-842.
Chung-Wei, L. and Gwo-Hshiung, T. (2009), “Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL
method: using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm”, in International Conference on
Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Springer, Berlin, pp. 789-796.
Darabi, R., Moradi, R. and Toomari, U. (2012), “Barriers to implementation of lean accounting in
manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Business and Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 38-51.
Del Val, M.P. and Fuentes, C.M. (2003), “Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study”,
Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 148-155.
JMTM Delgado, C., Ferreira, M. and Branco, M.C. (2010), “The implementation of lean six sigma infinancial
services organizations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,Vol. 21 No. 4,
32,1 pp. 512-523.
Dora, M., Kumar, M. and Gellynck, X. (2016), “Determinants and barriers to lean implementation in
food-processing SMEs–a multiple case analysis”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Farias, L.M.S., Santos, L.C., Gohr, C.F., De Oliveira, L.C. and Da Silva Amorim, M.H. (2019), “Criteria
194 and practices for lean and green performance assessment: systematic review and conceptual
framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 218, pp. 746-762.
Fontela, E. and Gabus, A. (1976), DEMATEL Observer, Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva.
Fu, X., Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2012), “Evaluating green supplier development programs at a
telecommunications systems provider”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140
No. 1, pp. 357-367.
Gaikwad, L. and Sunnapwar, V. (2020), “An integrated lean, green and six sigma strategies: a
systematic literature review and directions for future research”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 201-225.
Gandhi, S., Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P. and Kumar, D. (2015), “Evaluating factors in implementation of
successful green supply chain management using DEMATEL: a case study”, International
strategic management review, Vol. 3 Nos 1-2, pp. 96-109.
Gandhi, S., Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P. and Kumar, D. (2016), “A combined approach using AHP and
DEMATEL for evaluating success factors in implementation of green supply chain
management in Indian manufacturing industries”, International Journal of Logistics Research
and Applications, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 537-561.
Garc
ıa-Alcaraz, J.L., Maldonado-Mac
ıas, A.A. and Cortes-Robles, G. (2014), Lean Manufacturing in the
Developing World, Springer, Cham.
Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2015), “Green lean and the need for six sigma”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 06 No. 3, pp. 226-248.
Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D. and Haq, A.N. (2014), “Barriers analysis for green supply chain
management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147 No. B, pp. 555-568.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D. and Gavronski, I. (2013), “Reprint of Lean management
and supply management: their role in green practices and performance”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 56, pp. 86-93.
Harich, J. (2010), “Change resistance as the crux of the environmental sustainability problem”, System
Dynamics Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 35-72.
Hasan, M.A., Shankar, R. and Sarkis, J. (2007), “A study of barriers to agile manufacturing”,
International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Haynes, B., Suckley, L. and Nunnington, N. (2017), “Workplace productivity and office type”, Journal
of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 111-138.
Hokoma, R.A., Khan, M.K. and Hussain, K. (2010), “The present status of quality and manufacturing
management techniques and philosophies within the Libyan iron and steel industry”, The TQM
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 209-221.
Hu, A.H. and Hsu, C.W. (2010), “Critical factors for implementing green supply chain management
practice : an empirical study of electrical and electronics industries in Taiwan”, Management
research review, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 586-608.
Hussain, K., He, Z., Ahmad, N. and Iqbal, M. (2019), “Green, lean, six sigma barriers at a glance: a
case from the construction sector of Pakistan”, Building and Environment, Vol. 161,
p. 106225.
Inman, R.A. and Green, K.W. (2018), “Lean and green combine to impact environmental and Analyzing
operational performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 14,
pp. 4802-4818. barriers of
Jabbour, C.J.C., De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Govindan, K., De Freitas, T.P., Soubihia, D.F. and Kannan,
Green Lean
D., et al. (2016), “Barriers to the adoption of green operational practices at Brazilian companies: practices
effects on green and operational performance”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 3042-3058.
Jadhav, J.R., Mantha, S.S. and Rane, S.B. (2014), “Exploring barriers in lean implementation”, 195
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-148.
Kaur, J., Sidhu, R., Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. and Goyal, S. (2018), “A DEMATEL based approach for
investigating barriers in green supply chain management in Canadian manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 1-2, pp. 312-332.
King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001), “Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between lean production and environmental performance”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-256.
Kumar, S., Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kumar, N. and Haleem, A. (2016), “Barriers in green lean six
sigma product development process: an ISM approach”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 27 Nos 7-8, pp. 604-620.
Lee, Y.-C., Yen, T.-M. and Tsai, C.-H. (2008), “Using importance-performance analysis and decision
making trial and evaluation laboratory to enhance order-winner criteria-a study of computer
industry”, Information Technology Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 396-408.
Leong, W.D., Lam, H.L., Ng, W.P.Q., Lim, C.H., Tan, C.P. and Ponnambalam, S.G. (2019), “Lean and
green manufacturing—a review on its applications and impacts”, Process Integration and
Optimization for Sustainability, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Li, Y., Ye, F., Dai, J., Zhao, X. and Sheu, C. (2019), “The adoption of green practices by Chinese firms:
assessing the determinants and effects of top management championship”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 550-572.
Lin, R.-J. (2013), “Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 40, pp. 32-39.
Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S. and Haleem, A. (2011), “Barriers to implement green supply chain
management in automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling technique: an
Indian perspective”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 231-257.
Luthra, S., Garg, D. and Haleem, A. (2015), “An analysis of interactions among critical success factors
to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: an Indian perspective”,
Resources Policy, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., Noorulhaq, A. and Geng, Y. (2013), “An ISM approach for the
barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 47, pp. 283-297.
Mittal, V.K., Egede, P., Herrmann, C. and Sangwan, K.S. (2013), Comparison of Drivers and Barriers to
Green Manufacturing: A Case of India and Germany. Re-engineering Manufacturing for
Sustainability, Springer, Singapore, pp. 723-728.
Mittal, V.K., Sindhwani, R. and Kapur, P. (2016), “Two-way assessment of barriers to lean–green
manufacturing system: insights from India”, International Journal of System Assurance
Engineering and Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 400-407.
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P. and Raj, T. (2010), “Modelling the barriers of green supply chain
practices: an Indian perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 81-107.
Mutingi, M. (2013), “Developing green supply chain management strategies: a taxonomic approach”,
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 525-546.
JMTM Neto, G.C.O., Leite, R.R., Shibao, F.Y. and Lucato, W.C. (2017), “Framework to overcome barriers in the
implementation of cleaner production in small and medium-sized enterprises: multiple case
32,1 studies in Brazil”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 No. 1, pp. 50-62.
Pakdil, F. and Leonard, K.M. (2015), “The effect of organizational culture on implementing and
sustaining lean processes”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 725-743.
Panwar, A., Jain, R. and Rathore, A. (2016), “Obstacles in lean implementation in developing countries-
196 some cases from the process sector of India”, International Journal of Lean Enterprise Research,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 26-45.
€ and Alas, R. (2012), “Resistance to change in Indian, Chinese and Estonian organizations”,
Pihlak, U.
Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 224-243.
Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 1011-1029.
Rehman, M.a. A., Shrivastava, R.L. and Shrivastava, R.R. (2017), “Comparative analysis of two
industries for validating green manufacturing (GM) framework: an Indian scenario”, Journal of
The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 203-218.
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F.K. and Maxwell, J. (2001), “Lean, green, and the quest for superior environmental
performance”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 228-243.
Sadik, F. and Sadik, S. (2014), “A study on environmental knowledge and attitudes of teacher
candidates”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 116, pp. 2379-2385.
Sangwan, K.S. (2011), “Development of a multi criteria decision model for justification of green
manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Green Economics, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 285-305.
Sangwan, K.S. and Mittal, V.K. (2015), “A bibliometric analysis of green manufacturing and similar
frameworks”, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 566-587.
Sawhney, R. and Chason, S. (2005), “Human behavior based exploratory model for successful
implementation of lean enterprise in industry”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 76-96.
Seker, S. and Zavadskas, E.K. (2017), “Application of fuzzy DEMATEL method for analyzing
occupational risks on construction sites”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 11, p. 2083.
Sharma, V., Dixit, A.R. and Qadri, M.A. (2015), “Impact of lean practices on performance measures in
context to Indian machine tool industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1218-1242.
Sharma, V., Dixit, A.R. and Qadri, M.A. (2016), “Empirical assessment of the causal relationships
among lean criteria using DEMATEL method”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1834-1859.
Si, S.-L., You, X.-Y., Liu, H.-C. and Zhang, P. (2018), “DEMATEL technique: a systematic review of the
state-of-the-art literature on methodologies and applications”, Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, Vol. 2018, p. 3696457.
Sindhwani, R., Mittal, V.K., Singh, P.L., Aggarwal, A. and Gautam, N. (2019), “Modelling and analysis
of barriers affecting the implementation of lean green agile manufacturing system (LGAMS)”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 498-529.
Singh, P.K. and Sarkar, P. (2020), “A framework based on fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL for
sustainable product development: a case of Indian automotive industry”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 246, p. 118991.
Sivakumar, K., Jeyapaul, R., Vimal, K. and Ravi, P. (2018), “A DEMATEL approach for evaluating
barriers for sustainable end-of-life practices”, J Manuf Tech Manag, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 1065-1091.
Srivastav, P. and Gaur, M.K. (2015), “Barriers to implement green supply chain management in small Analyzing
scale industry using interpretive structural modeling technique-a north Indian perspective”,
European Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 6-13. barriers of
Thanki, S.J. and Thakkar, J. (2018), “Interdependence analysis of lean-green implementation
Green Lean
challenges: a case of Indian SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, practices
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 295-328.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of 197
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tzeng, G.-H. and Huang, J.-J. (2011), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications,
CRC press, New York.
Upadhye, N., Deshmukh, S. and Garg, S. (2016), “Lean manufacturing system implementation barriers:
an interpretive structural modelling approach”, International Journal of Lean Enterprise
Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 46-65.
Verrier, B., Rose, B. and Caillaud, E. (2016), “Lean and green strategy: the lean and green house and
maturity deployment model”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 116, pp. 150-156.
Vinodh, S. and Asokan, P. (2018), “ISM and Fuzzy MICMAC application for analysis of lean six sigma
barriers with environmental considerations”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 64-90.
Wee, H.-M., Yang, W.-H., Chou, C.-W. and Padilan, M.V. (2012), “Renewable energy supply chains,
performance, application barriers, and strategies for further development”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 5451-5465.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), “The Machine that Changed World, 1st HarperPerennial
ed, HarperPerennial, New York.
Wu, W.-W. and Lee, Y.-T. (2007), “Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy
DEMATEL method”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 499-507.
Yadav, G. and Desai, T.N. (2017), “A fuzzy AHP approach to prioritize the barriers of integrated lean
six sigma”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 8,
pp. 1167-1185.
Yadav, V., Jain, R., Mittal, M.L., Panwar, A. and Sharma, M.K. (2019), “An appraisal on barriers to
implement lean in SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 195-212.
Yadav, G., Luthra, S., Huisingh, D., Mangla, S.K., Narkhede, B.E. and Liu, Y. (2020), “Development of a
lean manufacturing framework to enhance its adoption within manufacturing companies in
developing economies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 245, p. 118726.
Yusliza, M.-Y., Norazmi, N.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Fernando, Y., Fawehinmi, O. and Seles, B.M.R.P. (2019),
“Top management commitment, corporate social responsibility and green human resource
management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 2051-2078.
Zhang, L., Narkhede, B.E. and Chaple, A.P. (2017), “Evaluating lean manufacturing barriers: an interpretive
process”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1086-1114.

About the authors

Er. Charanjit Singh is working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab (India). He has seven-years of industrial and three
years of teaching experience. He is perusing his Ph.D. in the area of Green Lean manufacturing
from Punjabi University, Patiala. Charanjit Singh is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: charanjit.nohra@gmail.com
Dr. Davinder Singh is working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab (India). He has 12 years’ experience in teaching and research. He has
guided a number of students for their M.Tech. work. Many students are pursuing their Ph.D. work under
him. He has published many research papers in National/International Journals and Conferences.
JMTM Dr. J. S. Khamba is working as a Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Punjabi
University, Patiala, Punjab (India). He has 30 years’ experience in teaching and research. He has guided a
32,1 number of students for their M.Tech. and Ph.D. work. Many students are pursuing their Ph.D. work
under him. He has a large number of research projects, conferences and consultancies to his credit. He
has published many research papers in National/International Journals and conferences.

198

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com