Journal Pre-proofs

Drivers of lithium-ion batteries recycling industry toward circular economy in

Industry 4.0

Asit Tripathy, Atanu Bhuyan, R.K. Padhy, Sachin Kumar Mangla, Roopendra
Roopak

PII: S0360-8352(23)00181-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109157
Reference: CAIE 109157

To appear in: Computers & Industrial Engineering

Received Date: 5 January 2022

Revised Date: 4 March 2023
Accepted Date: 10 March 2023

Please cite this article as: Tripathy, A., Bhuyan, A., Padhy, R.K., Kumar Mangla, S., Roopak, R., Drivers of
lithium-ion batteries recycling industry toward circular economy in Industry 4.0, Computers & Industrial
Engineering (2023), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109157

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Drivers of lithium-ion batteries recycling industry toward circular
economy in Industry 4.0

Asit Tripathy a
a Jindal Global Business School,

O P Jindal Global University, Haryana, India

E-mail: asittripathy111@gmail.com
asit.tripathy@jgu.edu.in

Atanu Bhuyan a
aJindal Global Business School,
O P Jindal Global University, Haryana, India
E-mail: atanu.bhuyan@gmail.com

R.K. Padhy b
b Indian Institute of Management, Sambalpur,

Odisha-768019, India
E-mail: rkpadhy@yahoo.com

Sachin Kumar Mangla a

a Jindal Global Business School,

O P Jindal Global University, Haryana, India

E-mail: sachinmangl@gmail.com
smangla@jgu.edu.in

Roopendra Roopak c
c Indian
Institute of Management, Kashipur
Uttarakhand-244713, India
E-mail: roopendra.fpm1716@iimkashipur.ac.in

'Declarations of interest: none'

For any clarification please contact corresponding author at:

sachinmangl@gmail.com

1
 Drivers of lithium-ion batteries recycling industry
toward circular economy in Industry 4.0
Abstract

An exponential demand increase for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) has contributed to a looming
waste crisis. Circular economy has been increasingly seen to counter this crisis, further scaled-
up by operationalizing Industry 4.0 disruptions around the triple bottom line. As a core pillar
of circular economy, this study addresses LIB recycling and explores its key drivers. The
drivers are identified and evaluated using Delphi study and multi-criteria decision-making
methods. The proposed integrated methodological framework is further tested with data
involving multiple stakeholders. The findings underscore the most profound causal drivers:
institutional incentives supporting LIB recycling, availability of reliable technology, and
strengthening coordination among actors in a supply chain using Industry 4.0. Interestingly,
the highest-ranking causal drivers of LIB recycling were retrieved not from the existing
literature but from the expert pool. The findings also reveal some counterintuitive results, such
as practitioners prioritizing environmental factors over economic ones instead of the
widespread convention of their preferences toward economic goals. The study thereby offered
some helpful policy levers, which when empirically strategized with Industry 4.0 should enable
stakeholders make more informed decisions in shaping an emerging industry such as LIB
recycling.

Keywords: Lithium-ion battery recycling, Circular economy, Triple bottom line, Delphi,
Industry 4.0, Decision Making

1. Introduction
In an imminent environmental crisis due to energy resource depletion and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, electrification of the transportation sector is a viable strategy for
sustainable development. Like most frontrunner countries actively promoting mass uptake of
electric vehicles (EVs), India is forging ahead with schemes such as Faster Adoption and
Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (FAME I, II). With Lithium-ion batteries
(LIBs) being preferred sources of energy source for most EVs, their consumption has risen
exponentially. Unfortunately, this has fetched an unprecedented accumulation of battery waste

2
toward their end-of-life (EoL). Circular economy (CE) strategies can be effective in countering
this waste crisis by closing the material flow loop (Albertsen et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2020).
The effectiveness can be further augmented using Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies such as,
horizontal/vertical system integration, big data analytics, blockchain, Internet of Things (IoT),
or smart bins (Acerbi et al., 2021; Birkel & Müller, 2021; Rosa et al., 2019). The disruptive
potential of I4.0 is actualized in form of strengthened collaboration among the actors in the
battery supply chain, and more capable monitoring of EoL LIB management practices (Yadav
et al., 2020).

CE is a regenerative system that involves closing, slowing, and shrinking energy and
material loops to reduce resource input, waste, emissions, and energy leakage — essentially
turning EoL products into resources (Stahel, 2016; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). The CE approach
plays a crucial role in realizing Sustainable Development Goal 12 (i.e., responsible
consumption and production) of the 2030 Agenda. Recycling is an essential part of such
strategies because it reduces the demand for primary LIB production and energy consumption
(Ziemann et al., 2018). However, the effectiveness of LIB recycling is contingent on efficient
data exchange among supply chain actors regarding the true status of battery components.
Under the I4.0 umbrella, disruptive technologies fuse virtual and physical worlds across the
battery life cycle to enable real-time information flow and facilitate effective EoL management
(Birkel & Müller, 2021; Wang & Wang, 2019). For example, RUBICONMarketplace1 was
launched in the United States to have I4.0 tools such as cloud computing to facilitate the live
tracking of recycling metrics toward the attainment of environmental sustainability,
particularly for materials that are not commonly taken up by conventional recycling programs
(e.g., batteries).

While the above example suggests the recycling market trend of increased I4.0 acceptance,
many companies in the western hemisphere are still struggling, let alone those in the Global
South. Such a predicament is symptomatic of several deficiencies:

 Recycling processes are acutely under-researched, specifically in the intersection of CE

and I4.0 (Dev et al., 2020); perceived barriers include the institutional/operational

1 RUBICONMarketplace is a collaborative effort by Rubicon (cloud-based recycling platform) and g2 revolution (specialty
recycler) to offer recycling solutions for hard-to-recycle materials, including batteries. More information can be availed at:
https://www.waste360.com/recycling/rubicon-and-g2-revolution-sell-businesses-and-residents-answer-hard-recycle-
materials

3
 complexities of adopting CE principles and the high costs of assimilating I4.0 into
sustainable development objectives.
 The growth of the LIB recycling industry is impeded by significant policy and
regulatory gaps in developing countries. For example, India does not have set
regulatory standards for the waste management of LIBs (Bonu & Panigrahi, 2019).
Although, new mandates2 are being developed, proper operationalization of CE and
I4.0 remains to be seen.
 LIB recycling practices are hindered by uncertainties regarding the roles and
obligations of different stakeholders in the value chain (Wrålsen et al., 2021; Yadav et
al., 2020).
 Lack of interaction among stakeholders regarding economic, social, and environmental
issues (Buys et al., 2014).
 Inadequacy in a detailed assessment of policy levers is required to strategically guide
the various stakeholders in developing a viable LIB recycling industry (Bhuyan et al.,
2022; King & Boxall, 2019).

With due consideration of the inadequacy in the existing literature to address the
abovementioned agenda, the present research is conducted to seek answers to the ensuing
inquiries:

(1) What are the critical drivers to LIB recycling from a circular economy perspective?
(2) Which drivers are the most noteworthy from the standpoint of various stakeholders in an
Indian context?
(3) How can decision-makers analyze the interrelationship between perceived drivers?
The current study begins with a detailed assessment of the LIB recycling literature to
address the first research question. Key drivers are synthesized using the triple bottom line
(TBL) analytical framework, considering the interplay of different aspects in decision-making.
It is further supplemented by a three-stage Delphi study that targets a pool of 32 experts from
the LIB recycling industry in India. The research adopts a multi-stakeholder perspective by
grouping the experts into 3 clusters: practitioners, policy-planners, and academicians. Data
gathered from the Delphi study is used to feed a ‘multi-criteria decision-making’ (MCDM)
analysis based on the integration of grey theory with the ‘decision-making trial and evaluation

2The Modi Government drafted ‘Battery Waste Management Rules 2020’. An amendment over ‘Battery Waste Management
Rules 2001’ adds LIBs to the list of batteries beyond lead-acid batteries. More information can be availed at:
https://theprint.in/environment/modi-govt-drafts-new-rules-on-battery-waste-management-wants-people-to-give-
suggestions/371391/

4
laboratory’ (DEMATEL) and ‘analytic network process’ (ANP) techniques. The ensuing grey-
DANP tool evaluates interrelationships among different drivers and identifies the most
significant drivers. The main contributions herein can be listed as follows:

 Drawing upon the intersection of CE and I4.0 to examine the unique perspectives of
three different stakeholder groups.
 Identifying and evaluating key drivers to LIB recycling that represent the intricacies of
a developing economy setting from a TBL framework.
 Demonstrating the use of an integrated framework of a 3-stage Delphi study and grey-
DANP technique to evaluate driver interdependencies.

The posited methodology facilitates the assessment of individual and combined

perspectives of each stakeholder cluster. It reflects the inclination and workable role of each
stakeholder group toward an emerging industry of LIB recycling. The most profound causal
drivers are institutional incentives supporting LIB recycling, availability of reliable
technology, and strengthening coordination among actors in a supply chain using I4.0. The
remainder of the article is broken down into six sections, including a comprehensive literature
assessment in section 2. A succinct description of the methodology in section 3 follows it.
Section 4 discusses the data analysis for the Delphi study, followed by the grey-DANP results.
The research discussions and insights from the findings are presented in section 5. The paper’s
conclusion is presented in Section 6.

2. Literature Review
This section summarizes the relevant literature on the TBL framework, drivers to LIB
recycling, and highlights the research gaps for the current study.

2.1. Triple Bottom Line Approach

It has been established that firms in any industry can only achieve long-term success if
they pay attention to the interests of their key stakeholders, beyond measuring traditional
financial bottom line (Norman & Macdonald, 2004). Conceptualized by (Elkington, 1998), the
triple bottom line (TBL) approach finds core relevance as a prevailing management tool.
Managers can employ this tool to identify activities to improve economic performance while
avoiding social and environmental activities that do not enable such improvement. Designing
a sustainable recycling network also requires a responsible operationalization of the TBL
approach (Reinhardt et al., 2019), a core agenda in CE. Accordingly, businesses are
increasingly adopting I4.0 technologies to enable operationalization of TBL by improving

5
information exchange across the entire product life cycle and considering ecological and social
factors (Birkel & Müller, 2021; Rosa et al., 2020).

Selected studies within the business management domain have used the TBL approach
in topics such as sustainable operations management (Devika et al., 2014; Kleindorfer et al.,
2005), sustainable construction (Ding, 2008; Janjua et al., 2020), environmental remediation
(Ridsdale & Noble, 2016), sustainable freight transportation (Shankar et al., 2018), and
corporate sustainability (Isil & Hernke, 2017). However, there is a lack of robust research on
the use of TBL in reverse logistics networks or the recycling industry. The closest relevant
study to battery recycling is Giovanni, (2018)’s proposal of a joint incentive mechanism for
battery manufacturers to promote spent battery recycling, which considers the needs of
manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. With a similar objective of assessing the need of
different stakeholders to identify opportunities for improvements in sustainable LIB recycling,
the present study uses TBL as an analytical framework like Liu et al. (2019). These key
opportunities are referred to as drivers, forming the core element of our first research question. This
study commences with a literature assessment to identify the drivers promoting the LIB
recycling industry.

2.2. Drivers to LIB recycling

The first cluster of drivers in the TBL framework is the economic opportunities that
encourage different stakeholders to uptake LIB recycling activities. Existing literature
recommends reducing production costs by the reuse and recycling of EoL LIB materials (E1)
to be one of such economic drivers (Albertsen et al., 2021; Araya et al., 2021; Rahman & Afroz,
2017; Richa et al., 2014; Song et al., 2019). Some studies (Bobba et al., 2019; Q. Qiao et al.,
2019; Rosendahl & Rubiano, 2019; Wang et al., 2014) agree on promoting LIB recycling by
curtailing raw materials imports for LIB production (E2), which can be enabled through better
management of in-use and second-use stocks of raw materials. It would, in turn, allow lower
reliance on imports and the development of low-carbon technologies and electricity storage
from recycled LIB. Governments worldwide are increasingly imposing bans on landfills
because of being a potential threat to the environment and human health (Ciez & Whitacre,
2019; King & Boxall, 2019; Winslow et al., 2018). In such a context, attaining economies of
scale for EoL LIB by landfill bans (E3) is an important driver (Boundy, 2020). Coordination
among actors in a supply chain (E4) is the next driver, enabled by using I4.0 technologies such
as IoT and RFID technology (Ai & Borucki, 2019; Bai et al., 2019; Taddei et al., 2022; Wang
& Wang, 2019). As such, the ensuing information sharing (feedback/feedforward) between

6
stakeholders can improve the design, operation, and service stages of LIBs. A few studies
(Casals et al., 2019; Song et al., 2019; Tripathy et al., 2022) stress the need for a favorable
outlook on LIB as a prime battery source for EVs (E5) for stakeholders to reap the maximal
recycling benefits. Additionally, governments/statutory agencies can rely on I4.0 technologies
to prepare policy instruments to incentivize/penalize businesses toward adopting CE strategies,
particularly LIB recycling (E6) (Lin, 2018).

The next cluster comprises the social drivers, beginning with creating employment
opportunities (S1) (Ha & Yang, 2017; Rahimi & Ghezavati, 2018; Vinante et al., 2021). The
next key social driver focuses on minimizing human health risks (S2), otherwise caused by the
hazardous materials that can leak from the batteries when disposed of in landfills (King &
Boxall, 2019; Rahman & Afroz, 2017; Sassanelli et al., 2019; Winslow et al., 2018). Finally,
increased consumer awareness and government monitoring capacities through I4.0
technologies would certainly drive firms to adopt LIB recycling as a part of responsible EoL
LIB management strategies (S3) (Ananno et al., 2021; de Paula et al., 2018; Dev et al., 2020;
Hao, Liu, et al., 2017; Yadav et al., 2020). Concerned stakeholders are increasingly aware of
the consequences of poor disposal of EoL LIBs. Therefore, they expect the producers to ensure
responsible disposal of spent batteries, making it imperative for the latter to do so.

The last cluster refers to the criteria that urge stakeholders to implement necessary
measures in mitigating environmental problems. Reducing CO2 emissions (e1) is a palpable
criterion that governs the LIB recycling industry. Battery-powered EVs contribute toward this
reduction while also addressing global warming through their improved performance and
efficiency (Lipu et al., 2018). However, production and disposal of LIBs involves greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions inherently (Hao et al., 2017; Rahman & Afroz, 2017). Recycling is a
sustainable solution to the growing waste problem for EoL batteries, as it positions waste as a
valuable secondary source of materials and elements. This is beneficial especially in countries
with scarce accessibility to critical EV battery materials (e.g., cobalt) (Harper et al., 2019).
Some studies focus on incorporating CE concepts into waste management strategies for EoL
LIBs in a bid to transform the traditional "take, make and dispose of" type supply chains into
stable closed-loop supply chains (Gaustad et al., 2018; Richa et al., 2014, 2017; Velázquez
Martínez et al., 2019). CE-inspired waste management strategies yield the most significant
environmental benefits in optimized resource utilization, recovery, and enhanced life cycle
economy of EVs. With due acknowledgment that the CE approach connects sustainable
development with environmental ethics (Qiao & Qiao, 2013), our next environmental driver is

7
 environmental ethics-based EoL management strategies (e3). We identified an additional
environmental driver beyond the purview of the literature assessment, viz. availability of
reliable technology (e4) for LIB recycling and reuse. We have categorized e4 under the
environmental cluster of the TBL framework owing to the predominantly ecological benefits
it can engender. The complete list of perceived drivers discussed here has been summarized in
Table 1.

Table 1
Drivers for LIB recycling industry
Item
Drivers Items Description Actors References
code
Reuse and recycle of the valuable constituent
Reducing production costs Governments, (Albertsen et al., 2021;
materials as per CE principles offer cheaper
E1 by reuse and recycle of EoL producers, end- Rahman & Afroz, 2017; Song
materials to meet LIB demands, thereby
LIB materials use sectors et al., 2019)
controlling their production costs.
Reducing reliance on raw materials import Governments,
through the management of in-use / 2nd-use producers, (Bobba et al., 2019; Rahman
Reducing import of raw
E2 raw material stocks would allow the recyclers, & Afroz, 2017; X. Wang et
materials for LIB production
development of low-carbon technologies and installers, end- al., 2014)
electricity storage use sectors
With landfill bans, 100% of the LIB EoL Governments,
Attaining Economies of (Boundy, 2020; Ciez &
material can be assumed to be submitted to recyclers,
E3 Scale for EoL LIB by Whitacre, 2019; Winslow et
recyclers for further processing, which entails installers,
Landfill bans al., 2018)
Economic

the advantages drawn from economies of scale consumers

Producers,
recyclers, end- (Ai & Borucki, 2019; Y. Bai
Strengthening coordination EV manufacturers partnering with other actors
use sectors, et al., 2019; Taddei et al.,
E4 among actors in a supply within the supply chain is facilitated through
distributors, 2022; X. V. Wang & Wang,
chain using I4.0 I4.0-enabled information sharing systems
installers, other 2019)
sectors
Increased penetration of EVs into the vehicle
Favorable outlook on LIB as
market would proportionately increase the Governments, (Casals et al., 2019; Song et
E5 a prime battery source for
predicted uptake of LIB, given it remains the producers al., 2019)
EVs
prime source for operating EVs
Governments or statutory bodies can
Institutional incentives incentivize the adoption of CE initiatives by Governments,
E6 From Delphi Round 1
supporting LIB recycling businesses, which can be further assisted using other sectors
I4.0 tools
Growth of LIB recycling activities will Governments, (Govindan et al., 2018; Ha &
Creating employment
S1 empower the core and surrounding industries, producers, Yang, 2017; Turmo et al.,
opportunities
thereby generating more job opportunities. recyclers 2018; Vinante et al., 2021)
Recovering and recycling LIBs will prevent (King & Boxall, 2019;
Consumers,
Minimizing human health the inflow of hazardous materials into the Rahman & Afroz, 2017;
S2 producers,
Social

risks landfills, thus minimizing risks to human Sassanelli et al., 2019;

recyclers
health. Winslow et al., 2018)
(de Paula et al., 2018; Dev et
Consumers,
I4.0 tools empower government and al., 2020; Hao, Mu, et al.,
Responsible EoL LIB producers,
S3 consumers to monitor the impact of improper 2017; Rosendahl & Rubiano,
management practices recyclers,
EoL LIB management practices by firms. 2019; Yadav et al., 2020);
government
From Delphi Round 1
Enabling the reuse and recycling of materials Producers,
Environmental

within LIBs will significantly impede the recyclers, end- (King & Boxall, 2019; Lipu et
e1 Reducing CO2 emissions
generation of greenhouse gases (GHG) during use sectors, al., 2018; Salim et al., 2019)
the production and disposal stages. consumers

Reducing energy Enabling CE-inspired reuse and recycling of Producers, (Hao, Mu, et al., 2017;
e2
requirement for recycling materials embedded in LIBs will save energy recyclers Rahman & Afroz, 2017)

8
 compared to virgin LIB consumption otherwise involved in producing
production new/virgin LIBs.

CE is usually applied to rectify the ethical

failings in the traditional linear supply chain
Governments,
Environmental ethics-based model. CE-inspired waste management (Y. Bai et al., 2019; F. Qiao &
e3 producers,
EoL management strategies strategies for EoL LIBs from EVs are rooted in Qiao, 2013; Richa et al., 2017)
recyclers
environmental ethics and offer significant
environmental benefits.
Promoting development and implementation
Governments,
Availability of reliable of emerging as well as disruptive technologies
e4 technologists, From Delphi Round 1
technology that enables recycling and reuse of LIB
academics
leading to ecological benefits

2.3. Research Gaps

The following research gaps are noted based on the literature review:
 The literature on LIB recycling highlights a lack of research on lithium recovery, despite
the growing importance due to the growing demand for LIBs in EVs (Ambrose & Kendall,
2019; Richa et al., 2017). Existing techniques need more efficiency for LIB recycling,
highlighted in curbing GHG emissions, diseconomies of scale in recycling operations,
recovering purity of materials, inadequate processing infrastructure, and poor legislation
and policies. These issues exacerbate the already pressing battery waste problem and
necessitate an understanding of key factors and their interrelationships in LIB recycling
(Richa et al., 2014).
 CE-inspired sustainable goals, its utility rises manifold in developing countries where the
EV revolution has become crucial for sustainable development (Martins et al., 2021; Zeng
et al., 2014). However, the integration of I4.0 into LIB recycling literature is scant.
Additionally, the existing research on LIB recycling or recovery does not adequately
address the unique complexities typical to developing economies such as India. To ensure
effective adoption of policies and practices for LIB recycling, an appropriate framework
must be developed.
 The complexity of LIB value chains requires collaboration among multiple stakeholders to
establish a sustainable circular economy through improved LIB recycling. While Wrålsen
et al. (2021) addressed circular business models and crucial stakeholders in promoting LIB
recycling, their study did not explore the drivers from a multi-stakeholder perspective.
Thus, further investigation is required to address fundamental causes from various
stakeholder viewpoints. It is critical to assess the inter-relationships among the drivers to
determine their influence (in terms of ‘prominence’ and ‘causality’). Unfortunately,

9
 literature on this topic is limited. Therefore, this paper aims to fill this gap by adopting an
integrated MCDM framework.

3. Methodology
This section provides a detailed evaluation of the available literature obtained through
the Scopus database. The keywords used for data collection include “Lithium-Ion Battery”,
“LIB”, “Electric Vehicle Battery”, “waste” “recycling”, “end of life”, “circular economy”.
Using the “title, abstract, keywords” search in the Scopus database, we collected and stored
peer-reviewed “journal” articles for the well-defined search terms.

Fig. 1. Proposed research framework

The primary search efforts resulted in a total of 504 articles. A further modification to
eliminate no refereed articles, commercial magazine papers, and those with unknown author
names and articles other than the English language resulted in 472 journal articles that appeared
up to 2020. We restricted our search to “Business, Management, and Accounting”, “Social

10
Sciences”, “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”, and “Decision Sciences”, which
produced 87 unique papers. We have followed Salim et al. (2019) for the
searching/including/excluding rules of the literature. Through a synthesis of the existing
literature and a Delphi study with experts, we generated a list of 13 drivers that we subsequently
refined. We analyzed the finalized list of drivers using a grey-DANP technique, which is
illustrated in Fig. 1.

3.1. Delphi Method

In the LIB recycling industry, landfill disposal remains a dominant method of waste
management of EoL LIBs (Stone, 2020), except in regions where landfilling has been banned
due to the severe environmental repercussions (Winslow et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2018).
Additionally, the absence of regulations mandating LIB recycling makes decision-making and
planning for such a young industry complex (Ai & Borucki, 2019). Many studies recommend
considering the role of multiple stakeholders in dealing with such levels of complexity
effectively. Notable contributions include: Reed et al. (2014), who emphasized the importance
of designing and implementing knowledge exchange processes to support environmental
management from the perspectives of principal investigators, project managers, researchers,
and facilitators; Taefi et al. (2016) analyzed policy drivers for electric vehicles in road-based
freight transportation in Germany, considering stakeholder perspectives of policymakers and
freight EV users; and Govindan et al. (2021) assessed key performance indicators based on
manufacturer-supplier collaboration to improve supply chain performance from various
managerial stakeholder perspectives (e.g., finance, strategic planning, production, sourcing,
and product development) stakeholder perspectives.

The present study finds the Delphi method an adequate tool for systematically
investigating the complicated and novel research problem. This empirical tool allows expert
opinions from various functional groups through a process of multiple stages to converge
towards a consensus (Venkatesh et al., 2017). Therefore, we use the Delphi method for its
highly credible outcomes that can avoid possible peer pressure. It also helps us obtain
pragmatically assessed opinions of the participating experts economically, unbounded by their
geographical locations. Moreover, it is crucial for our context due to its current infancy stage.

The Delphi method, illustrated in Fig. 1, involves three rounds to achieve a consensus
among experts regarding the drivers contributing to LIB recycling in the Indian context. The
first round gathers open-ended responses from participants, which are analyzed along with
relevant literature to generate a list of drivers. The second round reduces the list based on factor

11
importance, and the third round involves the use of pairwise correlation matrices and grey-
DANP analysis to examine inter-influence among the drivers from a multi-stakeholder
viewpoint. The final findings are presented to the experts to establish a consensus.

3.2. Grey DANP Method

The associated research methodology usually showcases two key components: data
collection and analysis. While the Delphi method serves the first component, the second
component is sufficed for by applying MCDM tools. Integrating MCDM approaches with a
Delphi study is a recommended research technique to compensate for the latter's limitations in
terms of variation in the criteria for selecting experts, allowing continuous alterations in the
experts' judgments, and paucity of proper guidelines, among others (Nigussie et al., 2019; Pan
& Nguyen, 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2017). Our third research question demands causal analysis
in a system of multiple interdependent drivers. DEMATEL is seen to be the most appropriate
MCDM tool, whose popular choice over other MCDM methods can be seen in various studies
(Acuña-Carvajal et al., 2019; Raj et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2011), including another popular
MCDM method - Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM). While 0-1 binary levels are used in
ISM, DEMATEL offers more versatility through its binary relationships and accounts for the
disparities in the interrelationships among the criteria (Bai & Sarkis, 2013). DEMATEL has its
own set of limitations in using discrete values to decipher complex and subjective judgments
of the experts, which otherwise come with a reasonable amount of incompleteness, biases, and
uncertainty. The assessment process can incorporate ambiguity and uncertainty using the grey
set theory technique. It is a vital approach for the theoretical analysis of systems with limited
samples and uncertain data. Grey theory has been integrated with DEMATEL to overcome this
limitation, as this has been shown to obtain more satisfactory results (Bai & Sarkis, 2013;
Bhatia et al., 2020)

A second MCDM tool is further integrated with grey-DEMATEL, viz. the Analytical
Network Process (ANP), to enable evaluation of the driver interdependencies between different
clusters and within individual clusters. ANP allows us to acquire the evaluated driver weights
and then rank them accordingly (Pan & Nguyen, 2015). We, therefore, adopt an integrated
grey-DANP method to attempt driver assessments with more accuracy. Several studies have
proven DANP to be a reliable technique for comparable decision-making analysis, including
Lu et al. (2013), Pan & Nguyen (2015), and Govindan et al. (2018).

We utilized the grey-DANP process based on Kumar & Anbanandam (2020) and Pan
& Nguyen (2015), which is comprised of the following steps:

12
Step 1: Computing the initial relation matrices — 𝑚 initial relationship matrices were collected
based on the 𝑙 experts' impact rating, where the influence of driver 𝑖 on driver 𝑗 is evaluated
using a discrete scale.
Step 2: Formulating the grey relational matrices — where, each element is the grey number ⊗
𝑋𝑙𝑖𝑗 denoted as representing the impact of driver 𝑖 on driver 𝑗 for an expert 𝑙.

Step 3: Formulating the average grey relational matrix (AGRM) — [ ⊗ 𝑋𝑖𝑗] is computed from
𝑚 grey relational matrices.
Step 4: Computing the crisp relation matrix — 𝐶𝑖𝑗∗ is computed using the “Converting Fuzzy-
data to a Crisp Score” (CFCS) approach on the AGRM [ ⊗ 𝑋𝑖𝑗].

Step 5: Computing the normalized direct, crisp relation matrix — 𝐵.

Step 6: Formulating the total relationship matrix (TRM) — 𝜏.

Step 7: Computing the cause-and-effect values — by computing prominence (𝑅𝑖 + 𝐷𝑗) and
relation (𝑅𝑖 ― 𝐷𝑗).

Step 8: Computing the threshold value and plotting the cause-and-effect digraph — where,
threshold value is computed as the summation of the mean (𝜇) and one standard deviation (𝜎)
of 𝜏.

Step 9: Constructing unweighted supermatrix — 𝑊𝑢.

Step 10: Computing the weighted supermatrix — 𝑊.

Step 11: Obtaining a long-term stable supermatrix — lim (𝑊)δ .

δ →∞

The detailed computing procedure can be accessed from the Appendix I.

4. Results
4.1. Data Analysis
The seven-month data-gathering period for the three-stage Delphi study runs from
August 15, 2020, to March 20, 2021. We consider multiple experts ' input to incorporate the
multi-stakeholder perspective into the Delphi study. These experts represented three
stakeholders: practitioner, policy-planner, and academician. Experts serving critical positions
in the industry with at least ten years of experience are involved in data collection, such as
CEOs, CSOs, senior managers, consultants, entrepreneurs, policy-planners, and academicians
in the Indian setting. In the first round of the study, 32 open-ended responses were collected

13
from 51 originally sent questionnaires. We looked for seasoned individuals in top roles in this
industry and used a detailed interactive procedure to get responses with the lowest cognitive
biases possible (Bolger & Wright, 2011). Table 2 presents the experts' detailed information,
including their position, organization, educational qualification, and years of work experience.
Furthermore, the study's questionnaire was carefully crafted to limit observable correlations
between successive questions, avoiding anchoring or "context-induced" bias (Winkler &
Moser, 2016). Controlled feedback from expert replies delivered over numerous rounds is used
further to reduce bias (Nguyen et al., 2019).

Table 2
Experts’ details
Stakeholder
Type of Organization
Group
LIB manufacturing unit,
Practitioner Electric Vehicle OEMs, Battery
recycling firm, Automotive firm
Federal/State Government,
policy-planner Autonomous organization,
Inter-Governmental body
Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Operations
Academic Management, Supply Chain
researcher Management, Environmental
Management, Transportation
Engineering,
Years of
Education
Expert Position Experience
Qualification
(Average)
Vice President,
Doctoral degree: 2
Director, CEO, CSO,
Master’s degree: 4 11.3 years
Senior Manager, Project
Bachelor’s degree: 6
Manager,
Director, Assistant Doctoral degree: 1
Director, Senior Master’s degree: 3 14.1 years
Consultant, Consultant Bachelor’s degree: 5
Professor, Associate
Professor, Assistant Doctoral degree:8
12.6 years
Professor, Doctoral Master’s degree: 3
Candidate

The following example demonstrates how the coding techniques were used in this
study. Respondent-11 mentioned: "Technology that enables recycling/reusing," and
respondent-24 said: "Not sure about the right technology for LIB recycling." It can be deduced
into an ‘axial code’ as: "Availability of reliable technology." Furthermore, Respondent-5
mentioned: "Incentives for companies who adopt such green initiatives," and respondent-12
mentioned: "Viability Gap funding for the manufacturer and long-term user." The resulting
‘axial code’ is written as "Institutional incentives supporting LIB recycling." Coding is
similarly conducted for other driver criteria. The outcomes of the literature review and first
round of the Delphi study are determined as important criteria for the subsequent rounds.
Thirteen critical criteria are listed as drivers of LIB recycling, as shown in Table 1.

During the second round of the Delphi study, we gather perspectives about the relative
importance of the drivers. As suggested by (Saaty, 1988), we used Pareto's 80/20 principle to
trim down to a manageable size of 10 drivers for effective pairwise comparison. Further, a
statistical test is performed to verify the differences between selected and dropped drivers. As

14
presented in Table 3, the result showed a substantial difference among chosen and dropped
criteria (shaded values) with a significance level α = 0.05, with p = 0.001 < α (Glickman et al.,
2014). Three drivers with lower importance scores were eliminated following the comparison
test outcomes.

Table 3
Drivers in the order of level of importance
Level of Standardized Cumulative
Drivers Percentage
importance important values percentage
E6 4.412 1.126 8.484 8.484
E2 4.353 0.965 8.371 16.855
e4 4.294 0.804 8.258 25.113
E4 4.235 0.643 8.145 33.258
S1 4.176 0.482 8.032 41.290
E3 4.118 0.322 7.919 49.208
e1 4.059 0.161 7.805 57.014
e3 4.059 0.161 7.805 64.819
E5 4.000 0.000 7.692 72.511
S2 3.941 -0.161 7.579 80.090
S3 3.824 -0.482 7.353 87.443
e2 3.294 -1.930 6.335 93.778
E2 3.235 -2.091 6.222 100.000
Average 4.000 0.000
Maximum 4.412 1.126
Minimum 3.235 -2.091
Standard deviation 0.366 -9.936

The questionnaire for the subsequent round is developed based on the results from the
second round. In this round, 21 professionals (eight practitioners, six policy-planners, and
seven academicians) contributed to the purpose. The initial relationship matrices were obtained
from the expert panel's interviews over five months which individually lasted around ninety
minutes. These matrices are then used as input for the grey-DANP process.

4.2. Grey-DANP Results

The interdependencies between the different driver criteria from Table 1 are evaluated
using the proposed grey-DANP method. The causal relationship between the drivers is captured
by deploying the first part of the MCDM tool: grey-DEMATEL. The total relationship matrix
for the combined stakeholders' view is presented in Appendix II(c); the corresponding results
(average relation matrices, crisp relationship matrices, total relationship matrices, and long-
term stable supermatrices) for each stakeholder group viz. practitioners, policy-planners, and
academicians can be accessed in the Appendix II. A digraph is used to illustrate the
correlations between the driver criteria, with Pi values on the horizontal axis and Ei values on
the vertical axis. The digraph is divided into four quadrants by the two axes (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4)

15
which help visualize the degree of effect of each criterion. The criteria with positive and
negative Ei values are seen in the 'Cause' and 'Effect' regions. The criteria with positive and negative
Ei values are seen in the 'Cause' and 'Effect' regions, respectively. Q1 and Q2 constitute the
'Cause' region, where the criteria are causal drivers that influence the facilitation of drivers that
fall in the 'Effect' region, otherwise constituted by Q3 and Q4. Drivers in Q1 are understood to
influence other drivers more readily due to their higher prominence than Q2 drivers. Similarly,
drivers in Q4 are more readily influenced by the ones in Q3. Fig.2 presents digraphs that show
the cause-effect relationships between driver criteria based on stakeholder groups and
combined perspectives.

Fig 2. Cause-and-effect digraphs

From this combined perspective, the interrelationship among the different driver
criteria influences can be further comprehended using the influence relationship digraph shown
in Fig. 3.

16
 Fig. 3. Influence relationship digraph

The DANP method is continued by introducing ANP to acquire the relative weights of
influence for the driver criteria. Although the unweighted supermatrix can be used to obtain
driver interactions, the impact of all criteria can be determined by deriving their global weights
from the long-term stable supermatrix (Pan & Nguyen, 2015). The long-term stable supermatrix
is obtained after the multiplication of the normalized total influence relation matrix, as
presented in Appendix II(d). The research findings of the grey-DANP method are summarized
in the form of the global weights and rankings for each criterion, which are presented for all
cases of stakeholder perspectives in Table 4.

Table 4
Summary of driver weights and ranking
Global Weight (Rank)
Driver
Practitioner Policy-planner Academician Combined

E1 0.122 (2) 0.127 (3) 0.107 (5) 0.12 (3)

E3 0.113 (3) 0.115 (5) 0.095 (8) 0.11 (4)
E4 0.096 (6) 0.119 (4) 0.098 (6) 0.102 (5)
E5 0.09 (7) 0.105 (6) 0.116 (3) 0.098 (8)
E6 0.137 (1) 0.13 (2) 0.138 (1) 0.138 (1)

17
 S1 0.057 (10) 0.022 (10) 0.044 (10) 0.041 (10)
S2 0.086 (8) 0.042 (9) 0.057 (9) 0.06 (9)
e1 0.113 (4) 0.085 (8) 0.098 (6) 0.101 (7)
e3 0.085 (9) 0.102 (7) 0.113 (4) 0.102 (5)
e4 0.101 (5) 0.152 (1) 0.134 (2) 0.128 (2)

5. Discussion
5.1. Discussion of findings
As seen in the top-left plot of Fig.2, only four of the ten driver criteria (in order of
prominence: E6 > e1 > e4 > E5) fall into the 'Cause' zone, representing the practitioners'
perception of driver relationships. It indicates that, according to practitioners, institutional
incentives supporting LIB recycling are the most significant driver with a direct role for LIB
recycling, followed by reducing CO2 emissions. The remaining six drivers fall within the
'Effect' region in the following order of prominence: E1 > E3 > E4 > e3 > S2 > S1. Therefore,
practitioners find reducing production costs by reuse and recycling of EoL LIB materials to be
the most affected driver criteria, indicating an important albeit indirect role for LIB recycling.
The driver S2 lies almost at the fence between the two groups. It indicates that minimizing
human health risks may have primary and secondary/tertiary roles in driving the success of the
LIB recycling industry and, therefore, should not be ignored.

The plot to the right of the previous case (Fig.2) is the policy-planners' perspective,
showing considerable variation in the mapping of drivers. Five of ten drivers fall within the
'Cause' region, all within Q1 — indicating high prominence overall. The following order of
prominence is observed in this case: e4 > E1 > E6 > E4 > E3. The environmental criterion of
availability of reliable technology is given the highest importance by policy-planners, followed
by economic criteria such as reducing production costs by reusing and recycling EoL LIB
materials and institutional incentives supporting LIB recycling. The other half of the criteria
fall under the 'Effect' region in the following order of prominence: e3 > E5 > e1 > S2 > S1.
Environmental considerations precede policy-planners for derivative drivers such as
environmental ethics-based EoL management strategies.

In the bottom-left plot of Fig.2, academic viewpoints are displayed. In order of

importance, three criteria are listed in the 'Cause' section: e4 > E6 > E4. The economic criteria
E3 lies distinctly on the horizontal axis, implying to be neither a causal nor an effect driver. As
such, the availability of reliable technology is significant both from an academic and policy
standpoint. Since it shows higher prominence than E4, academics should consider attaining

18
economies of scale for EoL LIB by Landfill bans to have a primary and secondary/tertiary role
in shaping the LIB recycling industry. The remaining criteria fall in the 'Effect' region with the
following order of prominence: E5 > e3 > E1 > e1 > S2 > S1. Research considerations include
a favorable outlook on LIB as a prime battery source for EVs to have an important, albeit
indirect, contribution toward the viability of LIB recycling. The last plot in Fig.2 represents a
combined perspective of driver relationships, with economic drivers gaining precedence both
as causal (E6: institutional incentives supporting LIB recycling) and effect (E1: reducing
production costs by reusing and recycling EoL LIB materials).

The influence relationship digraph of Fig.3 showcases the interrelationships among

various drivers that are significant by specific interdependency values in the TRM (refer to
Step 8 of the grey-DANP process). Resultantly, the digraph features solid bi-directional arrows
indicating that both driver criteria influence each other (e.g., e4↔E6 or e3↔e1). The dotted
unidirectional arrows represent the relative influence based on their direction (E6→E4 or
E5→E6); the color codes herein signify the corresponding TBL dimension of the causal driver
from Table 1. From the interrelationship patterns in the digraph, one may infer that a low causal
prominence of the social drivers is consistent across all perspectives, reflected in their low
interaction with other criteria, as shown in the digraph.

While grey-DEMATEL provided a cause-effect diagram to map the influence relations

of the driver criteria, some ambiguity remains in the Pi and Ei values as to which criteria deserve
the most focus in a unilateral sense. The summarized results of the grey-DANP approach from
Table 6 help us identify institutional incentives supporting LIB recycling as the most important
driver based on all stakeholder perspectives besides policy-planners. Policy-planners still
prioritize this driver, but less than the environmental criteria of the availability of reliable
technology. Ironically enough, these criteria (E6 and e4) were not obtained from existing
literature but sourced from the field through the Delphi study. They are the drivers that
incorporate the application of I4.0 technologies into recycling processes. Therefore, it is a
crucial finding that demonstrates the utility served by the Delphi method in contributing
something novel to the body of work on LIB recycling. Also worth noting is that the social
drivers find low priority from all perspectives. However, since they are seen to be effect criteria
in all cases of cause-effect digraphs, focusing on more prominent and influencing drivers
should help address the social dimension.

19
5.2. Practical Implications
The present research applies the Delphi method to scrutinize the criteria obtained from
the literature and compile experts' preferences from different stakeholder groups. It is done to
evaluate the identified criteria and understand their role as driving forces toward establishing a
viable and sustainable LIB recycling industry. The grey-DEMATEL results are illustrated in
the form of the cause-and-effect as well as the influence relationship digraphs. These outcomes
can help all stakeholders identify their individual roles in the LIB recycling industry by
focusing on the critical causal drivers while also considering prominent effect drivers. The
grey-DANP extension provides a clearer outlook on the driver rankings, implying that
stakeholders invest more time and resources to understand and address the highest-ranked
criteria. The practical implications derived from this study are of primary concern to
practitioners and policy-planners in the LIB recycling industry.

The practitioner's perspective dominates over other stakeholders within the combined
variant of driver interrelationships. This observation is particularly true when highly prominent
drivers are concerned. Practitioners emphasize institutional incentives supporting LIB
recycling, a highly prominent causal criterion, and the highest-ranked driver. Although this
being an economic driver is expected from practitioners, there needs to be more consistency in
the results about them putting economic gains over other goals. It indicates that practitioners
should sometimes prioritize environmental criteria (e.g., reducing CO2 emissions) over
economic criteria (e.g., strengthening coordination among actors in a supply chain using I4.0).
Such nuanced considerations could ensure reliable decision-making in a potentially volatile
industry such as LIB recycling.

The success of the LIB recycling industry in an emerging economic setting such as
India would require contributions from various stakeholder groups. Policy-planners' decision-
making is pivotal in driving the success of sustainable LIB recycling. For example, proper
incentive regulations targeting industry practitioners would encourage more effective LIB EoL
management practices and make recycling more pervasive among stakeholders, such as end-
users and other sectors indirectly linked to LIBs. This study finds that policy-planners depend
on the availability of reliable technology for a thriving LIB recycling industry. Again, it is not
to be misconstrued that policy makers should prioritize drivers that are anything but of
economic nature. The rankings suggest that policy-planners may focus on several economic
drivers for effective LIB recycling policies, such as reducing production costs by reusing and
recycling EoL LIB materials and institutional incentives supporting LIB recycling.

20
Furthermore, increased effectiveness of CE strategies through most of these drivers can be
achieved with the assistance of I4.0 technologies.

5.3. Theoretical Implications

The present research provides a unique set of theoretical contributions that can be of
primary interest to academic stakeholders. Before this study, King & Boxall (2019) is one of
the few contributions found to address the development of the LIB recycling industry. While
their study concerned the industry landscape in a developed setting, we explore a more intricate
prospect a developing country scenario. Moreover, a more detailed data analysis is
incorporated to develop a deeper insight into the interdependencies among the criteria that
govern this emerging industry.

The research also draws on the overarching notion of CE posited by Birkel & Müller
(2021) based on its intersection with I4.0 and TBL, with the motive of protecting the
sustainability essence of LIB recycling to a broader audience. Using the results from the
proposed framework, we help reinforce the idea akin to Isil & Hernke (2017) that optimal trade-
off among economic, social, and environmental criteria for an effective support system for the
industry. The social drivers notably show low rankings and causal influences. Nevertheless,
more focus on the other highly ranked causal drivers may be understood to affect the social
dimension indirectly.

Isil & Hernke (2017) also argued the unattainability of true sustainability by making it
a firm-level goal. The present research thereby conveys the sustainable development of the LIB
recycling industry instead as a system-level problem, which is apparent from the multi-
stakeholder approach adopted in this study. This stance subscribes to the agency tenet of CE
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017), which emphasizes the influence of actors in system-level changes.

The highest-ranked causal drivers are institutional incentives supporting LIB recycling
(economic) and availability of reliable technology (environmental), two unique drivers
obtained through the Delphi study. These drivers highlight the cross-fertilization of I4.0 and
CE practices while fulfilling gaps in the literature previously shown by Birkel & Müller (2021).

Key theoretical implications can also be derived from a methodological aspect. Our
findings help demonstrate the importance of using an integrated (Delphi and grey-DANP)
approach to identify significant drivers and comprehend their interrelationships. Such
information could be vital for decision-making stakeholders of an emerging industry in a
dynamic developing environment such as India.

21
6. Conclusion
This study presents critical opportunities that motivate stakeholders to promote the
recycling of LIB in emerging economies. With the growing popularity of electric vehicles, the
need for LIBs is skyrocketing. However, as these LIBs approach their EoL, such an increase
creates a waste problem. Furthermore, due to different limiting criteria ranging from
operational to strategic-level difficulties, there is a recycling gap that needs to be addressed in
the literature. Therefore, this study draws on CE concepts to explore the key drivers of LIB
recycling from different stakeholder perspectives and understand their interrelationships. A
three-stage integrated Delphi study is carried out to investigate the research questions. First, a
detailed literature review was conducted using a TBL analytical framework to reveal the
criteria acting as drivers for LIB recycling. It is followed by a Delphi survey, in which
participants' open-ended responses on perceived drivers of LIB recycling relevant to the Indian
context are collected in the first round. The second round reduced the number of criteria on the
list to a more reasonable number. Finally, in the third round of the study, the pairwise
correlation matrix is collected in a grey linguistic scale to conduct DANP, which assesses the
inter-relationship among the identified drivers from a multi-stakeholder perspective. The
study's outcome was then discussed with the experts who established an accord.

The outcome of the integrated Delphi study implies that institutional incentives
supporting LIB recycling (E6) is the top-ranked causal driver for all stakeholders except for
policy-planners. Policy-planners rated the availability of reliable technology (e4) as the
highest-ranked causal driver. Interestingly, both top-ranked causal drivers have been obtained
through the Delphi study. This finding reflects the utility of the Delphi method in divulging
important drivers for an emerging industry where existing literature does not suffice. With due
acknowledgment of the overall findings, the present research is a welcome addition to the CE
literature incorporating I4.0 and TBL.

We conclude with an overview of the limitations of our work and the future scope of
research. The data collection in our study involved a rigorous format of pairwise data entry.
Consequently, it involved substantial respondent fatigue that may have affected the responses.
The study's outcome depends on subjective responses from the expert. Further research can
validate the findings by assigning weights to the experts as per their importance. Moreover,
since the LIB recycling industry is in its infancy, the study relies on a stated preference
approach. It, in turn, may suffer from assuming the rational behavior of the experts while
responding to the questionnaire. Furthermore, this study is based mainly on the LIB recycling

22
landscape of India; extending the scope to different geographical settings may involve the
consideration of additional criteria. An empirical exploration of implementing I4.0 into CE
strategies specific to LIB recycling is a reasonable extension of our study.

References
Acerbi, F., Sassanelli, C., Terzi, S., & Taisch, M. (2021). A systematic literature review on data and
information required for circular manufacturing strategies adoption. Sustainability (Switzerland),
13(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042047
Acuña-carvajal, F., Pinto-tarazona, L., López-ospina, H., Barros-castro, R., Quezada, L., & Palacio,
K. (2019). An integrated method to plan , structure and validate a business strategy using fuzzy
DEMATEL and the balanced scorecard. Expert Systems With Applications, 122, 351–368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.01.030
Ai, N., & Borucki, K. (2019). US end-of-life electric vehicle batteries: Dynamic inventory modeling
and spatial analysis for regional solutions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 145, 208–
219.
Albertsen, L., Richter, J. L., Peck, P., Dalhammar, C., & Plepys, A. (2021). Circular business models
for electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries: An analysis of current practices of vehicle
manufacturers and policies in the EU. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 172(443),
105658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105658
Ambrose, H., & Kendall, A. (2019). Understanding the future of lithium Part 2 , temporally and
spatially resolved life-cycle assessment modeling. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(1), 90–100.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12942
Ananno, A. A., Masud, M. H., Dabnichki, P., Mahjabeen, M., & Chowdhury, S. A. (2021). Survey
and analysis of consumers’ behaviour for electronic waste management in Bangladesh. Journal
of Environmental Management, 282, 111943.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111943
Araya, N., Ramírez, Y., Kraslawski, A., & Cisternas, L. A. (2021). Feasibility of re-processing mine
tailings to obtain critical raw materials using real options analysis. Journal of Environmental
Management, 284, 112060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112060
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2013). A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process
management critical success factors. Intern. Journal of Production Economics, 146(1), 281–292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011
Bai, Y., He, H., Li, J., Li, S., & Wang, Y. (2019). Battery anti-aging control for a plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle with a hierarchical optimization energy management strategy. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 237, 117841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117841
Bhatia, M. S., Jakhar, S. K., Mangla, S. K., & Gangwani, K. K. (2020). Critical factors to
environment management in a closed loop supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255,
120239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120239
Bhuyan, A., Tripathy, A., Padhy, R. K., & Gautam, A. (2022). Evaluating the lithium-ion battery
recycling industry in an emerging economy: A multi-stakeholder and multi-criteria decision-

23
 making approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 331(December 2021), 130007.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130007
Birkel, H., & Müller, J. M. (2021). Potentials of industry 4.0 for supply chain management within the
triple bottom line of sustainability – A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 289, 125612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125612
Bobba, S., Mathieux, F., & Blengini, G. A. (2019). How will second-use of batteries affect stocks and
flows in the EU? A model for traction Li-ion batteries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
145(January 2019), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.022
Bolger, F., & Wright, G. (2011). Improving the Delphi process: Lessons from social psychological
research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1500–1513.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.007
Bonu, S. R., & Panigrahi, D. S. (2019). Recollection and Recycling of Automotive Lithium Ion
Batteries in India. IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference (ITEC-India), 1–5.
Boundy, T. (2020). How much material can a recycling facility source ? A business-incentive based
model for secondary material sourcing applied to waste LCD screen material. Resources,
Conservation & Recycling, 152(September 2019), 104528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104528
Buys, L., Mengersen, K., Johnson, S., van Buuren, N., & Chauvin, A. (2014). Creating a
Sustainability Scorecard as a predictive tool for measuring the complex social, economic and
environmental impacts of industries, a case study: Assessing the viability and sustainability of
the dairy industry. Journal of Environmental Management, 133, 184–192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.013
Casals, L. C., Amante García, B., & Canal, C. (2019). Second life batteries lifespan: Rest of useful
life and environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 232(October 2017),
354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.046
Ciez, R. E., & Whitacre, J. F. (2019). Examining different recycling processes for lithium-ion
batteries. Nature Sustainability, 2(2), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0222-5
de Paula, I. C., Campos, E. A. R. de, Pagani, R. N., Guarnieri, P., & Kaviani, M. A. (2018). Are
collaboration and trust sources for innovation in the reverse logistics? Insights from a systematic
literature review. Supply Chain Management, 25(2), 176–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-
2018-0129
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(January 2019), 104583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104583
Ding, G. K. C. (2008). Sustainable construction-The role of environmental assessment tools. Journal
of Environmental Management, 86(3), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Stony
Creek, Conn.: New Society Publishers.
Gaustad, G., Krystofik, M., Bustamante, M., & Badami, K. (2018). Circular economy strategies for
mitigating critical material supply issues. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135(January),
24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.002

24
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy – A
new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Giovanni, P. De. (2018). A joint maximization incentive in closed-loop supply chains with competing
retailers : The case of spent-battery recycling. European Journal of Operational Research,
268(1), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.01.003
Glickman, M. E., Rao, S. R., & Schultz, M. R. (2014). False discovery rate control is a recommended
alternative to Bonferroni-type adjustments in health studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
67, 67, 850–857.
Govindan, K., Aditi, Dhingra Darbari, J., Kaul, A., & Jha, P. C. (2021). Structural model for analysis
of key performance indicators for sustainable manufacturer–supplier collaboration: A grey-
decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory-based approach. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 30(4), 1702–1722. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2703
Govindan, K., Shankar, M., & Kannan, D. (2018). Supplier selection based on corporate social
responsibility practices. International Journal of Production Economics, 200, 353–379.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.09.003
Ha, M. H., & Yang, Z. (2017). Comparative analysis of port performance indicators: Independency
and interdependency. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 103, 264–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.06.013
Hao, H., Liu, Z., Zhao, F., Geng, Y., & Sarkis, J. (2017). Material flow analysis of lithium in China.
Resources Policy, 51(November 2016), 100–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.12.005
Hao, H., Mu, Z., Jiang, S., Liu, Z., & Zhao, F. (2017). GHG Emissions from the Production of
Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles in China. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040504
Harper, G., Sommerville, R., Kendrick, E., Driscoll, L., Slater, P., Stolkin, R., Walton, A.,
Christensen, P., Heidrich, O., Lambert, S., Abbott, A., Ryder, K., Gaines, L., & Anderson, P.
(2019). Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles. Nature, 575, 75–86.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1682-5
Isil, O., & Hernke, M. T. (2017). The Triple Bottom Line: A Critical Review from a Transdisciplinary
Perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(8), 1235–1251.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1982
Janjua, S. Y., Sarker, P. K., & Biswas, W. K. (2020). Development of triple bottom line indicators for
life cycle sustainability assessment of residential buildings. Journal of Environmental
Management, 264, 110476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110476
Jones, B., Elliott, R. J. R., & Nguyen-Tien, V. (2020). The EV revolution: The road ahead for critical
raw materials demand. Applied Energy, 280, 115072.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115072
King, S., & Boxall, N. J. (2019). Lithium battery recycling in Australia: defining the status and
identifying opportunities for the development of a new industry. Journal of Cleaner Production,
215, 1279–1287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.178
Kumar, A., & Anbanandam, R. (2020). Evaluating the interrelationships among inhibitors to
intermodal railroad freight transport in emerging economies : A multi- stakeholder perspective.

25
 Transportation Research Part A, 132(December 2019), 559–581.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.023
Lin, K. Y. (2018). User experience-based product design for smart production to empower industry
4.0 in the glass recycling circular economy. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 125(June),
729–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.06.023
Lipu, M. S. H., Hannan, M. A., Hussain, A., Hoque, M. M., Ker, P. J., Saad, M. H. M., & Ayob, A.
(2018). A review of state of health and remaining useful life estimation methods for lithium-ion
battery in electric vehicles: Challenges and recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production,
205(September), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.065
Liu, X., Schraven, D., Bruijne, M. De, Jong, M. De, & Hertogh, M. (2019). Navigating Transitions for
Sustainable Infrastructures — The Case of a New High-Speed Railway Station in Jingmen ,
China. Sustainability, 11(15), 4197.
Lu, M., Lin, S., & Tzeng, G. (2013). Improving RFID adoption in Taiwan ’ s healthcare industry
based on a DEMATEL technique with a hybrid MCDM model. Decision Support Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.06.006
Martins, L. S., Guimarães, L. F., Botelho Junior, A. B., Tenório, J. A. S., & Espinosa, D. C. R. (2021).
Electric car battery: An overview on global demand, recycling and future approaches towards
sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 295(June), 113091.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113091
Nguyen, S., Chen, P. S., Du, Y., & Shi, W. (2019). A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated
deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks. Transportation Research
Part E, 129, 203–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.08.002
Nigussie, Y., Wesselink, R., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2019). Think outside the European
box: Identifying sustainability competencies for a base of the pyramid context. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 221, 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.255
Norman, W., & Macdonald, C. (2004). Getting to the Bottom of the “Triple Bottom Line.” Business
Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243–262.
Pan, J. N., & Nguyen, H. T. N. (2015). Achieving customer satisfaction through product-service
systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 247(1), 179–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.018
Qiao, F., & Qiao, N. (2013). Circular Economy : An Ethical and Sustainable Economic Development
Model. Prakseologia, 154, 253–272.
Qiao, Q., Zhao, F., Liu, Z., & Hao, H. (2019). Electric vehicle recycling in China: Economic and
environmental benefits. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140(July 2018), 45–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.003
Rahimi, M., & Ghezavati, V. (2018). Sustainable multi-period reverse logistics network design and
planning under uncertainty utilizing conditional value at risk ( CVaR ) for recycling construction
and demolition waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1567–1581.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.240
Rahman, A., & Afroz, R. (2017). Lithium battery recycling management and policy. International
Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, 13(3), 278–291.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJETP.2017.084497

26
Raj, A., Kumar, J. A., & Bansal, P. (2020). A multicriteria decision making approach to study barriers
to the adoption of autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part A, 133(May 2019), 122–
137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.013
Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., & Kruijsen, J. H. J. (2014). Five principles for the
practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. Journal of Environmental
Management, 146, 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.021
Reinhardt, R., Christodoulou, I., Gassó-Domingo, S., & Amante García, B. (2019). Towards
sustainable business models for electric vehicle battery second use: A critical review. Journal of
Environmental Management, 245, 432–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.095
Richa, K., Babbitt, C. W., & Gaustad, G. (2017). Eco-Efficiency Analysis of a Lithium-Ion Battery
Waste Hierarchy Inspired by Circular Economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 715–730.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12607
Richa, K., Babbitt, C. W., Gaustad, G., & Wang, X. (2014). A future perspective on lithium-ion
battery waste flows from electric vehicles. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 83, 63–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.008
Ridsdale, D. R., & Noble, B. F. (2016). Assessing sustainable remediation frameworks using
sustainability principles. Journal of Environmental Management, 184, 36–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.015
Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., & Terzi, S. (2019). Towards Circular Business Models: A systematic
literature review on classification frameworks and archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production,
236, 117696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117696
Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., & Terzi, S. (2020). Assessing relations between
Circular Economy and Industry 4.0: a systematic literature review. International Journal of
Production Research, 58(6), 1662–1687. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1680896
Rosendahl, K. E., & Rubiano, D. R. (2019). How Effective is Lithium Recycling as a Remedy for
Resource Scarcity? Environmental and Resource Economics, 74(3), 985–1010.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00356-5
Saaty, T. L. (1988). Thomas L. Saaty. In Mathematical models for decision support (pp. 109–121).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Salim, H. K., Stewart, R. A., Sahin, O., & Dudley, M. (2019). Drivers , barriers and enablers to end-
of-life management of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems : A systematic
literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 537–554.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.229
Sassanelli, C., Rosa, P., Rocca, R., & Terzi, S. (2019). Circular economy performance assessment
methods: A systematic literature review. In Journal of Cleaner Production (Vol. 229, pp. 440–
453). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.019
Shankar, R., Choudhary, D., & Jharkharia, S. (2018). An integrated risk assessment model: A case of
sustainable freight transportation systems. Transportation Research Part D, 63, 662–676.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.07.003
Shen, Y. C., Lin, G. T. R., & Tzeng, G. H. (2011). Combined DEMATEL techniques with novel
MCDM for the organic light emitting diode technology selection. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(3), 1468–1481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.056

27
Song, J., Yan, W., Cao, H., Song, Q., Ding, H., Lv, Z., Zhang, Y., & Sun, Z. (2019). Material flow
analysis on critical raw materials of lithium-ion batteries in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 215(January), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.081
Stahel, W. R. (2016). The circular economy. Nature News, 531(7595), 435.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315270326-38
Stone, M. (2020, March). Most lithium batteries end up in a landfill. A new bill aims to change that.
Grist Magazine, Inc.
Taddei, E., Sassanelli, C., Rosa, P., & Terzi, S. (2022). Circular supply chains in the era of industry
4.0: A systematic literature review. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108268
Taefi, T. T., Kreutzfeldt, J., Held, T., & Fink, A. (2016). Supporting the adoption of electric vehicles
in urban road freight transport – A multi-criteria analysis of policy measures in Germany.
Transportation Research Part A, 91, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.003
Tripathy, A., Bhuyan, A., Padhy, R., & Corazza, L. (2022). Technological , Organizational , and
Environmental Battery Recycling. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3164288
Turmo, V., Rahimi, M., Gonzales, E. J., & Armstrong, P. (2018). Evaluating Potential Demand and
Operational Effects of Coordinated Americans with Disabilities Act Paratransit and Taxi
Service. Transportation Research Record, 2672(8), 686–697.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118796732
Velázquez Martínez, O., Van Den Boogaart, K. G., Lundström, M., Santasalo-Aarnio, A., Reuter, M.,
& Serna-Guerrero, R. (2019). Statistical entropy analysis as tool for circular economy: Proof of
concept by optimizing a lithium-ion battery waste sieving system. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 212, 1568–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.137
Venkatesh, V. G., Zhang, A., Luthra, S., Dubey, R., Subramanian, N., & Mangla, S. (2017). Barriers
to coastal shipping development : An Indian perspective. Transportation Research Part D, 52,
362–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.016
Vinante, C., Sacco, P., Orzes, G., & Borgianni, Y. (2021). Circular economy metrics: Literature
review and company-level classification framework. In Journal of Cleaner Production (Vol.
288). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125090
Wang, X., Gaustad, G., Babbitt, C. W., & Richa, K. (2014). Economies of scale for future lithium-ion
battery recycling infrastructure. “Resources, Conservation & Recycling,” 83, 53–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.009
Wang, X. V., & Wang, L. (2019). Digital twin-based WEEE recycling, recovery and remanufacturing
in the background of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Production Research, 57(12), 3892–
3902. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1497819
Winkler, J., & Moser, R. (2016). Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 105, 63–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.021
Winslow, K. M., Laux, S. J., & Townsend, T. G. (2018). A review on the growing concern and
potential management strategies of waste lithium-ion batteries. Resources, Conservation &
Recycling, 129, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.001

28
Wrålsen, B., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Mejia-Villa, A., O’Born, R., Hellström, M., & Faessler, B. (2021).
Circular business models for lithium-ion batteries - Stakeholders, barriers, and drivers. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 317, 128393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128393
Yadav, G., Kumar, A., Luthra, S., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Kumar, V., & Batista, L. (2020). A framework
to achieve sustainability in manufacturing organisations of developing economies using industry
4.0 technologies’ enablers. Computers in Industry, 122, 103280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103280
Zeng, X., Li, J., & Singh, N. (2014). Recycling of Spent Lithium-Ion Battery: A Critical Review.
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 44(10), 1129–1165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2013.763578
Zheng, X., Zhu, Z., Lin, X., Zhang, Y., He, Y., Cao, H., & Sun, Z. (2018). A Mini-Review on Metal
Recycling from Spent Lithium Ion Batteries. Engineering, 4(3), 361–370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.05.018
Ziemann, S., Müller, D. B., Schebek, L., & Weil, M. (2018). Modeling the potential impact of lithium
recycling from EV batteries on lithium demand : A dynamic MFA approach. Resources,
Conservation & Recycling, 133, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.031

29
Research Highlights

 Lithium-ion batteries (LIB) recycling is important in circular and digital era.

 Explored the drivers of LIB recycling from a triple bottom line viewpoint.
 Used integrated Delphi method to evaluate relationships between drivers.
 Developed framework is tested with data from multiple stakeholders from India.
 Institutional incentives supporting LIB recycling is the key driver.

30
Drivers of lithium-ion batteries recycling industry toward circular
economy in Industry 4.0

Author Credit Statement:

All author (s) have contributed equally throughout the manuscript preparation.

'Declarations of interest: none'

For any clarification please contact corresponding author at:

sachinmangl@gmail.com

31