Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Barriers to the adoption of electric vehicles: Evidence from India

Pradeep Kumar Tarei a, b, *, Pushpendu Chand a, Himanshu Gupta c
a
Vinod Gupta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
b
GITAM Institute of Management, Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management (A Deemed to be University), Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India
c
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

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

Article history: The ever-growing global concern on climate change caused due to vehicular greenhouse gas emission
Received 22 August 2020 coupled with the depletion of natural resources is driving global economies towards the adoption of
Received in revised form alternate fuel technology. Electric vehicles (EV) are positioned as an alternate green and clean technology
8 November 2020
which potentially can enable the efficient transition to sustainable low-carbon emission transportation
Accepted 4 January 2021
Available online 11 January 2021
system and preservation of natural scare resources. Despite announcing favorable policy measures to
encourage EV adoption, the multiplicity of potential barriers with mutual interaction has resisted its
Handling editor: Dr. Govindan Kannan penetration in several countries. Though researchers have identified the barriers, but the question “How
EV barriers mutually interact among themselves?” has remained largely unanswered in empirical
Keywords: research. Unpacking the relationship within barriers will empower manufacturers, policymakers in
Sustainable transportation strategic planning, and devising suitable measures in controlling the barriers. A hybrid two-phased
Battery electric vehicle multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) tools are applied. Firstly, quantitatively BWM (Best-Worst
Barrier analysis Method) is applied in ranking and prioritizing the important barriers/sub-barriers. The obtained sub-
Decision making framework
barriers are then analyzed to establish a mutual relationship using interpretive structural modelling
(ISM). This study has been conducted for the Indian EV context with a focus on technological, infra-
structural, financial, behavioural, and external barriers. Ranking and prioritization of EV barriers provides
a framework for decision-makers to focus on high-priority barriers/sub-barriers in addressing them
through preferential resource allocation. The strength of the relationship among barriers to EV adoption
was established based on corresponding driving and dependence power. The research finding suggests
that EV barriers such as performance and range, the total cost of ownership, shortage of charging
infrastructure, lack of consumer awareness about EV technology are critically influential in driving EV
adoption. Our research contributes to building an improved understanding of the multifaceted nature of
EV barriers and its inter-dependencies in policy and decision making.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction eighth Clean Energy Ministerial meeting in Beijing, China, em-

“The EV30@30 campaign complements India’s ambition to-
wards increased electric mobility to meet its developmental and
environmental challenges. India has the world’s most ambitious
renewable energy capacity addition programme and electric vehi-
cles offer potential synergies with this initiative”. The statement
from a former Secretary of Power in Government of India in ‘EV
30@30’, a campaign launched under the Electric Vehicle Initiative
(EVI) in 2017, aimed at increasing uptake of electric vehicles at the
* Corresponding author. Vinod Gupta School of Management, Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, 721302, India.
E-mail addresses: pradeep.tarei@gmail.com (P.K. Tarei), pushpendu.chand@
gmail.com (P. Chand), himanshuguptadoms@gmail.com (H. Gupta).
phasizes Indian government’s commitment towards adoption of
electric vehicle and thereby moving towards low carbon economy
(International Energy Agency, 2017).
India, with 2299 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emission in
2018, is growing at a faster rate than any other major energy-
consuming nation and presently positioned as the third highest
emitter of carbon dioxide after China and United States (IEA, 2019).
The Indian transportation sector is the largest consumer of petro-
leum products and accounts for 55% of the total domestic con-
sumption and responsible for the country’s nearly 7.5% carbon
dioxide emission (MoSPI, 2017). The sector is significantly depen-
dent on imported crude oil and accounted for USD 86 billion in
2016e17 (Yes Bank Limited and TERI Council for Business
Sustainability, 2018).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125847
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta
To counter the global threat emanating from green house gas
(GHG) emission, air pollution, and dependence on depleting fossil
fuel, a transition of transportation system towards a low carbon, the
environmentally sustainable regime is imminent (Biresselioglu
et al., 2018). As a significant step towards reducing greenhouse
gas emission in transportation and logistics sector, eight major
nations e Canada, China, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, the
United Kingdom and the United States of America pledged to in-
crease the share of electric vehicles in their government fleets
through a declaration at the Marrakech Climate Change Conference
(IEA, 2016). Complementing global initiative in the transition to EV,
the Indian Government has set a goal to move to 100% Electric
Vehicles (EV) by 2030 (NITI Aayog and Rocky Mountain Institute,
2017).
“Despite the progress so far, electric vehicles still have a long
way to go before reaching a scale that would make a significant
dent in global oil demand growth and greenhouse gas emissions”
(IEA, 2016). This comment from the executive director of the In-
ternational Energy Agency highlights the fact, that, despite signif-
icant global initiatives and policy drives for boosting EV sales,
consumer acceptance is still considerably less for creating any
mainstream impact. The EV car population per 1000 people in the
world’s top three market-China, Europe, and the United States are
1.6, 2.6, and 3.4 respectively. Similarly, the EV car percentage share
in passenger car running on the road for China, Europe, and the
United States are 0.94, 0.5, and 0.45 respectively. According to a
PWC (2019), EV sales in India in 2019 were nearly 0.76 million
primarily driven by two-wheelers (16.4%) and three-wheelers
(83%), constitutes less than 3% of total sales (SIAM, 2020). In view
of the above-mentioned statistics, it is imperative for the govern-
ment and policy-making bodies to formulate the right mix of
strategies to counter the potential EV barriers. Researchers have
positioned EV to offer multiple advantages such as improvement of
air quality by no GHG emission, better efficiency, lower operational
cost, recharging using renewable energy (Haddadian et al., 2015;
O’Neill et al., 2018). Despite these benefits, acceptance to EV is
challenged with numerous barriers like higher energy storage cost,
limited charging infrastructure, the time required for charging, etc
(Nair et al., 2017; She et al., 2017; Haddadian et al., 2015). In the
following paragraphs, India’s electric mobility landscape and
several policy initiatives have been discussed.
The automobile sector in India, which accounts for 7.5% of the
country’s GDP plays a major role in employment generation. The
automotive industry has witnessed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
amounting nearly US$ 21 billion during the period from April 2000
to March 2019. According to data released by (FDI India, 2020).
India recorded a 20% growth in sales of EV (excluding E-Rickshaws)
in 2019e20 with sales number of 1.56 lakh EVs primarily accounted
by electric two-wheelers (SMEV, 2020). The Indian EV market
achieved $71.1 million by revenue in 2017 and is expected to attain
a market size of $707.4 million by 2025, expecting a CAGR of 34.5%
during the forecast period. According to ‘Global EV Outlook 2019’
by IEA (2019), EV market share in India is estimated to grow to 29%
of the entire automobile market. Bloomberg New Energy Finance
(2020) in its report on electric vehicle long-term outlook, pre-
dicted the EVs’ market share in India to attain near 40% of the total
passenger vehicle fleet with faster adoption of electric two-
wheelers, rickshaws and electric buses. The Indian government,
in a series of policy initiatives through its multiple departments and
policy framing bodies, has implemented favorable measures to
encourage the transition to electric mobility from conventional
transport systems driven by internal combustion engines (ICE).
Draft National Energy Policy (2017) by NITI AAYOG emphasized on
the technological advancement of EV technology and creating
electricity distribution and battery charging infrastructure for
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847
relatively higher acceptability of EV. With a focus to create global
leadership in EV manufacturing and to create local EV
manufacturing in India, the Department of Heavy Industry (2013),
under Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises,
launched ‘National Electric Mobility Mission Plan 2020 (NEMMP)’.
To prioritize the adoption of EV, the Indian government imple-
mented ‘Faster Adoption and Manufacture of (Hybrid and) Electric
Vehicles (FAME)’ scheme by granting a rebate in EV purchase
(FAME India, 2017). The research motivation for the current
research has been discussed in the following section.
Globally, automakers are facing the challenge of bringing the
right balance between the ICE vehicles and electric vehicles port-
folio. While the former ICE technology is often more profitable with
larger customer acceptability, EV portfolio favors in complying with
emission mandates (McKinsey and Company, 2017; Moriarty and
Honnery, 2013; Zhao et al., 2020). Indian automotive industry,
which contributes significantly towards economic growth with job
creation, is one of the largest employment generators in India with
the employment of around 35 million (SIAM, 2020). Any disruption
in the automotive/road transportation industry in transition from
conventional ICE vehicles to EVs can have a negative impact on the
overall performance of the sector and may cause a loss in
employment. It is therefore critical to devise a balanced mix of
policy initiatives to create a favorable regime for EV transition
without any substantive impact on the business prospect for the
entire industry at large. Therefore, research towards EV barriers,
their identification, ranking, and inter-relationship, will support
policymakers in designing their EV strategy with the right balance
of incentives specific to transportation pattern usually different for
countries (Lieven, 2015).
Researchers have adequately explored the EV markets for
various geographical locations and identified potential barriers
towards implementation of the same (O’Neill et al., 2018;
Haddadian et al., 2015). Gong et al. (2020) studied the impact of
various government incentives on the market penetration of BEV in
Australia. Shafiel et al. (2017) developed a simulation based model
to compare various supportive and prohibitive scenarios to reduce
the greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand. Kiani (2017) studied
the impact of EV market penetration on green-house gas emissions
in United Arab Emirates. Song et al. (2018) performed a compara-
tive analysis of conventional diesel vehicles and EV to assess the
actual GHG emissions and their reduction in Macau. A considerable
amount of research is also available suggesting governments and
local agencies with proposals and recommendations which may
help overcome the EV barriers (Wikstrom et al., 2016; Kester et al.,
2018). The overpowering impact of barriers on the enablers often
results in lower consumer acceptance and necessitates the need for
further research to devise policy support specifically designed to
the local and regional level (Biresselioglu et al., 2018). It has been
often observed that importance of barriers tend to differ across
different geographical and economical conditions. Berkeley et al.
(2018) highlighted the presence of interrelatedness among the
studied EV barriers through factor analysis and suggested focusing
on the abridged set of barriers based on the strength of association
among them to reduce the complexity of the problem. Liao et al.
(2016) reviewed the consumer preferences and policy attributes
of adopting EV. Hence the relative scarcity of research to provide
quantitative support in explaining the strength of barriers and their
interrelationship leaves enough scope for investigation (Berkeley
et al., 2017).
This research work is conducted for the Indian automobile/road
transportation industry which is undergoing a transition from
existing ‘Bharat Stage IV’ to a more stringent emission norm ‘Bharat
Stage VI’ to reduce GHG emission in the environment. Additionally,
the Indian Government through its policy framework has also
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta
initiated significant steps in promoting EV for greater market
acceptance which can reduce urban pollution by lowering the
consumption of fossil fuel. Mass market transition to EV can reduce
the country’s oil import bill and thereby current account deficit. For
developing effective policy on EV, important barriers of EV are
required to be identified and the dominant barriers are to be
prioritized. Unpacking the relationship within barriers can
empower manufacturers, policymakers in strategic planning, and
devising suitable measures in controlling the barriers. The mutual
relationship among the EV sub-barriers based on corresponding
driving and dependence power will enable informed decision
making. This study has been conducted for the Indian EV context
with a holistic focus on technological, infrastructural, financial,
behavioral, and external barriers. Our study captured inputs from
experts representing EV manufacturers, consumers, and industry
representative bodies to address the following research
motivations.
✓ To identify critical EV barriers which can potentially impact the
faster EV adoption in India.
✓ To prioritize and rank EV barriers based on their respective
impact on overall adoption.
✓ To establish the inter-relationship among the EV barriers.
✓ To propose a level-wise structural model of EV barriers based on
their relative driving and dependence power
✓ To provide with decision-making framework for policy makers
and researchers in formulating EV policies with future research
implications.
Remaining part of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2
summarizes systematic literature review is outlined. Explanation
on research methodology is detailed in Section 3. Results are pre-
sented in Section 4 followed by sensitivity analysis in Section 5.
Section 6 highlights the discussion and concluding remarks on the
research work with direction for future research is mentioned in
Section 7.
2. Literature review
2.1. EV barriers in global context
Researchers around the globe have studied and reviewed the
dynamics of the EV markets for various geographical locations and
identified potential barriers towards implementation of the same
(O’Neill et al., 2018; Haddadian et al., 2015) and presented research
implications to augment policy initiatives. Biresselioglu et al. (2018)
conducted a study on electric mobility in Europe and identified the
lack of charging infrastructure, higher EV price, long charging time,
increased electricity demand for EV, scarce availability of battery
raw material as barriers in the mass adoption of EV. Berkeley et al.
(2018) investigated the EV adoption barriers amongst barriers in
the United Kingdom and proved that the high purchase price of EV
and limited charging stations are substantive barriers against mass
EV uptake. She et al. (2017), in their survey on China’s public
perception of EV, established safety, reliability, and range as the top
three EV concerns. Barriers to EV adoption for the Irish market was
studied by O’Neill et al. (2018) through a case study and inferred
that lack of promotion and awareness on EV, absence of incentive
regime are crucial barriers. Noel and Sovacool (2016), through their
case study on EV firm operated in Denmark and Israel, emphasized
consumer resistance to change the usage behavior, higher EV
capital cost and shortage of charging infrastructure as the crucial
barriers for failure the studied firm. The transition of EV in the U.S.
is analyzed by Greene et al. (2014), who emphasized the uncer-
tainty related to EV technology and limited impact of public policies
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847
are impeding factors; also emphasized the need of future research
on EV barriers to reduce associated uncertainty and to provide a
decision-making framework for policy development. Consumer
behavior, knowledge, and perception play a major role in purchase
decision; therefore, it is an important area for future studies (Larson
et al., 2014). The presence of synergistic interaction among multiple
EV stakeholders facilitates faster EV adoption as demonstrated by a
case study conducted by Li et al. (2016) at Shenzhen province of
China. Vassileva and Campillo (2017), in their investigation of EV
barriers for Sweden, inferred ‘lack of strong incentive program’ as
the potential adoption barrier.
2.2. EV barriers in Indian context
Prakash et al. (2018) studied and modeled the barriers applying
the ISM approach for mass adoption of Electric Vehicles in the Indian
automotive sector and identified government incentives and con-
sumer characteristics as are most critical barriers towards mass-
market implementation of EV. Public awareness, government
commitment, and financial constraints are the top three crucial
prioritized barriers for the development of the electric vehicle
market in India (Digalwar and Giridhar, 2015). Nair et al. (2017), in
their research work on EV adaptation in India, highlighted insuffi-
cient charging infrastructure as the major barrier for EV. Gujarathi
et al. (2018) analyzed the Indian EV market with consumer
perspective and government policies; and recommended consumer
awareness and policies are the limiting barriers. Vidhi and
Shrivastava (2018) reviewed the EV lifecycle emission in the Indian
context and suggested policy recommendations for EV adoption. In a
white paper titled “EV-Ready India Part 1: Value Chain Analysis of
State EV Policies” developed by World Economic Forum (2019) in a
collaborative study with Ola Mobility Institute, emphasized the need
of devising an EV promotion policies to enable large scale charging
infrastructure with supportive financial models.
2.3. EV barriers with categorization
Noel and Sovacool (2016), in their case study of an EV firm
operated in Denmark and Israel, highlighted the synergies of social,
technical, political, and environmental barriers causing the failure.
Biresselioglu et al. (2018) in their extensive review of e-mobility in
Europe identified EV barriers and classified them as major four
categories i.e. infrastructural, economic, technical, and environ-
mental categories. She et al. (2017) explored the barriers to the
mass adoption of EV for the Chinese market through a public survey
and categorized the barriers as financial, infrastructural, and
vehicle performance. Sierzchula et al. (2014), analyzed the EV
adoption for 30 countries, characterized barriers in two groups
namely general barriers and innovation barriers. Berkeley et al.
(2017), in their categorization of EV barriers, clustered them into
three categories, technical, financial/economic, and attitudinal.
Researchers have interchangeably used terms such as “attitudinal”,
“psychological”, “behavioral” to signify barriers related to con-
sumer perception, scepticism, and awareness. Similarly, barriers
pertaining to EV cost, TCO are indistinctly categorized as “eco-
nomic” or “financial” barriers. Barriers, which are usually beyond
the control of industry participants and largely governed by policies
and regulations are termed as “external” barriers in our study. We
have furthered the previous research work and classified the bar-
riers in five major categories “Technical”, “Infrastructural”, “Finan-
cial”, “Behavioural”, and “External” based on their origination with
due reference from empirical research.
We have identified eighteen EV sub-barriers based on an
extensive literature review representing various geographical re-
gions and opinions collected from representatives of Indian EV
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta
manufacturers. These EV sub-barriers are then categorized into five
major category barriers namely technical, infrastructural, financial,
behavioral, and external based on their characteristics. A detailed
literature review with the categorization of EV barriers and sub-
barriers is represented in Tables 1-14.
2.4. Critical analysis of literature review with gap
Exploratory research findings on EV barriers (Section 2.1) sug-
gest the presence of a wide range of barriers, which usually vary
across geographies and scenarios based on the combination of
multiple context-specific factors (Kumar and Kumar, 2020). The
effectiveness of policies and incentives towards reducing the effect
of barriers also largely vary owing to local and regional techno-
logical maturity level, infrastructural advancement, consumer
awareness, and acceptance to EV, among others. Biresselioglu et al.
(2018) highlighted the scarcity of available research in exploring EV
barriers at the collective level. Furthermore, due to the apparent
interconnectedness among barriers, a comprehensive ecosystem
approach is mandated to be more effective rather than countering
EV barriers at the individual level (Berkeley et al., 2018). Though
several types of research highlighted the EV barriers for India, there
is limited empirical evidence in the ranking, prioritizing the EV
barriers with the possible interaction among them. Therefore,
structuring policy recommendations specific to a country requires
deeper contextual investigation focusing on the mutual relation-
ship among barriers to overcome the EV barriers in a meaningful
manner. McKinsey and Company (2017), in its report titled, “Elec-
trifying insights: How automakers can drive electrified vehicle sales
and profitability”, highlighted the need to devise e-mobility stra-
tegies that suit consumer profile and fits contextuality of the
market.
3. Research methodology
A hybrid two-phased multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
method is proposed to accomplish the research objectives. In the
first phase, the Best-Worst Method (BWM) is used to filter out the
critical EV barriers out of a total of eighteen barriers obtained from
the existing literature (Table 1). BWM assesses the importance of
EV barriers with corresponding sub-barriers by selected experts. In
the subsequent phase, Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) is
used to structure a multi-level framework of the critical EV barriers
considering the mutual relationship among them. ISM is a quali-
tative and interpretive decision-making technique that can analyze
the complex influential and directional relationship among and
develops a multi-level hierarchical structure. Since the two
methods are mutually complementary, an integrated decision-
making framework comprising BWM and ISM (shown in Fig. 1) is
proposed to execute the research objectives. The complete research
methodology implemented in this study explained in Fig. 1.
3.1. Best-Worst Method (BWM)
The best worst method (BWM) is a MCDM tool which computes
the relative weight by pairwise comparing the best/worst EV bar-
riers and sub-barriers (in this research problem) with corre-
sponding category-wise other EV barriers and sub-barriers
developed by Rezaei (2015). The reliability and consistency of the
obtained weights are verified by calculating consistency ratio (CR)
(lesser CR value indicates more consistency in ranking). The pro-
cedure to conduct BWM as formulated by Rezaei (2015, 2016) are
summarized in Section A1 of Appendix. BWM is preferred when
compared with other MCDM techniques for the following meth-
odological and computational benefits:
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847
➢ It requires fewer paired comparisons matrices, and hence lesser
human interventions for being a vector-based method than
several other conventional matrix-based MCDM methods.
➢ An improvement of consistency in the overall ranking and
therefore, in result also.
➢ The presence of only integer values in the ranking reduces the
computational burden unlike the fractional values as in the case
of AHP.
➢ BWM can be combined with other MDCM techniques in
comprehensive decision-making.
The panel of experts identified for this study were selected from
three major areas, a) automotive vehicle firms manufacturing EV, b)
academic institutes, and c) EV industry representative bodies. List
of experts were selected based on their associated expertise on the
subject matter for more than 10 years in relation to EV. We
approached 26 such experts to conduct the study while 10 of them
(ref. Table 2 for experts’ profile) finally agreed to participate
resulting in response success rate of 38%. All the participants were
explained with the research background and motivation of the
study. The list of identified EV barriers and sub-barriers were dis-
cussed with panelists for ranking and prioritization following the
BWM steps.
3.2. ISM methodology
ISM finds its application in complex decision-making research
problems in establishing interdependencies among multiple
criteria involved in structuring the research objective. Researchers
have adopted ISM in explaining various research scenarios per-
taining to automotive applications such as, supply chain complexity
drivers of automobile industry (Kavilal et al., 2018), mutual rela-
tionship among sustainable manufacturing factors for auto-
ancillary industry (Thirupathi and Vinodh, 2016), measures to
improve automotive supply chain (Govindan et al., 2013). Though
there exist several tools such as Decision Making Trial and Evalu-
ation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM)
to consider the interrelationship among decision criteria, the su-
periority of ISM over the aforementioned techniques is to decom-
pose a complex system to multiple subsystems and then constructs
a multi-layer structural model (Bai and Satir, 2020). The multi-layer
interrelationship among the EV sub-barriers are established by
driving and dependence power as obtained following ISM steps.
Appendix Section A2 summarizes the steps followed in ISM.
The experts, who participated in BWM, were approached for
ISM method with the selected first top twelve EV sub-barriers
(based on the high global weight as obtained after BWM). The
inter-relationship study among the identified EV sub-barriers is
conducted through meeting in person and discussion. The mutual
influence and relationship between any two EV sub-barriers were
captured with “Yes” and “No” questions and responses (Dubey
et al., 2017). We received responses from 8 experts out of sur-
veyed 10 experts, which resulted in a response rate of 80%. Based on
the identified barriers and sub-barriers from the existing literature
(as shown in Table 1), a conceptual hierarchical model is developed
to represent the identified EV main category barriers with corre-
sponding sub-barriers (as shown in Figs. 1-9).
4. Results
4.1. Best worst method: Computation of weights for EV barriers and
sub-barriers
Following the suggested methodologies of BWM, the most
critical and the least critical EV barrier/sub-barrier is assigned as
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Table 1
EV barriers and sub-barriers.

Barriers Sub-barriers Description Literature reference

category

Technical EV technology EV, which uses traction motor for propulsion, is still relatively Berkeley et al. (2017), Greene et al. (2014), Browne et al. (2012),
barriers lesser known as a technology to the consumers when compared Steinhilber et al. (2013), Biresselioglu et al. (2018), Digalwar and
with conventional internal combustion engines. Giridhar (2015), Egbue and Long (2012), Haddadian et al. (2015),
Naor et al. (2015), Quak et al. (2016), Sierzchula et al. (2014),
Sovacool and Hirsh (2009), Vassileva and Campillo (2017), Vidhi
and Shrivastava (2018)
Performance, range, Performance of EV driven by alternate fuel, distance which it can Le vay et al. (2017), Berkeley et al. (2017), Berkeley et al. (2018),
and durability cover between two consecutive charging (range), and durability Steinhilber et al. (2013), Biresselioglu et al. (2018), Digalwar and
of EV are often considered as unknown and creates resistance for Giridhar (2015), Haddadian et al. (2015), Power (2010), Larson
customers. et al. (2014), Nair et al. (2017), Naor et al. (2015), Noel and
Sovacool (2016), Quak et al. (2016), Sovacool and Hirsh (2009),
Vassileva and Campillo (2017), She et al. (2017)
Unreliability of Since the adoption of EV technology is relatively new, availability Browne et al. (2012), Digalwar and Giridhar (2015)
suppliers of reliable supplier base for sourcing of parts and components is
still a challenge.
Development of Significant research work around the world is being carried out Le vay et al. (2017), Browne et al. (2012), Sovacool and Hirsh
alternate fuel for development of alternate fuel technology which may (2009)
technology potentially challenge the long-term sustainability for the EV in
future.
Infrastructural Shortage of charging Insufficient charging infrastructure for EV coupled with long Berkeley et al. (2017), Greene et al. (2014), Berkeley et al. (2018),
barriers stations charging time is considered as a deterrent against successful Browne et al. (2012), Steinhilber et al. (2013), Biresselioglu et al.
adoption of EV in majority of the countries. (2018), Egbue and Long (2012), Haddadian et al. (2015), Kester
et al. (2018), Power (2010), Larson et al. (2014), Li et al. (2016),
Nair et al. (2017), Naor et al. (2015), Noel and Sovacool (2016),
She et al. (2017), Sovacool and Hirsh (2009), Vassileva and
Campillo (2017)
Low availability on Since the EV penetration in India is still in nascent stage, EV Berkeley et al. (2017), Berkeley et al. (2018), Steinhilber et al.
maintenance, service, manufacturers are yet to create a widespread network of (2013), Wikstrom et al. (2016), Biresselioglu et al. (2018),
and repair. maintenance, service, and repair outlets. Digalwar and Giridhar (2015), Power (2010), Noel and Sovacool
(2016), Quak et al. (2016)
Lack of EV Due to nascent stage of EV penetration, a handful EV Greene et al. (2014), Browne et al. (2012), Steinhilber et al.
manufacturers manufacturers with limited models are available as a choice to (2013), Wikstrom et al. (2016), Digalwar and Giridhar (2015), Li
customers thereby reducing the scope for mass-customization. et al. (2016), Nair et al. (2017), Quak et al. (2016), Sovacool and
Hirsh (2009)
Unavailability of Ensuring uninterrupted supply of electricity with low variation Berkeley et al. (2018), Biresselioglu et al. (2018), Power (2010),
reliable electricity during charging cycle is still considered as a constraint for wide- Nair et al. (2017), Vassileva and Campillo (2017), Vidhi and
spread acceptance of EVs. Shrivastava (2018),
Financial High upfront High initial cost due to limited availability of technology and raw Levay et al. (2017), Berkeley et al. (2017), Greene et al. (2014),
barriers purchase price material restricts its adoption. Berkeley et al. (2018), Browne et al. (2012), Biresselioglu et al.
(2018), Egbue and Long (2012), Kester et al. (2018), Power
(2010), Larson et al. (2014), Naor et al. (2015), Noel and Sovacool
(2016), She et al. (2017), Sierzchula et al. (2014)
Unknown re-sale Due to lesser awareness on EV performance on longer life, Berkeley et al. (2017), Berkeley et al. (2018), Biresselioglu et al.
value acceptance of EV as re-sale option is relatively uncertain. (2018), Sierzchula et al. (2014), National Research Council (2015)
Total cost of The ownership cost of EV is relatively high due to high input vay et al. (2017), Greene et al. (2014), Berkeley et al. (2018),
Le
ownership material cost, higher operational cost, insufficient infrastructure Browne et al. (2012), Biresselioglu et al. (2018), Haddadian et al.
resulting higher pay-back period. (2015), Kester et al. (2018), Power (2010), Nair et al. (2017),
Naor et al. (2015), She et al. (2017), Sierzchula et al. (2014),
Sovacool and Hirsh (2009)
Behavioural Consumer perception Since the EV market is still at nascent stage and consists only a Le vay et al. (2017), Berkeley et al. (2017), Greene et al. (2014),
barriers on EV-Lack of fraction of overall market, consumer confidence and perception Berkeley et al. (2018), Browne et al. (2012), Wikstrom et al.
awareness on EV as potential option is still lacking. (2016), Biresselioglu et al. (2018), Digalwar and Giridhar (2015),
Egbue and Long (2012), Haddadian et al. (2015), Kester et al.
(2018), Nair et al. (2017), Naor et al. (2015), She et al. (2017)
Scepticism on safety Since the EV technology is relatively unknown, majority of the Le vay et al. (2017), Browne et al. (2012), Biresselioglu et al.
and reliability consumers are unsure about its safety and operational reliability. (2018), Egbue and Long (2012), Haddadian et al. (2015), Quak
et al. (2016), She et al. (2017), Sierzchula et al. (2014), Naor et al.
(2015)
Scepticism on Increased total cost of ownership, uncertainty over battery life, Le vay et al. (2017), Berkeley et al. (2017), Berkeley et al. (2018),
perceived benefits lack of visible environmental benefit combinedly engenders Browne et al. (2012), Steinhilber et al. (2013), Biresselioglu et al.
scepticism on consumers’ behaviour. (2018), Kester et al. (2018), She et al. (2017), Sierzchula et al.
(2014)
Dealer In majority of the cases, vehicle dealerships are well-equipped Kester et al. (2018), Industry experts’ opinion
understanding- with conventional ICE vehicles and certainty of vehicle
reluctance to push behaviour. On the contrary, vehicle dealers are reluctant to test
EVs newer technology EV products due to perceived uncertainty.
External Dependence on Limited availability of raw material required for EV batteries in Browne et al. (2012), Biresselioglu et al. (2018)
barriers external sources for certain geographical location creates significant dependence on
raw materials external sources for sourcing of raw material.
Wastage and Unavailability of adequate technological advancement for Harper et al. (2019), Haddadian et al. (2015), Automotive
recycling of battery reusing and recycling of EV batteries as alternate energy storage industry experts.
use is environmentally concerning and is still prohibitive to sales.
(continued on next page)

5
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Table 1 (continued )

Barriers Sub-barriers Description Literature reference

category

Limited EV incentives Consumer’s awareness on EV and its associated benefits are not Le vay et al. (2017), Browne et al. (2012), Steinhilber et al. (2013),
and advertisement sufficiently addressed by relevant agencies creating inhibition in Wikstrom et al. (2016), Digalwar and Giridhar (2015), Haddadian
by government purchase decision making. et al. (2015), Kester et al. (2018), Li et al. (2016), Noel and
Sovacool (2016), She et al. (2017), Vassileva and Campillo (2017),
Vidhi and Shrivastava (2018);

Fig. 1. Proposed methodology for EV barriers.

6
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Table 2
A brief profile of participating experts.

Serial Designation Years of Industry type

No. experience

Expert Head, Engineering 18 A leading Japanese Multinational Company manufacturing passenger EV car in India.
1
Expert General Manager, Technology 14 An Indian Multinational Company manufacturing Electric 2-Wheeler and 3-Wheeler in India with four
2 Development Group manufacturing plants in India.
Expert Professor e Mechanical Engineering 26 Academic Institute
3
Expert General Manager, Business Development 24 A leading Indian automotive company manufacturing passenger car.
4
Expert Director General- Automotive industry 18 Industry Representing Body
5
Expert Deputy General Manager, Supply Chain 27 A renowned Indian 2-Wheeler manufacturing company exporting around globe;
6 Management
Expert Director, Northern Region 18 Industry Association Body
7
Expert Associate Professor- Advanced 18 Academic Institute
8 Technology Group
Expert Deputy General Manager, Supply Chain 23 An Indian automotive manufacturing firm manufacturing passenger car, commercial vehicle.
9 Management
Expert Professor- Electrical Engineering 18 Academic Institute
10

‘best’ and ‘worst’ criterion respectively as assessed by each partic-
ipant. Table 3 shows the list of selected ‘best’ and ‘worst’ EV barriers
and sub-barriers as identified by experts from the list of EV barriers
and sub-barriers (Table 1).
The pairwise comparison of best EV barriers/sub-barriers are
performed with other EV barriers/sub-barriers of the correspond-
ing category on a scale of 1e9, where the numeric value of 1 and 9
indicates the equal importance and extreme importance respec-
tively of best EV barrier/sub-barrier over other EV barrier/sub-
barrier. This step results in finding Best-to-Others (BO) matrix for
EV barriers/sub-barriers. Similarly, to obtain Others-to-Worst (OW)
matrix, the relative preference of other EV barriers/sub-barriers are
then compared with worst EV barrier/sub-barrier on the scale of
1e9, where the numeric value of 1 and 9 indicates the equal
importance and extreme importance respectively of other EV
barriers/sub-barrier over least preferred EV barrier/sub-barrier. All
the participating experts were requested to score the relative
preference for each main category (technical, infrastructural,
financial, behavioural, external) of barriers and corresponding sub-
barriers individually to get BO and OW matrix. The evaluation score
of Expert-1 on relative preference of main EV barriers are tabulated
in Table 4, while pairwise comparison of sub-barriers for each main
category of barriers technical, infrastructural, financial, behav-
ioural, external are shown in the Table A1 to Table A5 (Appendix)
respectively.
Optimal weights, thus computed from individual expert’s pref-
erence score, provide the category-wise local weights of EV
barriers/sub-barriers. Thereafter, final local weights of EV barriers
and sub-barriers are calculated by averaging the local weights ob-
tained from each expert’s preference score (indicated as “Local
weight of sub-barriers” column of Table 5). Based on average
numeric local weight, local ranks are assigned for each category of
barriers and sub-barriers (Fig. 3). Likewise, final consistency ratio
(CR) is the arithmetic mean of individual CR values derived from
each expert’s data. All CR values, which are numerically less than
0.1, suggest necessary reliability and consistency of data.
Global weights (GW) of EV sub-barriers are computed as prod-
uct of corresponding main category EV barrier weight with
respective sub-barrier weights as presented in the ‘Global weight of
EV sub-barriers’ (Table 5). EV sub-barriers are assigned with global
ranks (GR) as per respective GW starting with sub-barrier with
highest GW assigned as GR 1, next highest weight EV sub-barrier as
7
GR 2 and continued for all 18 sub-barriers as shown in Table 5
column “Global ranking of sub-barriers” and graphically shown in
Fig. 4.
A closer observation of cumulative GW of EV sub-barriers (Fig. 5)
suggests that first 12 ranked sub-barriers contributes 91% of the
overall representation. The first twelve EV sub-barriers identified as
per GW is the shortage of charging stations (B1), the high upfront
purchase price (B2), unavailability of reliable electricity (B3), the
total cost of ownership (B4), lack of EV manufacturers (B5), scep-
ticism on safety and reliability (B6), consumer perception on EV and
lack of awareness (B7), performance, range, and durability (B8), low
availability on maintenance, service, and repair, (B9), limited EV
incentives and advertisement by the government (B10), unknown
resale value (B11), EV technology (12) (as shown in Table 6). The six
lowest EV sub-barriers as per global ranking from B13 to GR18
cumulatively exhibits only 9% representation in the overall weight
and hence dropped from further analysis due to lack of substantive
importance.
4.2. ISM results
4.2.1. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM)
To create SSIM, the relationship between the selected EV sub-
barriers (Table 6) i and j are symbolized with V,A,X,O (Darbari
et al., 2017) to represent the driving-dependence nature of their
paired relationship as mentioned in Table 7. Based on the received
response from experts, SSIM is obtained by appropriate substitu-
tion of V, A, X, O to signify the relationship as shown in Table 8 here.
4.2.2. Developing initial reachability matrix
The initial reachability matrix (Table 9) is obtained by
substituting V, A, X, and O of Table 8 with numeric substitution of 1
and 0 as per the substitution method mentioned in Table 7.
Applying the transitivity principle, we obtain the final reachability
matrix as shown in Table 10. The *marked cells of Table 10 repre-
sents the transitive elements, where values are changed from “0” to
“1” following the transitivity principle (Sharma et al., 1995).
4.2.3. Level partitioning
The hierarchical structure of EV barriers is achieved through
level partitioning. In level partitioning, the reachability and ante-
cedent set for each EV sub-barrier are derived from the final
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta
Fig. 2. Conceptual hierarchical model of EV barriers.
reachability matrix. The intersection set is thereby obtained from
the reachability set and antecedent set for each EV sub-barriers.
The EV sub-barriers with common reachability and intersection
set are assigned the first level (Khalid et al., 2016). All the elements
of the final reachability matrix are assigned following the same
method. The entire process of level partitioning is illustrated in the
Appendix section (Table A6 to Table A10). The level-partitioning
process continued for all the EV sub-barriers which resulted in
consolidated five-leveled representation as shown in Table 11.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847
4.2.4. Formation of ISM digraph
The hierarchical five-leveled structure (Table 11) of EV sub-
barriers are pictorially represented with the formation of ISM
digraph which shows the relationship among the EV sub-barriers
positioned at multiple levels (Table 12). The mutual relationship
among the EV sub-barriers (node) is derived from the final reach-
ability matrix (Table 10) and connected with directed lines for
developing the structural model. A unidirectional arrow, generating
from node ‘A’ to ‘B’ signifies that ‘A’ leads to ‘B’. A bidirectional line
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Table 3
Identification of ‘Best’ and ‘Worst’ barrier and sub-barrier by experts.

EV category-wise barriers and sub-barriers for BWM Identified as ‘Best’ by experts Identified as ‘Worst’ by experts

Category barriers
Technical 8
Infrastructural 1,3,5,6,10
Financial 2,4,7,8
Behavioural 9 3,5,6,10
External 1,2,4,7,9
Sub-barriers of Technical barrier category
Performance, range, and durability 1,4,5,7,8,10
EV technology 9 4,5,7,8
Unreliability of suppliers 2,3,6
Development of alternate fuel technology 1,2,3,6,9,10
Sub-barriers of Infrastructural barrier category
Shortage of charging stations 1,4,5,6,7,8,10
Low availability on maintenance, service, and repair 2,3,9 1,5,7,8
Lack of EV manufacturers 2,3,10
Unavailability of reliable electricity 4,6,9
Sub-barriers of Financial barrier category
High upfront purchase price 1,2,7,8,10
Unknown re-sale value 4,6 1,3,5,7,8,9
Total cost of ownership 3,5,9 2,4,6,10
Sub-barriers of Behavioural barrier category
Consumer perception on EV-lack of awareness 5,9
Scepticism on safety and reliability 1,2,4,6,7,8,10 3,9
Scepticism on perceived benefits 6,10
Dealer understanding-reluctance to push EVs 3 1,2,4,5,7,8
Sub-barriers of External barrier category
Dependence on external sources for raw materials 4,5,7,10 6,8
Wastage and recycling of battery 1,2,3,5,9
Limited EV incentives and advertisement by government 1,2,3,6,8,9 4,7,10

Table 4
Main category barriers comparison by Best-to-others (BO) and others-to-worst (OW) rating.

Best to Others (BO) Technical barrier Infrastructural barrier Financial barrier Behavioural barrier External barrier

Best barrier Infrastructural barrier 6 1 3 4 9

Other-to-worst (OW) Worst barrier: External barrier
Technical barrier 7
Infrastructural barrier 8
Financial barrier 4
Behavioural barrier 3
External barrier 1

between ‘A’ and ‘B’ nodes symbolize ‘A’ and ‘B’ mutually leads each
other and underscores the presence of mutual relationships among
‘A’ and ‘B’. ISM digraph of selected EV sub-barriers is shown in
Fig. 6.
4.2.5. MICMAC analysis
MICMAC (Matrice d’ Impacts croises multiplication applique  and
classment) analysis was performed to study the driving power and
dependence power of EV sub-barriers. Dependence power of EV
sub-barriers is plotted against the X-axis while the driving power is
plotted on Y-axis. On plotting of driving and dependence power for
sub-barriers in the X and Y axis respectively, we obtain plotted
coordinate. The EV sub-barriers are then classified into four clus-
ters: autonomous, driving, linkage, and dependent as presented in
Fig. 7.
Based on the driving-dependence power of sub-barriers, it can
be inferred that sub-barriers B2 (High upfront purchase price) and
B8 (Performance, range, and durability), have the highest driving
power while sub-barriers B6 (Scepticism on safety and reliability)
and B9 (Low availability on maintenance, service, and repair) have
the highest dependence power.
4.2.5.1. Findings from MICMAC analysis. Cluster 1: Autonomous EV
sub-barriers: These sub-barriers demonstrate weak drive power
9
and weak dependence power. ‘Unavailability of reliable electricity’
(B3) and Lack of EV manufacturers (B5), and EV technology (B12)
are in this cluster.
Cluster 2: Dependent EV sub-barriers: These sub-barriers with
strong dependence power and weak drive power are positioned in
this cluster. ‘Scepticism on safety and reliability’ (B6), ‘Low avail-
ability on maintenance, service, and repair’ (B9), ‘Limited EV in-
centives and advertisement by government’ (B10), ‘Unknown re-
sale value’ (B11) belong to this group.
Cluster 3: Linkage EV sub-barriers: This category does not have
any sub-barrier.
Cluster 4: Driving EV sub-barriers: Sub-barriers characterized
by strong driving power with weak dependence power are cate-
gorized in this cluster. Five sub-barriers, i.e., ‘Shortage of charging
stations’ (B1), ‘High upfront purchase price’ (B2), ‘Total cost of
ownership’ (B4), ‘Consumer perception on EV-Lack of awareness’
(B7), ‘Performance, range, and durability’ (B8) are falling in this
cluster.
5. Sensitivity analysis
To eliminate the MCDM process biasness emanated from
subjectivity of experts’ opinion and to improve the reliability of the
result, sensitivity analysis is performed (Syamsuddin, 2013). In
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Table 5
Local weight (LW) of EV main category barriers, global weight (GW) and global ranking (GR) of EV sub-barriers.

Main barriers Weight of Sub-barriers Local weight of Aggregated consistency Global weight of Global ranking of Assigned sub-
main barriers sub-barriers values of sub-barriers sub-barriers sub-barriers barrier abbreviation

Technical 0.107 Performance, range, and 0.445 0.0454 0.0478 8 B8

barriers durability
EV technology 0.205 0.0220 12 B12
Unreliability of suppliers 0.182 0.0196 15 B15
Development of alternate fuel 0.168 0.0180 18 B18
technology
Infrastructural 0.478 Shortage of charging stations 0.548 0.0314 0.2623 1 B1
barriers Low availability on maintenance, 0.081 0.0389 9 B9
service, and repair.
Lack of EV manufacturers 0.137 0.0655 5 B5
Unavailability of reliable 0.233 0.1113 3 B3
electricity
Financial 0.215 High upfront purchase price 0.549 0.0903 0.1178 2 B3
barriers Unknown re-sale value 0.104 0.0224 11 B11
Total cost of ownership 0.347 0.0745 4 B4
Behavioural 0.161 Consumer perception on EV-lack 0.362 0.0916 0.0582 7 B7
barriers of awareness
Scepticism on safety and 0.396 0.0638 6 B6
reliability
Scepticism on perceived benefits 0.121 0.0195 13 B13
Dealer understanding-reluctance 0.120 0.0194 16 B16
to push EVs
External 0.039 Dependence on external sources 0.247 0.0543 0.0096 14 B14
barriers for raw materials
Wastage and recycling of battery 0.155 0.0060 17 B17
Limited EV incentives and 0.598 0.0233 10 B10
advertisement by government

Fig. 3. EV sub-barriers category wise local weight (LW) and local rank (LR).

sensitivity analysis, the consistency of result is checked by creating of Infrastructural barrier (¼0.478; highest among EV main category
variety of probable scenarios changing in weight of criterion with barriers with main category) is changed ranging from 0.1 continued
highest weight in main category (Chand et al., 2018). till 0.9 incremented by 0.1. This weight variation results in corre-
Extending the methodology for sensitivity analysis, the weight sponding change in global weights and global ranks for sub-

10
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Fig. 4. EV sub-barriers global weight and corresponding global weight.

Fig. 5. EV sub-barriers with global rank and cumulative global weight.

barriers (B1 and B12). The resultant weight sensitivity is tabulated weight and rank sensitivity of EV sub-barriers (B1 to B12) data
in Table 13 and rank sensitivity is presented in Table 14 with indicates considerable consistency in result which is suggestive of
graphical representation in Fig. 8. The variation in cumulative model robustness.
weight of twelve sub-barriers (B1 to B12) varies between two ex-
tremities of 84.1%e98.2% (for Infrastructural barrier values of 0.1
and 0.9 respectively) with normalized value at 90.8% (Fig. 9). The

11
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Table 6
List of top 12 EV sub-barriers based on global weight with corresponding reference code.

Serial No. EV sub-drivers EV sub-barriers reference code

1 Shortage of charging stations B1

2 High upfront purchase price B2
3 Unavailability of reliable electricity B3
4 Total cost of ownership B4
5 Lack of EV manufacturers B5
6 Scepticism on safety and reliability B6
7 Consumer perception on EV-lack of awareness B7
8 Performance, range, and durability B8
9 Low availability on maintenance, service, and repair. B9
10 Limited EV incentives and advertisement by government B10
11 Unknown re-sale value B11
12 EV technology B12

Table 7 establish a mutual relationship among the EV sub-metrics. Weight

Explanation of symbols. of the main category barriers, and local and global weights with the
Representative symbols i/j j/i (i,j) th entry (j,i) th entry associated ranking of sub-barriers are shown in Table 5. Among the
identified five main category barriers, Infrastructural barriers
V ✓ 7 1 0
A 7 ✓ 0 1
(criteria normalized weight: 0.478) is ranked first based on the
X ✓ ✓ 1 1 expert opinion and analysis. Within the main category of Infra-
O 7 7 0 0 structural barriers, the Shortage of charging stations plays a critical
role amongst the sub-barriers. Importance of robust charging
infrastructure as a key barrier to EV adoption is highlighted by
Table 8 researchers for most of the regions, countries around the world
Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM). (Kumar and Kumar, 2020), such as U.K. (Berkeley et al., 2018),
B12 B11 B10 B9 B8 B7 B6 B5 B4 B3 B2 B1 Ireland (O’Neill et al., 2018), Denmark and Israel (Noel and
Sovacool., 2016), U.S. (Greene et al., 2014), Japan, South Korea,
B1 O V V V O V O O V O O
B2 V V O V O V O O V V
and Brazil (Masiero et al., 2017). Additionally, researchers empha-
B3 O O V O A O V O O sized the need for a dense network of public charging infrastructure
B4 O V V V A X V O (She et al., 2017) and an efficient distribution grid to create positive
B5 O V O V O O O public perception towards EV (Vassileva and Campillo, 2017). Our
B6 O A A O O O
research finding on Infrastructural barriers is in conformance with
B7 V V V V O
B8 V O V V the white paper released by NITI Aayog and World Energy Council
B9 A A A (2018) on ‘Zero Emission Vehicles’, which emphasized creating a
B10 O X favorable policy framework to facilitate EV charging and battery
B11 A
swapping infrastructure suitable to Indian transportation context.
B12
Notably, the sub-barrier ‘Unavailability of reliable electricity’ is the
second-highest ranked within the Infrastructural barriers’ category.
This observation strengthens the research findings of Kumar and
6. Discussion and managerial implications Kumar (2020), who highlighted concerns on electricity load dis-
tribution and resilience of charging infrastructure during a natural
6.1. Discussion of results disaster. In a report published by NITI Aayog and World Energy
Council (2018) cited the commonly experienced global phenome-
A hybrid two-phased multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) non on overloading of the electricity distribution system and
method is applied in this research to arrive at results. The Best- insufficiency of spare capacity for charging infrastructure of EV
Worst Method (BWM) is used to rank EV category barriers and during peak hours. We corroborate the research outcomes of
corresponding sub-barriers, followed by the ISM method to Davidov and Pantos (2017), who suggested, insufficient charging

Table 9
Initial reachability matrix.

EV Barriers B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 Driving Power

B1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 6
B2 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 7
B3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
B4 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6
B5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3
B6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
B7 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
B8 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 6
B9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
B10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
B11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
B12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3
Dependence Power 1 1 3 5 1 5 4 1 10 7 8 4 50

12
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Table 10
Final reachability matrix.

EV Barriers B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 Driving Power

B1 1 0 0 1 0 1* 1 0 1 1 1 0 7
B2 0 1 1 1 0 1* 1 0 1 1* 1 1 9
B3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1* 1 1* 0 5
B4 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1* 7
B5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1* 1 0 5
B6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
B7 0 0 0 1 0 1* 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
B8 0 0 1 1 0 1* 1* 1 1 1 1* 1 9
B9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
B10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
B11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
B12 0 0 0 0 0 1* 0 0 1 1* 1 1 5
Dependence Power 1 1 3 5 1 11 5 1 11 10 10 5 64

Table 11
Level partitioning of EV sub-barriers.

EV Sub-barriers reference number Dependency Power (X) Driving Power (Y) Level

B1 1 7 V
B2 1 9 V
B3 3 5 III
B4 5 7 IV
B5 1 5 III
B6 11 1 I
B7 5 7 IV
B8 1 9 V
B9 11 1 I
B10 10 4 II
B11 10 4 II
B12 5 5 III

Table 12 measures are commonly recommended for the adoption of EV by

Position coordinates of identified EV sub-barriers. overcoming the twin challenges of High upfront purchase price and
Driving Power Dependence Power TCO (Sierzchula et al., 2014). Financial incentives, which commonly
B1 7 1
includes EV subsidy, fee/tax exemption on the purchase, are pre-
B2 9 1 dominantly adopted to offset the resistance of initial high purchase
B3 5 3 price (Kumar and Kumar, 2020); and, use-based lifecycle fee
B4 7 5 exemption such as waiver of toll and parking charges, subsidized
B5 5 1
electricity charges, dedicated lane access, etc can address the issue
B6 1 11
B7 7 5 of TCO (Bjerkan et al., 2016).
B8 9 1 Behavioral barriers (criteria normalized weight: 0.161) is ranked
B9 1 11 as the third most important among main category barriers. Scep-
B10 4 10 ticism on safety and reliability and Consumer perception on EV-lack
B11 4 10
B12 5 5
of awareness are the two crucial sub-barriers within the Behav-
ioural barriers’ category with a local weight of 0.396 and 0.362,
respectively. Researchers have highlighted similar behavior-related
concerns of consumers interchangeably under the psychological,
reliability and quality can act as a potential barrier for EV adoption.
socio-technical, or attitudinal category. Notably, Scepticism on EV
Financial barriers (criteria normalized weight: 0.215) is the
safety is also reflected in the past study of Egbue and Long (2012), in
second-highest ranked among the main category barriers. The
which 26% of their survey respondents are ‘unsure’ to agree on EV
noteworthy observation suggests that sub-barriers, High upfront
as the safe mode of transportation. Apart from consumer safety,
purchase price, and total cost of ownership (TCO) play a crucial role
additionally, research findings by Karaaslan et al. (2018) high-
in mass diffusion of EV. This study observation corroborates the
lighted the importance of pedestrian safety during the movement
earlier research findings (Axsen and Kurani, 2013; Shao et al., 2016)
of EV and inferred the increase in pedestrian traffic safety risk by
which emphasized the role of financial barriers in consumer
30% for EV vis- a-vis conventional ICE vehicles under high ambient
decision-making. While the High upfront purchase price is pri-
noise condition. Additionally, our finding on sub-barrier, Dealer
marily attributed to the high battery cost (due to the use of
reluctance to push EVs, indicates a potential concerning the area as
expensive raw materials and processing) (Quak et al., 2016), the
voiced by Managing Director of one of India’s leading 2-Wheeler
total cost of ownership is majorly driven by battery replacement
and 3-Wheeler manufacturing company with a significant global
cost, maintenance and recycling cost (Letmathe and Suares, 2017)
presence, who opined, “Service and spare parts are a huge part of a
coupled with costly after-sales support (Biresselioglu et al., 2018).
dealer’s revenue. After the introduction of EVs, it will become almost
Low purchasing power parity in the developing nation is attributed
unheard of. There will hardly be a need for service or part replacement.
as a major inhibitor for relatively high-priced EVs (Rajper and
This is why there is a reluctance on the part of existing incumbents to
Albrecht, 2020). Therefore, financial incentives through policy
move quickly in this direction. Whereas those who are new and have

13
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Fig. 6. ISM result.

Fig. 7. Plotting of position coordinates of EV sub-barriers (B1 to B12).

nothing to lose are steadfastly moving in that direction. So these are durability; b. EV technology; c. Unreliability of suppliers; d.
the two extremes … " Development of alternate fuel technology) and External barriers
Technical barriers (comprising of a. Performance, range, and (comprising of a. Dependence on external sources for raw

14
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Table 13
Variation of cumulative weight of top 12 sub-barriers (B1 to B12) by varying the weight of ‘Infrastructural barrier’ from 0.1 to 0.9 with interval of 0.1

EV Sub-Barriers 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Normalized weight 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
(0.478)

Shortage of charging stations B1 0.0549 0.1097 0.1646 0.2194 0.2623 0.2745 0.3292 0.3840 0.4389 0.4937
High upfront purchase price B2 0.2031 0.1805 0.1580 0.1354 0.1178 0.1180 0.0903 0.0677 0.0451 0.0226
Unavailability of reliable electricity B3 0.0233 0.0466 0.0699 0.0932 0.1113 0.1165 0.1397 0.1630 0.1863 0.2096
Total cost of ownership B4 0.1284 0.1141 0.0999 0.0856 0.0745 0.0746 0.0571 0.0428 0.0285 0.0143
Lack of EV manufacturers B5 0.0137 0.0274 0.0411 0.0734 0.0655 0.0685 0.0823 0.0960 0.1097 0.1234
Scepticism on safety and reliability B6 0.1100 0.0978 0.0856 0.0669 0.0638 0.0638 0.0489 0.0367 0.0245 0.0122
Consumer perception on EV-lack of awareness B7 0.1004 0.0893 0.0781 0.0549 0.0582 0.0583 0.0446 0.0335 0.0223 0.0112
Performance, range, and durability B8 0.0824 0.0732 0.0641 0.0548 0.0478 0.0457 0.0366 0.0275 0.0183 0.0092
Low availability on maintenance, service, and repair. B9 0.0081 0.0163 0.0244 0.0326 0.0389 0.0405 0.0488 0.0570 0.0651 0.0733
Limited EV incentives and advertisement by B10 0.0402 0.0358 0.0313 0.0268 0.0233 0.0233 0.0179 0.0134 0.0089 0.0045
government
Unknown re-sale value B11 0.0386 0.0343 0.0300 0.0257 0.0224 0.0224 0.0172 0.0129 0.0086 0.0043
EV technology B12 0.0379 0.0337 0.0295 0.0253 0.0220 0.0211 0.0168 0.0126 0.0084 0.0042
Cumulative 0.8411 0.8587 0.8764 0.8940 0.9078 0.9272 0.9294 0.9470 0.9647 0.9823
weight

Table 14
Rank sensitivity.
Rank variation of sub-barriers (B1 to B12) by varying the weight of Infrastructural Barrier value from 0.1 to 0.9 with interval of 0.1.

EV Sub-Barriers 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Normalized weight (0.478) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Shortage of charging stations B1 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

High upfront purchase price B2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Unavailability of reliable electricity B3 14 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total cost of ownership B4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Lack of EV manufacturers B5 16 15 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Scepticism on safety and reliability B6 3 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Consumer perception on EV-lack of awareness B7 4 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Performance, range, and durability B8 5 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Low availability on maintenance, service, and repair. B9 18 16 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Limited EV incentives and advertisement by government B10 7 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Unknown re-sale value B11 8 9 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
EV technology B12 9 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

materials, b. Wastage and recycling of battery, c. Limited EV in-
centives and advertisement by the government) are ranked as
fourth and fifth most important category barriers respectively with
the normalized weight of 0.107 and 0.039.
Global weight computed for sub-barriers applying Best-Worst
Method helps in global ranking and prioritization of them
(Table 5). Based on the global weight, first, twelve ranked sub-
barriers are assigned with B1 to B12, with B1 being the highest-
ranked sub-barrier and continued till B12 (Table 6) cumulative
weight representation of 91%.
Based on the identified twelve sub-barriers from BWM, an ISM
model was established with a five-leveled structure, with Level 5
signifies highest driving power and Level 1 indicates the highest
dependence power of sub-barriers (as shown in Fig. 6). It can be
surmised that the Shortage of charging stations (B1), High upfront
purchase price (B2), and Performance, range, and durability (B8),
are most substantive sub-barriers which require urgent attention
from decision-makers. Aforesaid sub-barriers of Level 5, namely B1,
B2, and B8 drives consumer perception on EV (B7), whereas sub-
barriers Shortage of charging stations (B1) and High upfront pur-
chase price (B2) play important role in driving the total cost of
ownership (B4) (Berkeley et al., 2018). “Three factors are holding
back the progress of electric vehicle adoption in India. The first is that
battery technology is very expensive. It is about 55 per cent of the cost
of the vehicle and this is the reason the cost of the car is also high.
Secondly, there is hardly any charging infrastructure. The third factor is
the range anxiety. If the heater or air-conditioner is used, the range of
the car falls. The transition will happen over a period of time”. The
comment from Executive Director, Marketing and Sales of Maruti
Suzuki, the leading passenger car manufacturer of India with near
50% market share in the Indian market, highlights the criticality of
EV battery charging infrastructure, cost affordability, and range
anxiety as the major impediment to EV transition; and our research
finding is well-supported by this contextual expert opinion.
Another noteworthy observation from our result shows that
TCO (B4) predominantly drives sub-barriers like the Lack of EV
manufacturer (B5) for the Indian market. This is reinforced by the
research outcome of Le vay et al. (2017), who conducted a pairwise
TCO-sales analysis for eight European countries with a cross-
segment car model, also suggested that the demand of small EVs
are price-responsive. As per SMEV (2020) sales report, the total
number of electric 4-wheelers sold in the Indian market is 3400 for
the financial year (FY) 2020 as against 3600 for FY2019, which in-
dicates the flattening of demand and constitutes only a fraction of
overall car market. This could be the reason which still discourages
the automotive manufacturers to launch diverse EV product port-
folio. Ernst and Young (2017), in its research report “Standing up
India’s EV ecosystem - who will drive the charge?” conducted to
analyze the pattern of EV adoption in India involving key industry
stakeholders, underscored the importance of managing TCO for EVs
as one of the salient findings. Owing to the nascent demand for
electric mobility solutions, lack of investment commitment by EV
manufacturers on the e-mobility platform limits the variety and
customization of EV models positing EVs at relatively disadvanta-
geous to ICE vehicles (McKinsey and Company, 2017).
Our result explains sub-barriers, the Unavailability of reliable
electricity (B3), Lack of EV manufacturers (B5), and EV technology
(B12) are major reasons for Unknown resale value (B11) of EV. Lack
of awareness about EV technology and the relative under-
penetration of EVs creates uncertainty for consumers in decision-

15
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847

Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis for EV sub-barriers ranking.

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis of EV sub-barriers (B1 to B12) using global weights.

making in favor of EVs (Egbue and Long, 2012). Without the value. The resale value of the EV is also dependant on the country’s
widespread adoption of EV technology, consumers tend to be national electricity grid largely controlled by the electrical power
hesitant in accepting EV due to lesser-known product life and resale structure and transmission efficiencies of network and thereby

16
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta
characterizes charging cost structure of EV (Rajper and Albrecht,
2020).
6.2. Theoretical implications
Transition to EV is growingly encouraged globally by many
governments for reducing green-house gas emission and depen-
dence on fossil fuel and the inclusion of EV in the country’s trans-
portation policy signifies its increasing importance. Despite several
visible benefits, the adoption of EV is often challenged with mul-
tiple outperforming barriers restricting its penetration
(Biresselioglu et al., 2018). Approaches initiated by multiple gov-
ernments to propel the acceptance of EV around the world tend to
differ on factors such as regional economic development, govern-
ment’s political priority, and technological advancement (NITI
Aayog and World Energy Council, 2018). Extant literature
analyzing the barriers to EV adoption is multidimensional and
necessitates a comprehensive study to find inter-relationship
among critical barriers at various structural levels, which has not
received much empirical research attention. Our research contrib-
utes to building an improved understanding of the multifaceted
nature of EV barriers and its interdependencies in policy and de-
cision making.
The adoption of EV is largely dependent on overcoming the
multiple barriers, which are categorized as technical, infra-
structural, financial, behavioral, and external based on the source of
their generation with corresponding sub-barriers. Though re-
searchers explored the relationship among the sub-barriers rep-
resented within the same category, a study to investigate the
complex mutual relationship among sub-barriers across categories
is scarce. Our research attempts to fill the apparent gap and pro-
vides a holistic view of addressing the EV barriers. Our research
addresses the limitations of the cluster-based approach of barriers
(Berkeley et al., 2018), which proposes specific measures for cluster
combining the grouping of barriers. We removed the category-wise
grouping to derive the driving-dependence relationship among the
sub-barriers at the elementary level.
As explored by researchers, the barriers to mass diffusion of EV,
tend to vary across regions and geographies based on their con-
sumers’ technology acceptance level, transportation policy, eco-
nomic status, purchasing power parity, among others. Therefore,
every country, and region requires specific context-based analysis
with existing market dynamics and consumer behavior. Hence the
transportation policy framework for EV diffusion should also be
tailor-made. India, which currently saves ‘44,000 L of gasoline and
109,884 kg of CO2 per day’ due to adoption of EV, has significant EV
market potential with its distinctive mobility pattern markedly
different from developed economies (Rajper and Albrecht, 2020).
Besides ranking and prioritization of EV sub-barriers on overall
evaluation, our study is among one of the pioneering works in
establishing critical interactions for India which can be applied in
developed and developing countries.
6.3. Managerial implications
Large scale adoption of EV in India is substantively dependent
on the efficient implementation of favorable policies and regulation
by local governments with effective public-private collaboration
(World Economic Forum, 2019). Transition to EV can potentially
provide a viable solution to address environmental, economic, and
sustainability issues and growingly become an important aspect of
transportation policy for countries policymakers. Our research
findings can guide in understanding the multifaceted nature of EV
barriers and synergistic interaction among them. This study, with
ranking and prioritization of EV barriers, provides a framework for
17
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847
decision-makers to focus on selected high-priority barriers/sub-
barriers to gain substantive benefit and resources can be allocated
in addressing them on a preferential basis.
The level-partitioning and driving-dependence analysis high-
light the importance of simultaneous focus on sub-barriers posi-
tioned at the same level (ref Fig. 6). From our analysis, it is evident
that sub-barriers, such as the Shortage of charging station (B1),
High purchase price (B2), Performance, range, and durability (B8)
should be tackled simultaneously to gain considerable benefit in
mass EV diffusion. This finding is supported by the research
outcome of van Der Steen et al. (2015) who suggested that “EV
Policy” should be coherent in fulfilling the requirement of three
value chains of e-mobility, a) Vehicle value chain (resisting barrier:
Performance, range, and durability- B8), b) Infrastructure value
chain (resisting barrier: Shortage of charging station-B8), and c)
Network value-chain with three value chain (resisting barrier: High
purchase price-B2 and Total cost of ownership-B4). Especially, In
India, central and many state governments are working in synergy
to design and develop the right set of strategies to overcome the
overpowering effect of EV barriers.
A deeper investigation on Indian state-wise EV policy analysis
indicates that several states have taken a significant step forward
towards creating infrastructural value chain by incentivizing
component manufacturing locally, developing charging infra-
structure, fast charging/battery swapping facility at common loca-
tions, etc. Additionally, the Indian government has considerably
reduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to 5% as against 28% of
ICE vehicles, most of the states have structured financial incentives
to suit state-wise policy framework to both manufacturers and
consumers. Financial incentives to consumers include the waiver of
fees/taxes/duties on procurement, rebate on the interest rate on
loan, etc, whereas, reimbursement on land purchase for setting up
an EV manufacturing plant, capital, and infrastructure subsidy,
exemption on stamp and electricity duty. Though the cluster of
measures on the infrastructural and financial side is seemingly
aplenty to allay the limitations of a) shortage of charging infra-
structure and b) high upfront purchase price, but fails to address
the critical concerning sub-barrier of Performance, range, and
durability (B8) of EV. The lack of EV penetration in India seems to be
driven by disadvantageous limitations of EV technology as against
ICE vehicles on aforesaid parameters. Special initiatives should be
taken by all concerning stakeholders towards breaking the psy-
chological and behavioral barrier on EV with consumer awareness
and confidence. It is noteworthy to suggest that rather than
bundling of policies, a balanced mix of policies tailor-made to
address barriers holistically, can be a prudent approach by
policymakers.
In the context of consumer acceptance, EV Program Manager
with one of the leading Indian automotive manufacturers with
significant local and global market presence in various passenger
car segments, opined, “.Charging time is one of the most important
concern to be addressed thru Technological Enhancement. To have
mass transition to EV, that too in a highly consumer-dense metro-
cities like India, the charging time can’t be more than conventional
fuelling time if not improvement on existing practice. Battery Life
Cycle Management needs significant attention and improvement.
In EV, battery is the most expensive part and if it’s value decreases
to almost zero in a certain defined time then from Indian customer
perspective it may lose its acceptance. Vehicle should have a good
level of resale value throughout its life cycle.”
Another notable finding of our research is the importance of
total cost of ownership (TCO) in the hierarchical barriers. While
several policy measures are implemented to reduce the differential
purchase price of EV with ICE vehicles, the lack of attention for
controlling the total cost of ownership (TCO) of EVs is still a
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta
deterrent to EV diffusion. Hence, EV manufacturers and policy-
making agencies should focus on the aspects like maintenance cost,
recharging electricity cost, easy affordability of spare parts, and
economical after-sales servicing.
7. Conclusion and limitations
The study of barriers to mass diffusion of EV indicates the
presence of diverse factors primarily driven by mobility scenario of
the region, travel pattern, mode of public transportation, purchase
power parity of the consumer, and country’s readiness level to-
wards acceptance of EV technology. Therefore, research on EV
barriers necessitates an independent multifaceted approach spe-
cific a region/country and offers a fertile research proposition. India,
with its unique combination of the vehicular mix, city de-
mographics, transportation behavior of consumers, penetration of
alternate fuel technologies, and transport externalities offer near
inimitable scenarios. Hence, our research is appropriately targeted
in exploring the contextual preferential set of EV barriers with the
mutual interplay among them.
Indian automotive industry is presently undergoing a change in
dynamics owing to its transition from Bharat Stage Emission
Standard (BSES) BS IV to much stricter emission norm BS-VI from
April 2020 to reduce vehicular carbon emission in addressing local
air pollution. An increase in vehicle price due to the implementa-
tion of BS-VI has narrowed the price differential in support of EVs
against ICE vehicles, thereby positioning EVs more favorably on TCO
perspective. The impending change in consumer behavior for BS-VI
ICE vehicles is continuously evolving and has considerably slowed
down the ICE vehicle sales. This apparently can lessen the psy-
chological pricing barrier and may drive faster EV adoption.
Indian automotive industry contributes near 7.5% of the coun-
try’s GDP and around 49% of manufacturing GDP, employs 29
million people involving the entire supply chain largely dependent
on ICE vehicles. The transition from ICE vehicles to EV will entail a
substantial shift from conventional ICE powertrain consisting of an
engine, transmission to EV powertrain composed of an electric
engine, battery, controller, and motor. Mass adoption of EV can
considerably reshape the Indian automotive supply chain as a sig-
nificant portion of EV components are still being imported raising
the risk of major employment losses if local manufacturing and re-
skilling are not properly addressed. Hence, it is recommended that
government policies should focus on incentivizing the value addi-
tion scope of battery manufacturing, packaging to enable local job
creation.
It is also argued that environmental sustainability benefits
derived from EV adoption will importantly depend on the suc-
cessful creation of charging infrastructure powered by a renewable
source of energy. The environmental and social benefit of charging
EVs on electricity generated from the conventional coal-fired po-
wer plant is a debatable topic due to energy conversion deficiencies
in the entire network of power generation and transmission to the
last mile. Policy initiatives and financial incentives to propel equally
towards encouraging the use of renewables for charging EV,
otherwise “shifting the urban pollution problem to the places
where power plant locate” will remain largely unaddressed
without any meaningful gross environmental benefit.
Our work can be applied for analyzing EV barriers to the
countries/regions exhibiting similar market dynamics regarding
economic condition, purchasing behavior, transportation traits, and
demographic diversity. The model applicability to the specific
context should be checked before large-scale generalization. This
present work is conducted for EV as a sector, but segment-based
analysis of EV barriers may differ as the purpose of usage of EVs
are different based on the utilitarian perspective and is beyond the
18
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847
scope of work. Future research works can also explore the potential
risk drivers of adopting EV or sustainable transportation. A different
combination of MCDM tools can be applied to check the robustness
of the research outcome. The priority and ranking of EV barriers
may undergo minor change based on financial and economic pol-
icies adopted by specific state and effectiveness of them in coun-
tering barriers can be studied in the future.
Credit author statement
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
concept and Analysis.
Pradeep Kumar Tarei: Problem statement and conceptualiza-
tion, Methodology and Results Analysis.
Pushpendu Chand: Data collection, Drafting of the overall
manuscript.
Himanshu Gupta: Analysis and interpretation of the results.
All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version
of the manuscript.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125847.
References
Axsen, J., Kurani, K., 2013. Hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or electric e what do car buyers
want? Energy Pol. 61, 532e543.
Berkeley, N., Bailey, D., Jones, A., Jarvis, D., 2017. Assessing the transition towards
battery electric vehicles: a multi-level perspective on drivers of, and barriers to,
take up. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 106, 320e332.
Berkeley, N., Jarvis, D., Jones, A., 2018. Analysing the take up of battery electric
vehicles: an investigation of barriers amongst drivers in the UK. Transport. Res.
Transport Environ. 63, 466e481.
Biresselioglu, M.E., Demirbag Kaplan, M., Yilmaz, B.K., 2018. Electric mobility in
Europe: a comprehensive review of motivators and barriers in decision making
processes. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 109, 1e13.
Bjerkan, K.Y., Nørbech, T.E., Nordtømme, M.E., 2016. Incentives for promoting bat-
tery electric vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway. Transport. Res. Transport En-
viron. 43, 169e180.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2020. Electric vehicle outlook 2020. Available
online. https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/. (Accessed 21 March
2020).
Browne, D., O’Mahony, M., Caulfield, B., 2012. How should barriers to alternative
fuels and vehicles be classified and potential policies to promote innovative
technologies be evaluated? J. Clean. Prod. 35, 140e151.
Chand, P., Thakkar, J.J., Ghosh, K.K., 2018. Analysis of supply chain complexity
drivers for Indian mining equipment manufacturing companies combining SAP-
LAP and AHP. Resour. Pol. 59, 389e410.
Darbari, J.D., Agarwal, V., Sharma, R., Jha, P.C., 2017. Analysis of impediments to
sustainability in the food supply chain: an interpretive structural modeling
approach. Springer Proc. Busin. Econ. 57e68.
Davidov, S., Pantos, M., 2017. Planning of electric vehicle infrastructure based on
charging reliability and quality of service. Energy 118, 1156e1167.
Department of Heavy Industry, 2013. National electric mobility mission plan
(NEMMP) 2020. https://dhi.nic.in/writereaddata/Content/NEMMP2020.pdf.
Digalwar, A.K., Giridhar, G., 2015. Interpretive structural modeling approach for
development of electric vehicle market in India. Procedia CIRP 26, 40e45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.125.
Draft National Energy Policy, 2017. NITI Aayog. Government of India. https://niti.
gov.in/writereaddata/files/new_initiatives/NEP-ID_27.06.2017.pdf.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S.J., Shibin, K.T., Wamba, S.F.,
2017. Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research
directions. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 1119e1130.
Egbue, O., Long, S., 2012. Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an
analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Pol. 48, 717e729.
Ernst, Young, 2017. Standing up India’s EV ecosystem - who will drive the charge?
https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-standing-up-Indias-ev-
P.K. Tarei, P. Chand and H. Gupta
ecosystem-who-will-drive-the-charge/$File/EY-standing-up-Indias-ev-
ecosystem-who-will-drive-the-charge.pdf.
Fame India. Fame India. Available online. http://www.fame-india.gov.in/. (Accessed
20 March 2020).
FDI India, 2020. Available online. https://www.fdi.finance/sectors/automobile.
(Accessed 24 March 2020).
Gong, S., Ardeshiri, A., Hossein Rashidi, T., 2020. Impact of government incentives
on the market penetration of electric vehicles in Australia. Transport. Res.
Transport Environ. 83, 102353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102353.
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2013. Lean, green and
resilient practices influence on supply chain performance: interpretive struc-
tural modelling approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12 (1), 15e34.
Greene, D.L., Park, S., Liu, C., 2014. Analyzing the transition to electric drive vehicles
in the U.S. Futures 58, 34e52.
Gujarathi, P.K., Shah, V.A., Lokhande, M.M., 2018. Electric vehicles in India: market
analysis with consumer perspective, policies and issues. J. Green Eng. 8 (1),
17e36.
Haddadian, G., Khodayar, M., Shahidehpour, M., 2015. Accelerating the global
adoption of electric vehicles: barriers and drivers. Electr. J. 28 (10), 53e68.
Harper, G., Sommerville, R., Kendrick, E., 2019. Recycling lithium-ion batteries from
electric vehicles. Nature 575, 75e86.
IEA, 2016. The World Energy Outlook. WEO 2016. Available online. https://www.iea.
org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2016. (Accessed 24 March 2020).
IEA, 2019. Global EV Outlook. Analysis-IEA. Available online. https://www.iea.org/
reports/global-ev-outlook-2019. (Accessed 25 March 2020).
International Energy Agency, 2017. Newsroom. https://www.iea.org/newsroom/
news/2017/june/new-cem-campaign-aims-for-goal-of-30-new-electric-
vehicle-sales-by-2030.html.
Karaaslan, E., Noori, M., Lee, J., Wang, L., Tatari, O., Abdel-Aty, M., 2018. Modeling the
effect of electric vehicle adoption on pedestrian traffic safety: an agent-based
approach. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 93, 198e210.
Kavilal, E.G., Venkatesan, S.P., Sanket, J., 2018. An integrated interpretive structural
modeling and a graph-theoretic approach for measuring the supply chain
complexity in the Indian automotive industry. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 29 (3),
478e514.
Kester, J., Noel, L., Zarazua de Rubens, G., Sovacool, B.K., 2018. Policy mechanisms to
accelerate electric vehicle adoption: a qualitative review from the Nordic re-
gion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 719e731.
Khalid, Z.B., Mufti, N.A., Ahmad, Y., 2016. Identifying and modeling barriers to
collaboration among auto-parts manufacturing SMEs. Pakistan Busin. Rev. 18
(2), 487e507.
Kiani, A., 2017. Electric vehicle market penetration impact on transport-energy-
greenhouse gas emissions nexus: a case study of United Arab Emirates.
J. Clean. Prod. 168, 386e398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.242.
Kumar, R.R., Kumar, A., 2020. Adoption of electric vehicle: a literature review and
prospects for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 253, 1e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.119911.
Larson, P.D., Via fara, J., Parsons, R.V., Elias, A., 2014. Consumer attitudes about
electric cars: pricing analysis and policy implications. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract.
69, 299e314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.09.002.
Letmathe, P., Suares, M., 2017. A consumer-oriented total cost of ownership model
for different vehicle types in Germany. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 57,
314e335.
vay, P.Z., Drossinos, Y., Thiel, C., 2017. The effect of fiscal incentives on market
Le
penetration of electric vehicles: a pairwise comparison of total cost of owner-
ship. Energy Pol. 105, 524e533.
Li, Y., Zhan, C., de Jong, M., Lukszo, Z., 2016. Business innovation and government
regulation for the promotion of electric vehicle use: lessons from Shenzhen,
China. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 371e383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.013.
Liao, F., Molin, E., van Wee, B., 2016. Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a
literature review. Transport Rev. 37 (3), 252e275. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01441647.2016.1230794.
Lieven, T., 2015. Policy measures to promote electric mobility e a global perspec-
tive. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 82, 78e93.
Masiero, G., Ogasavara, M.H., Jussani, A.C., Risso, M.L., 2017. The global value chain of
electric vehicles: a review of the Japanese, South Korean and Brazilian cases.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80, 290e296.
McKinsey, Company, 2017. Electrifying insights: How automakers can drive elec-
trified vehicle sales and profitability. Available online. https://www.mckinsey.
com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/automotive%20and%20assembly/our%
20insights/electrifying%20insights%20how%20automakers%20can%20drive%
20electrified%20vehicle%20sales%20and%20profitability/how%20automakers%
20can%20drive%20electrified%20vehicle%20sales%20and%20profitabilitymck.
ashx.
Moriarty, P., Honnery, D., 2013. Greening passenger transport: a review. J. Clean.
Prod. 54, 14e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.008.
MoSPI, M.o., 2017. 133 gross domestic product. Retrieved January 02, 2018, from
mospi.gov.in. http://www.mospi.gov.in/133-gross-domestic-product.
Nair, S., Rao, N., Mishra, S., Patil, A., 2017. India’s Charging Infrastructure d Biggest
Single Point Impediment in EV Adaptation in India. 2017. IEEE Transportation
Electrification Conference (ITEC-India).
Naor, M., Bernardes, E.S., Druehl, C.T., Shiftan, Y., 2015. Overcoming barriers to
adoption of environmentally-friendly innovations through design and strategy.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35 (1).
19
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125847
NITI Aayog, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2017. India Leaps Ahead: Transformative
Mobility Solutions for All. NITI Aayog.
NITI Aayog and World Energy Council, 2018. MOVE-global mobility summit. Zero
emission vehicles (ZEVs): towards a policy framework. http://movesummit.in/
files/EV_report.pdf.
Noel, L., Sovacool, B.K., 2016. Why Did Better Place Fail?: range anxiety, interpretive
flexibility, and electric vehicle promotion in Denmark and Israel. Energy Pol. 94,
377e386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.029.
O’Neill, E., Moore, D., Kelleher, L., Brereton, F., 2018. Barriers to electric vehicle
uptake in Ireland: perspectives of car-dealers and policy-makers. Case Studies
on Transport Policy.
Power, J.D., 2010. Drive Green 2020: More Hope than Reality? J.D. Power and As-
sociates/McGraw Hill, Westlake Village.
Prakash, C., Barua, M.K., 2015. Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the
solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy
environment. J. Manuf. Syst. 37, 599e615.
Prakash, S., Dwivedy, M., Poudel, S.S., Shrestha, D.R., 2018. Modelling the Barriers for
Mass Adoption of Electric Vehicles in Indian Automotive Sector: an Interpretive
Structural Modeling (ISM) Approach. 2018 5th International Conference On In-
dustrial Engineering And Applications (ICIEA).
PWC, 2019. Towards eMobility: Putting the Consumer at the Wheel. Available on-
line. https://www.pwc.in/research-insights/2019/towards-emobility.html.
(Accessed 20 April 2020).
Quak, H., Nesterova, N., van Rooijen, T., 2016. Possibilities and barriers for using
electric-powered vehicles in city logistics practice. Transp. Res. Procedia 12,
157e169.
Rajper, Sarmad Z., Albrecht, Johan, 2020. Prospects of electric vehicles in the
developing countries: a literature review. Sustainability 12 (5), 1906.
Rezaei, J., 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53,
49e57.
Rezaei, J., 2016. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some proper-
ties and a linear model. Omega 64, 126e130.
Shafiei, E., Leaver, J., Davidsdottir, B., 2017. Cost-effectiveness analysis of inducing
green vehicles to achieve deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in New
Zealand. J. Clean. Prod. 150, 339e351. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2017.03.032.
Shao, J., Taisch, M., Ortega-Mier, M., 2016. A grey-Decision-Making Trial and Eval-
uation Laboratory (DEMATEL) analysis on the barriers between environmen-
tally friendly products and consumers: practitioners’ viewpoints on the
European automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (4), 3185e3194.
Sharma, H.D., Gupta, A.D., Sushil, 1995. The objectives of waste management in
India: a futures inquiry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 48 (3), 285e309.
She, Z.-Y., Sun, Qing, Ma, J.-J., Xie, B.-C., 2017. What are the barriers to widespread
adoption of battery electric vehicles? A survey of public perception in Tianjin,
China. Transport Pol. 56, 29e40.
SIAM, 2020. Performance of auto industry in 2019-20. Available online. http://www.
siam.in/statistics.aspx?mpgid¼8&pgidtrail¼9. (Accessed 20 April 2020).
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., van Wee, B., 2014. The influence of financial
incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. En-
ergy Pol. 68, 183e194.
SMEV, 2020. Available online. https://www.smev.in/ev-sales. (Accessed 21 March
2020).
Song, Q., Wang, Z., Wu, Y., Li, J., Yu, D., Duan, H., Yuan, W., 2018. Could urban electric
public bus really reduce the GHG emissions: a case study in Macau? J. Clean.
Prod. 172, 2133e2142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.206.
Sovacool, B.K., Hirsh, R.F., 2009. Beyond batteries: an examination of the benefits
and barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid
(V2G) transition. Energy Pol. 37 (3), 1095e1103.
Steinhilber, S., Wells, P., Thankappan, S., 2013. Socio-technical inertia: under-
standing the barriers to electric vehicles. Energy Pol. 60, 531e539.
Syamsuddin, Irfan, 2013. Multicriteria evaluation and sensitivity analysis on infor-
mation security (0975 e 8887). Int. J. Comput. Appl. 69 (24). May 2013.
Thirupathi, R.M., Vinodh, S., 2016. Application of interpretive structural modelling
and structural equation modelling for analysis of sustainable manufacturing
factors in Indian automotive component sector. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (22),
6661e6682.
Vassileva, I., Campillo, J., 2017. Adoption barriers for electric vehicles: experiences
from early adopters in Sweden. Energy 120, 632e641.
Vidhi, R., Shrivastava, P., 2018. A review of electric vehicle lifecycle emissions and
policy recommendations to increase EV penetration in India. Energies 11 (3),
483. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11030483.
Wikstrom, M., Hansson, L., Alvfors, P., 2016. Investigating barriers for plug-in
electric vehicle deployment in fleets. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 49,
49e67.
World Economic Forum, 2019. EV-ready India Part 1: value chain analysis of state
EV policies. Available online. https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/ev-ready-
india-part-1-value-chain-analysis-of-state-ev-policies.
Yes Bank Limited and TERI Council for Business Sustainability report, 2018. Electric
mobility paradigm shift: capturing the opportunities. https://www.yesbank.in/
pdf/electric_mobility_paradigm_shift.
Zhao, X., Ke, Y., Zuo, J., Xiong, W., Wu, P., 2020. Evaluation OF sustainable transport
research IN 2000-2019. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2020.120404, 120404.