Determining Reverse Logistics Motivation

Factors and Barriers: Multiple Criteria Check for

updates

Decision Making Application on Pipe

Manufacturing Company

Gulsun Nakiboglu

Abstract In a climate of scarcity of natural resources and growing populations,

changing and increasing demand for products has brought a new perspective to
supply chain and business management. Governments and customers demand to
know how raw materials are extracted, where and how they are delivered, how they
are produced and how they are distributed. As a result, businesses experience
pressure on how conform to environmental regulations and standards and consumers
and shareholders have questions about environmental responsibility. Green and
closed-loop supply chains, which are also related to the subject of reverse logistics,
are linked to industrial ecology and are considered a prerequisite of sustainability. As
a subject of this paper, reverse logistics are viewed as a part of environmental
sustainability that is gaining increased attention. In reverse logistics practices there
are motivation factors that affect business but also some problems that need to be
addressed. Not all the driving factors and problems have equal importance and
power, so it is a necessity to unearth which factors are important or dominant as
drivers and barriers. In this study, after implementing AHP in pipe manufacturing
company, obligatory reasons, customer demand and enhancing corporate image
were found to be the most primary drivers that enable reverse logistics practices.
Legal issues, lack of trained human resources and low product quality were identi-
fied as the most important problems/barriers in practice and so provide a road map
and solutions that can be implemented on a priority basis.

Keywords Reverse logistics • Motivation factors • Barriers • Multi criteria decision

method • Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) • Turkey

G. Nakiboglu (18J)
Department of Business Administration, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 291

M. Huseyin Bilgin et al. (eds.), Eurasian Business Perspectives, Eurasian Studies in
Business and Economics 10/1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11872-3_19
292 G. Nakiboglu

1 Introduction

After the advent of globalization, global trade and global supply chains, logistics has
become a very important process in the supply chain that includes material handling,
warehousing, inventory management and transportation functions. Forward logistics
aims to manage the flow of things (raw materials, parts or finished goods) from the
point of origin to the end customer. In the opposite direction, reverse logistics
manages the product to capture the value or arrange proper disposal and is defined
as the role of logistics in recycling, product returns, material substitution, waste
disposal, source reduction, reuse of materials and refurbishing, and repair and
remanufacturing (Stock 2001 ). As another definition, reverse logistics is the process
of planning, implementing and controlling the efficient, cost effective flow of raw
materials, in-process inventory, finished goods and related information from the
point of consumption to the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing value or
proper disposal (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 1998). This process includes product
return and product recovery and includes the steps of collection, disassembly and
reassembly of the returned product and later the distribution and sale of the recov-
ered product (Ye et al. 2013). Typical reverse logistics processes can be seen in
Fig. 1. Reverse logistics can minimize the environmental impact by resource min-
imization, reduce the product's end oflife environmental burden (Prakash and Barna

Non used or unrepairable products and parts, packaging etc.

Raw material Finished goods

Manufacturer Consumer
supplier distributor

' /
- -- - _,_ -- ....... ' ' /

,""'.,.. - - \. - - - - - - -✓- -
.,,..,..-)--
, --
- -

{ Waste reduction ) :,, Waste reduction :)

' .... _____________ .,,..,,. , ....... __________ ........ ,
Consumer
returns

Remanufacturing Eol
Recycling returns

(2nd hand market) Re-use

c:::::::::> Forward material flow
Reverse material flow Disposal
◄
◄ -- ♦ Collaboration between partners
~ Reverse logistics activities

Fig. 1 Basic reverse logistics activities and flows. Source: Lau and Wang (2009: 449)
Determining Reverse Logistics Motivation Factors and Barriers: Multiple ... 293

2015) and reduce the impact of pollution (Vahabzadeha et al. 2015). From the
perspective of business, reverse logistics also provides competitive advantage by
improving customer satisfaction, improving the firm's corporate citizenship
(Olorunniwo and Li 2010: 455), improving resource productivity (Ye et al. 2013),
enhancing the firm's reputation and reducing cost (Srivastava 2008).
Reverse logistics is not symmetric with forward logistics (Fleischmann et al.
1997a, b); it is more complicated and requires special attention (Srivastava 2008).
Implementation of reverse logistics is a strategic decision that has a long lasting
effect (Ravi and Shankar 2015) and requires assessment of a broad set of criteria,
including strategic, operational, tangible and intangible dimensions (Presley et al.
2007). Reverse logistics is a sophisticated process because it requires a lot of
dynamic decision making and high levels of planning regarding assessment of the
returned product's properties, the recovery option to be used, transportation man-
agement, warehouse handling, gathering information about the returned product and
other related issues (Sharma et al. 2011 ). For successful reverse logistics applica-
tions, firms have to realize the driving factors and benefits and understand the
problems and barriers that may hinder reverse logistics activities.
Whereas there are some studies about building reverse logistics systems that also
cover barriers and drivers of reverse logistics, to the best of our knowledge there is
not enough research about the situation in Turkey as a developing country
(e.g. Akdogan and Coskun 2012; Erol et al. 2010; Gilanli et al. 2012) where
legislation, technology, company culture, infrastructure and public awareness may
differ from other countries. Green initiatives are not easy to implement and are still in
a state of infancy (Bouzon et al. 2018) in emerging countries because of the absence
of societal pressure and insensitivity towards environmental issues, price sensitive
markets (Jindal and Sangwan 2011) and environmental regulations. As the sector
changes, different products and components, different hazardous effects on the
environment, different options for the returned product, and different priorities,
expectations and laws about environmental applications and reverse logistics prac-
tices may be experienced. As a result, careful selection of a sector to explore is a
necessity. In this paper, due to recycling operations, the plastic sector has been
chosen. Thus this paper provides a particular study that explores the driver factors
and problems for the pipe manufacturing sector in Turkey. The aim of the study was
to identify the obstacles and primary drivers of reverse logistics. To determine the
forces and problems, interviews were conducted with experts from the sector and
academia and the regulations, influential actors in the supply chain, economic results
of activities, technical difficulties, organizational structure, and the network were
investigated.
The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 reviews the reverse
logistics literature and explains detailed the drivers and problems of reverse logistics.
Section 3 proposes the approach of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its applica-
tion for the pipe manufacturing company. The results and managerial implications
are given in Sect. 4.
294 G. Nakiboglu

2 Literature Review

In one of the first literature reviews of reverse logistics, Carter and Ellram (1998)
identified the driving forces as customers, competitors, governmental agencies and
suppliers. In their paper, constraints are listed in order as top management support,
stakeholder commitment, quality of inputs, vertical coordination and incentive
systems. There are many papers that aim to determine the important points of reverse
logistics, the drivers that motivate firms and the problems that businesses face in
dealing with them. Some example papers related to reverse logistics and its driving
factors and barriers are provided.
Hall et al. (2013) looked at the defence industry and established a content analysis
to categorize the goals, challenges and metrics of reverse logistics. Kapetanopoulou
and Tagaras (2011 ) investigated product recovery activities and the drivers and
problems facing Greek industry in their survey. Another paper related to determining
the barriers and drivers in product recovery is that of Rahimifard et al. (2009). The
paper analyzed applications and cases in the UK. Chileshe et al. (2016) focused on
the construction industry in Australia to determine the drivers that enable reverse
logistics practices. They conducted semi-structured interviews with eight practi-
tioners. Andie et al. (2012) investigated the suitability and significance of waste
management as part of green supply chains in Turkey. In extension, they also
focused on some questions such as the starting point of becoming green, the level
of environmental awareness of firms and ways to increase it. The study was
conducted with eight general managers of electrical and electronic equipment
companies.
In their literature review, Agrawal et al. (2015) analysed many subtitles in reverse
logistics. They also reviewed the papers related to the drivers and challenges of
reverse logistics. As drivers, the most often mentioned are economic factors, legis-
lation, environmental and green issues, customers, and social needs. The most
quoted factors in the extant literature on barriers to reverse logistics are the lack of
commitment of customers and managers, company policies, financial constraints,
poor performance of the management system, lack of human resources, and lack of
systems. Bouzon et al. (2015) intended to identify the drivers of reverse logistics in
Brazil as an example of an emerging economy. They studied a manufacturing
company as an example. Sharma et al. (2011 ) used Interpretive Structural Modelling
to determine the barriers in India as a developing country. Lack of systems, top
management's disregard, financial and personal resources and company policies are
some of the barriers to reverse logistics. In another paper, Bouzon et al. (2018)
employed Grey-DEMATEL in Brazil with three experts to evaluate the barriers and
their interrelationships from the stakeholders' perspectives.
Hsu et al. (2013) conducted their studies on ISO 14001 certified companies in
Malaysia to identify the green initiatives drivers. They used regulatory measures,
customer and competitor pressures and responsibility factors in their model. Ho et al.
(2012) applied a survey of Hong Kong manufacturing companies to understand the
effects of internal and external factors, company properties and recognition and
Determining Reverse Logistics Motivation Factors and Barriers: Multiple ... 295

perception degrees on reverse logistics practices. In their paper, Ye et al. (2013)

investigated the influence of three institutional pressures (namely customer, com-
petitor and government) on top management postures based on survey data in China.
With the aim of determining critical success factors for reverse logistics, Mangla
et al. (2016) employed AHP to assess the priorities of factors and DEMATEL to
categorize the causal relationships between them. Thiyagarajan and Ali (2016)
analysed reverse logistics barriers in the online retail industry. Reverse logistics is
important for the retail industry because the transaction frequency and amounts are
very high. They employed ANP to determine the barriers. In their model, Sarkis et al.
(2010) investigated the influence of customers, workers, society, shareholders and
the government on environmental activities.
In general, it can be said that there are many papers (written in 2015 and 2016)
about understanding a firm's barriers and the benefits regarding reverse logistics.
Such studies should be made in different sectors because every product has a
different environmental effect, different product recovery options, different costs
and different legislation. Furthermore, the studies began in developed countries but
these analyses are now also being made in developing countries. We can see some
examples from China, Malaysia, Greece, Brazil etc.

2.1 Drivers in Literature

Usually, economic, regulatory and consumer pressures are seen as the most impor-
tant motivation factors worldwide (Srivastava and Srivastava 2006). In addition,
there may be many different reasons to apply reverse logistics practices. For
example, in their case study Lau and Wang (2009) found the reasons behind
implementing reverse logistics to be sharpening competitiveness, reducing costs,
improving customer satisfaction, complying with laws and regulations, responding
to local government support, and achieving material reuse and energy conservation.
Pokharel and Mutha (2009) mainly focused on legislation, directives, consumer
awareness and the firm's social responsibilities. De Brito and Dekker (2003) iden-
tified three groups of drivers as economic, environmental/social and legal. In their
paper, Mollenkopf et al. (2007) specified return management benefits as profitability,
relationships with customers, and the firm's reputation.
First of all, reverse logistics may provide direct and indirect financial benefits.
Using returned and recovered material allows firms to use fewer raw materials and to
reduce the disposal cost. This is an example of direct economic benefit. Preparing for
future environmental regulations, improving company image, and protecting prod-
uct technology from competitors by salvaging one's own products may be seen as
indirect economic benefits (de Brito and Dekker 2003). Extended product life cycles
and lower customer prices may be seen as additional cost saving benefits of reverse
logistics (Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras 2011 ). Also, extended producer responsibil-
ity allows for economic efficiency so firms encounter additional economic benefits.
296 G. Nakiboglu

However, not all take-back programs are profitable; for example, Dell's reverse
logistic network was not designed to provide profit (Kumar and Putnam 2008).
As a result of environmental issues such as waste during production and after-use,
limited resources and raw materials and the environmental effects of manufacturing
such as hazardous materials, waste and pollution, companies have environmental
concerns (Ravi et al. 2005 ; Mutha and Pokharel 2009; Kannan et al. 2010). Reverse
logistics provides options to recover the product (reuse, repair, restore, remanufac-
ture, recycle). The process helps in the conservation of used materials and energy
and reduces the environmental deterioration caused by waste.
Social responsibility or corporate citizenship includes a range of values and
principles that seem responsible and motivate the company to apply reverse logistics
(de Brito and Dekker 2003 ; Bouzon et al. 2015) and is a powerful driver for reverse
logistics applications (Ravi et al. 2005 ; Shaik and Abdul-Kader 2014). Producer's
responsibility owing to environmental regulations or as a broader term extended
producer responsibility may become a driver factor that enables reverse logistics
practices, product recovery and recycling (Kumar and Putnam 2008 ; Rahimifard
et al. 2009; Lau and Wang 2009).
Regulatory pressures and institutional pressures are also powerful forces for
businesses in reverse logistics activities (Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras 2011 ;
Kumar and Putnam 2008: 305). So fulfilment of obligation for environmental
protection may be another driver (Ginger and Starling 1978; Lau and Wang 2009;
Chileshe et al. 2016). Most developed countries have environmental regulations that
force organizations to limit the use of resources, reduce waste and the environmental
effects of products or packaging and increase recycling and reuse of materials. The
EU is seen as the leader in environmental regulations related to vehicles, electrical/
electronic devices, substances and packaging (End-of-life Vehicles Directive (ELV),
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE), Restriction of Use of
certain Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS), and the Packaging and Packaging
Waste Directive) (Kumar and Putnam 2008).
Consumers also act as a force for environmental activities (Kumar and Putnam
2008). Product recall activity is also an issue in reverse logistics, so some firms think
that reverse logistics is a device for enhancing customer service (Lau and Wang
2009) and creating better customer relationships (Mollenkopf et al. 2007) through
better customer satisfaction (Pokharel and Mutha 2009). Reverse logistics may also
improve customer loyalty and future sales (Kannan et al. 2012).
Corporate image regarding environmental sustainability is also assumed to be
another driver factor in the literature (for example Mollenkopf et al. 2007 ; Kumar
and Putnam 2008 ; Lau and Wang 2009). Satisfaction of customer desire for green
products and strengthening brand image is another driving force (Kapetanopoulou
and Tagaras 2011). Reducing the negative environmental impact of production is a
factor under environmental drivers (Chileshe et al. 2016). Although some papers
quote poor coordination between firms and suppliers, sharing the responsibility for
product life cycles may be a motivation factor in applying reverse logistics activities
(Bouzon et al. 2015).
Determining Reverse Logistics Motivation Factors and Barriers: Multiple ... 297

In addition to the above, there are also different factors that motivate and facilitate
reverse logistics practices such as recapturing value, human resources, having
reverse logistics information systems, infrastructure and technology, industry/mar-
ket factors, obligatory reasons (such as warranty returns, quality control returns or
product recalls), functional returns (such as boxes and pallets), shorter product life
cycles and clean channels (de Brito and Dekker 2003 ; Lau and Wang 2009; Ravi and
Shankar 2015 ; Shaik and Abdul-Kader 2014; Bouzon et al. 2015).
As a result of all the reasons mentioned above, effective reverse logistics appli-
cation may provide competitive advantages for all firms in the supply chain (Jack
et al. 2010; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras 2011 ).

2.2 Barriers and Problems in Literature

The presence of barriers and problems makes reverse logistics execution very
difficult and reduces the success rate (Garg et al. 2016). The benefits of reverse
logistics are still not recognized in emerging economies (Abdulrahman et al. 2014).
As a starting point, if firms specify their internal or external barriers and problems it
should be possible to find a solution. Some driving factors act as a barrier in their
absence. For example, as mentioned before, environmental laws are a motivating
factor for firms but the nonexistence of legislation may be a barrier. These examples
may be broadened by other factors such as lack of public awareness, human
resources/financial resources and managerial issues, company policies, market
uncertainties etc.
One of the most important barriers to reverse logistics is lack of awareness of
people (Sharma et al. 2011 ). Absence of publicity and knowledge about reverse
logistics is seen as another problem (Lau and Wang 2009). So, it can be said that
consumer perception of recovered products may be another challenge for businesses
(Rahimifard et al. 2009). Reverse logistics activity needs awareness and wide
acceptance from society. It may appear as limited market demand for reprocessed
products (Geyer and Jackson 2004).
Like almost every corporate initiative, reverse logistics programs also require top
management support. Management inattention (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 1998;
Sharma et al. 2011 ) and lack of commitment of top management (Ravi and Shankar
2005 ; Abdulrahman et al. 2014) may determine company policies and can be basic
barriers to stating the vision, indicating the steps and motivating the workers.
Another problem is the perception of the subject. So the importance of reverse
logistics relative to other issues (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 1998; Abdulrahman
et al. 2014) appears as a challenging issue.
Limited information flow between organizations or lack of sufficient information
may be assumed as another barrier (Ravi and Shankar 2005). The type of materials
used and the processes that are applied during production is useful information when
deciding the options for returned products. Usually, there is not a seamless
298 G. Nakiboglu

information flow between firms but with the collaboration of partners and the
effective use of some technologies and information systems this problem can be
solved.
Restrictive company policies may be another problem regarding reverse logistics
(Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 1998; Bouzon et al. 2018). After the introduction of
some environmental laws and the concept of extended producer responsibility, most
companies have shifted from producing only brand-new products to a product
recovery strategy (Ravi and Shankar 2005).
Often, there are some problems regarding the quality of product (Ravi and
Shankar 2005 ; Sharma et al. 2011). When compared with the new product, the
core quality is not uniform and it is not possible to assess its quality before it is
returned. After salvaging, it is necessary to inspect the product to determine the
quality level, recovery options and the destination.
High cost and lack of supportive incentives of operation may be another barrier
(Lau and Wang 2009). Firms believe that the cost of implementing reverse logistics
systems will be higher than the obtained financial benefit (Jindal and Sangwan
2011 ). Theoretically, it is believed that reverse logistics is profitable. However,
this is not guaranteed in practice because it is related to a lot of factors such as
consumer perception, virgin material price, effectiveness of the recovery process and
core status. So, low potential profit is another barrier. In addition to low benefits,
some studies mention uncertainties about financial benefits as a barrier, so unclear
economic benefits (may be another factor Bouzon et al. 2018).
Resistance to change occurs especially in small businesses and is caused by the
lack of management attention or lack of awareness of the environmental and
financial benefits of product recovery (Ravi and Shankar 2005, 2015 ; Gonzalez-
Torre et al. 2010). In the beginning, reverse logistics systems may involve high
levels of investment before businesses realize the benefits. So, reluctance to devote
resources to reverse logistics programs may be another problem (Lau and Wang
2009). Reverse logistics can be a competitive weapon so strategic planning and
determining the goals and actions required are necessary. Lack of strategic planning
may be the chief barrier to reverse logistics (Ravi and Shankar 2005 ; Abdulrahman
et al. 2014).
Uncertainties such as timing, quality and quality of returned products generate
another barrier (Fleischmann et al. 1997a, b; Shaik and Abdul-Kader 2014). Because
of uncertainty, it is not easy to plan collection and recovery operations and it is hard
to balance needs and returns (Guide et al. 2003 ; Roy et al. 2006). So, planning
complexity may be another barrier. Reverse logistics networks should be organized
in order to handle the uncertain timing and quantity of the return and stochastic
content in terms of quality and value (Geyer and Jackson 2004). This subject is also
related to communication and information technology usage because efficient infor-
mation sharing (e.g. information about returned product status) may be a solution to
this challenge (Hall et al. 2013).
Lack of standardized systems and technologies about recovering or salvaging the
product may be another barrier (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 1998; Bouzon et al.
2018). A company can only handle reverse logistics activities if it has adequate
Determining Reverse Logistics Motivation Factors and Barriers: Multiple ... 299

systems and infrastructure (Jack et al. 2010). As an important subtitle, lack of

information technology for reverse logistics operations to monitor the product
from collection, during recovery and to redistribution may be another problem
(Ravi and Shankar 2005 ; Kokkinaki et al. 2000; Lau and Wang 2009; Hall et al.
2013).
Limited feasibility of recovery operations (Geyer and Jackson 2004) or lack of the
latest technology for recovery (Bouzon et al. 2018) may be another problem for
reverse logistics. Lack of performance metrics (Ravi and Shankar 2005 ; Hall et al.
2013 ; Abdulrahman et al. 2014) causes lack of observing the capability of the
processes, the success of the process or its failure and is a barrier to reverse logistics
programs.
Financial resources (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 1998; Sharma et al. 2011 ;
Abdulrahman et al. 2014) may become a prime challenge in reverse logistics
systems. To establish the reverse logistics system, to build the infrastructure and to
provide the trained manpower and the technology for data acquiring and tracking,
sufficient financial resources is a requirement (Ravi and Shankar 2005). Because of
uncertainties about time, quality and quantity and due to risks and difficulties, firms
have to face highly uncertain investment (Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras 2011 ).
Product recovery activities require considerable amounts of specialized know-
how and staff (Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras 2011 ). So, an important barrier is
personnel resources (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke 1998; Abdulrahman et al. 2014).
Lack of training and education (Ravi and Shankar 2005 ; Sharma et al. 2011 ) or lack
of technical skill (Bouzon et al. 2018) in reverse logistics processes become prob-
lems when realizing the benefits and understanding the importance of this process on
the environment and the financial situation.
Reverse logistics systems require high levels of collaboration and cooperation
(Ye et al. 2013) so lack of support from supply chain partners is assumed to be
another barrier to reverse logistics (Gonzalez-Torre et al. 2010; Sharma et al. 2011 ;
Ravi and Shankar 2015 ; Bouzon et al. 2018). Reverse logistics needs the cooperative
behavior of supply chain partners such as distributors, warehouses and retailers.
Reluctance towards reverse logistics and information sharing may be barriers to
reverse logistics.
Other factors such as Legal issues or lack of laws and legislation, Lack of systems
to monitor the returns, Large amount of returned inventory held, Unidentified or
unauthorized returns, Competitive issues, Unknown total cost of the returns process,
Consumer attitudes towards using recovered material/product, Carrying costs of
inventory, Transportation costs for the used product in the reverse direction and
Difficulties in forecasting and planning for reverse logistics (Rogers and Tibben-
Lembke 1998; Lau and Wang 2009; Jack et al. 2010; Abdulrahman et al. 2014) are
seen as barriers to applying reverse logistics effectively.
300 G. Nakiboglu

3 Method and Application

The process of identifying the barriers and drivers involves determining the relative
importance or ranks of the criteria by experts. In this paper, to determine the weights
of criteria one of the Multiple Criteria Decision Methods, AHP (Analytic Hierarchy
Process), is used.
Multiple Criteria Decision Methods (MCDM) deal with the evaluation of a set of
alternatives, often involving multiple conflicting criteria. MCDM provide a ranking,
a choice or sort the alternatives (Aruldoss et al. 2013 ; Mulliner et al. 2016).
Originally AHP was developed by Saaty (Bernasconi et al. 2010). Since its invention
it has become one of the most widely used MCDM tools by researchers and
decision-makers (Vaidya and Kumar 2006). According to Saaty (2008), AHP is a
theory of measurement through pair-wise comparisons and relies on the judgment of
experts to derive priority scales. The AHP is based on pair-wise comparisons to
estimate criteria weight and compare the alternatives (Mulliner et al. 2016) used for
choosing and prioritization (Lai et al. 2002; Velasquez and Hester 2013).
The strength of the approach is that it can consider qualitative and quantitative,
tangible and intangible factors in decision making. It is relatively simple to apply
(Al-Harbi 2001 ), is flexible and intuitive and checks inconsistency (Aruldoss et al.
2013). Because this paper intends to investigate the most powerful drivers and
dominant barriers from the literature, the factors are investigated. The barriers and
motivators are discussed with three experts from academia and the private sector and
the final list is prepared. After meeting with experts the numbers of criteria for these
two subjects are reduced to 10 and 13, respectively (Table 1). Pair-wise comparison
questions are prepared. This requires 45 comparisons for drivers and 78 comparisons
for barriers (with formula n(n-1)/2, where n is the number of the criteria). In pair-
wise comparison questions, Saaty's importance scale is used: Equally important (1),
Weak importance (3), Strong importance (5), Demonstrated importance (7), Abso-
lute importance (9), and intermediate values of 2,4,6,8.
The research is conducted on a sample company. This company is the one of the
leading pipe manufacturing companies in Turkey. They have a sustainability pro-
gram and try to increase their effectiveness. The decision-maker group consists of
six experts with knowledge of the pipe-manufacturing process, raw materials, the
facility's environmental effect, consumer preferences and legal issues. The educa-
tion and responsibilities in the company of the six decision makers who participated
in the ranking process are,
• DMl: Engineer, Manager, Quality and R&D
• DM2: Engineer, Chief technician, Compound manufacturing
• DM3: Engineer, Coordinator, Safety and environment
• DM4: Engineer, Manager, Logistics
• DM5: Engineer, Responsible officer, Environment
• DM6: Engineer, Chief technician, Repair and maintenance
Determining Reverse Logistics Motivation Factors and Barriers: Multiple ... 301

Table 1 Motivation factors and barriers considered in analysis

Drivers Barriers
Cl Direct economic benefit Cl Lack of awareness of consumers or
limited market demand
C2 Regulatory pressures C2 Unclear economic benefits
C3 Consumers' demand C3 Company policies that make harder the
reverse logistics
C4 Social responsibility or corporate citizenship C4 Lack of standardized systems, infra-
structure and technologies
CS Suppliers' demand CS Uncertainties about time, quality and
quantity of returned products
C6 Obligatory reasons (warranty returns, quality C6 Lack of financial resources
control returns or product recalls etc.)
C7 Corporate image C7 Lack of laws and legislations
CS Functional returns (such as boxes and pallets) CS Management inattention and lack of
commitment of top management
C9 Competitive advantage C9 Low quality level of product
ClO Environmental concern and reducing the neg- ClO Personnel resources and lack of
ative environmental impact training and education
CH Limited feasibility of recovery
operations
C12 High cost and low profit potential
C13 Planning complexity

The AHP method is firstly applied individually and the weights are calculated for
motivation factors (Table 2) and for barriers (Table 3). Later, the aggregation matrix
of six decision makers was computed for general weights of motivation factors
(Table 4) and for barriers (Table 5).
As seen from Table 2, as motivation factors, all of the decision makers give the
highest priority to customer demand, obligatory reasons, the firm's image and
competition factors. Unlike motivation factors, barrier weight orders show dispersed
settlement (Table 3). Legal issues, low product quality, human resources, high cost
and lack of financial resources have higher priorities. Table 4 and Table 5 give the
final weights of all decision makers.
Obligatory reasons (such as warranty, contract clauses, quality returns), customer
demand and enhancing corporate image have the highest priority when compared to
the others (Table 4). This firm has environmental initiatives and applications so
perhaps because of this, decision makers believe that an environmentally conscious
corporate culture is important. They also stated that functional returns may motivate
the reverse logistics initiatives. From the table of final ranking of barriers (Table 5) it
can be seen that the lack of legislation that directs firms, low product quality and
uncertainties about time, quantity and quality are the most important barriers to
reverse logistics activities.
 (.;.)
0
N

Table 2 Decision makers' individual drivers and weights

DMl DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 DM6
C 1 (economic) 0.0790 (7) 0.0483 (7) 0.0457 (9) 0.0599 (7) 0.0436 (8) 0.1349 (3)
C2 (legal) 0.0287 (8) 0.0337 (8) 0.0912 (6) 0.1014 (5) 0.0322 (9) 0.0591 (6)
C3 (customer) 0.1179 (4) 0.1934 (2) 0.1167 (3) 0.1058 (4) 0.2604 (1) 0.2687 (1)
C4 (social res) 0.0829 (6) 0.0781 (6) 0.0866 (7) 0.0278 (8) 0.0437 (7) 0.0415 (8)
C5 (supplier) 0.0155 (10) 0.0137 (10) 0.0174 (10) 0.0190 (9) 0.0124 (10) 0.0173 (10)
C6 (obligatory) 0.2891 (1) 0.2580 (1) 0.0929 (5) 0.3096 (1) 0.1687 (3) 0.1778 (2)
C7 (image) 0.1490 (2) 0.1477 (3) 0.1779 (2) 0.1577 (2) 0.1955 (2) 0.1119 (4)
C8 (functional) 0.0178 (9) 0.0154 (9) 0.0640 (8) 0.0176 (10) 0.1003 (4) 0.0433 (7)
C9 (competition) 0.1370 (3) 0.1290 (4) 0.1099 (4) 0.1178 (3) 0.0854 (5) 0.1101 (5)
ClO (env cons.) 0.0831 (5) 0.0826 (5) 0.1976 (1) 0.0834 (6) 0.0578 (6) 0.0354 (9)

p
z
~
o"

s-
0
 0
~
§.
=
=
.....
!JC/
:,:i
~
~
"'
(I)

Table 3 Decision makers' individual barriers and weights ~

.....
!JC/
DMl DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 DM6 ~-
(')

Cl (customer aware.) 0.0618 (8) 0.0250 (13) 0.0521 (10) 0.0206 (13) 0.0795 (6) 0.1322 (2) "'
~
0
C2 (economic benefit) 0.0754 (6) 0.0359 (9) 0.0319 (13) 0.0530 (7) 0.0740 (7) 0.0682 (6) .:;t.
<
C3 (buss. policies) 0.0414 (9) 0.0339 (10) 0.0563 (6) 0.0270 (12) 0.0360 (11) 0.0450 (10) !:;.
§.
C4 (system&infra.) 0.0620 (7) 0.0582 (8) 0.0754 (5) 0.0517 (8) 0.0523 (8) 0.0474 (9)
C5 (uncertainties)
C6 (financial res.)
C7 (legal issues)
0.1383
0.0226
0.1381
(3)
(12)
(4)
0.0618
0.0266
0.0274
(7)
(12)
(11)
0.0319
0.0862
0.1936
(12)
(4)
(1)
0.0477
0.2027
0.1481
(9)
(1)
(2)
0.0969
0.1293
0.0441
(5)
(2)
(9)
0.0784
0.0293
0.2054
(5)
(13)
(1)
r8.
C8 (top management) 0.0181 (13) 0.1006 (5) 0.1661 (2) 0.0692 (6) 0.0379 (10) 0.0350 (12) t,j

C9 (product quality) 0.1392 (2) 0.1073 (4) 0.0389 (11) 0.0858 (5) 0.1232 (3) 0.0659 (7) s.
ClO (human res.) 0.0258 (11) 0.1834 (1) 0.0547 (7) 0.1400 (3) 0.1715 (1) 0.1236 (3) a
Cl 1 (recovery option)
C12 (high cost)
C13 (plan. complexity)
0.0376
0.1393
0.1005
(10)
(1)
(5)
0.1182
0.1540
0.0677
(3)
(2)
(6)
0.0537
0.0542
0.1049
(9)
(8)
(3)
0.0884
0.0343
0.0314
(4)
(10)
(11)
0.1077
0.0296
0.0179
(4)
(12)
(13)
0.0408
0.0498
0.0789
(11)
(8)
(4)
I!'.'1l

w
0
w
304 G. Nakiboglu

Table 4 Final ranking of Criteria weight

motivation factors and the
C 1 (economic) 0.0628 (6)
weights
C2 (legal) 0.0545 (9)
C3 (customer) 0.1944 (2)
C4 (social res) 0.0586 (7)
C5 (supplier) 0.0161 (10)
C6 (obligatory) 0.1961 (1)
C7 (image) 0.1565 (3)
C8 (functional) 0.0569 (5)
C9 (competition) 0.0969 (8)
ClO (env conscious) 0.1073 (4)

Table 5 Final ranking of Criteria weight

barriers and the weights
C 1 (customer awareness) 0.0599 (11)
C2 (economic benefit) 0.0509 (12)
C3 (buss. policies) 0.0397 (13)
C4 (system&infrastructure) 0.0686 (9)
C5 (uncertainties) 0.0791 (5)
C6 (financial resources) 0.0775 (6)
C7 (legal issues) 0.1189 (1)
C8 (top management) 0.0773 (7)
C9 (product quality) 0.1026 (3)
C 10 (human resources) 0.1073 (2)
Cll (recovery options) 0.0819 (4)
C12 (high cost) 0.0607 (10)
C13 (planning complexity) 0.0757 (8)

4 Conclusion

Reverse logistics issues are mainly driven by regulations in Europe, by profit in

North America and are in the emerging stage in other parts of the world. Lack of
regulations and lack of systems and infrastructure are inhibiting environmental
initiatives in developing countries. Therefore, reverse logistics has not received the
desired attention (Srivastava and Srivastava 2006).
Reverse logistics has many drivers but also a lot of barriers in practice especially
in developing countries. And it is not easy to say which driver is more powerful and
which barrier has the greatest effect. Unearthing the relative importance of the
drivers and barriers and ranking them makes the starting point of practicing reverse
logistics application more logical and helps the decision makers decide where they
should start to solve the problems. Thus the results may be used as road map by other
practitioners to develop solutions to problems and to focus more on drivers.
In this study, obligatory reasons, customer demand and enhancing corporate
image were found to be the most powerful drivers that enable reverse logistics
Determining Reverse Logistics Motivation Factors and Barriers: Multiple ... 305

practices. So, if companies check their status for these factors they can be used as
stepping-stones to build their reverse logistics system. Legal issues, lack of trained
human resources and low product quality were identified as the most important
problems/barriers in practice and so provide a road map and solutions that can be
implemented on a priority basis.
The limitation of this study is that because of the characteristic features of reverse
logistics, it is focused on only one sector so the priorities cannot be generalized to
other industries. However, the same structure can be applied to other industries that
are suitable for reverse logistics and product recovery.

References

Abdulrahman, M. D., Gunasekaran, A., & Subramanian, N. (2014). Critical barriers in

implementing reverse logistics in the Chinese manufacturing sectors. International Journal of
Production Economics, 147, 460-471.
Agrawal, S., Singh, R. K., & Murtaza, Q. (2015). A literature review and perspectives in reverse
logistics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 97, 76-92.
Akdogan, M. S., & Coskun, A. (2012). Drivers of reverse logistics activities: An empirical
investigation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 1640-1649.
Al-Harbi, K. M.A. (2001). Application of the AHP in project management. International Journal
of Project Management, 19, 19-27.
Andie, E., Yurt, 0., & Baltacioglu, T. (2012). Green supply chains: Efforts and potential applica-
tions for the Turkish market. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 58, 50--68.
Aruldoss, M., Lakshmi, T. M., & Venkatesan, V. P. (2013). A survey on multi criteria decision
making methods and its applications. American Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 31-43.
Bernasconi, M., Choirat, C., & Seri, R. (2010). The analytic hierarchy process and the theory of
measurement. Management Science, 56(4 ), 699-711.
Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., & Rodriguez, C. M. T. (2018). Evaluating barriers for reverse logistics
implementation under a multiple stakeholders' perspective analysis using grey decision making
approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, 315-335.
Bouzon, M., Spricigo, R., Rodriguez, C. M. T., de Queiroz, A. A., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2015).
Reverse logistics drivers: Empirical evidence from a case study in an emerging economy.
Production Planning & Control, 26(16), 1368-1385.
Carter, C.R., & Ellram, L. M. (1998). Reverse logistics: A review of the literature and framework
for future investigation. Journal of Business Logistics, 19(1), 85-102.
Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., & Hosseini, M. R. (2016). Drivers for adopting reverse logistics in
the construction industry: A qualitative study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 23(2), 134-157.
de Brito, M. P., & Dekker, R. (2003). A framework for reverse logistics [pdf]. Erasmus Research
Institute of Management Report Series: Research in Management. Accessed February 18, 2013,
from https://repub.eur.nl/pub/354/ERS-2003-045-LIS. pd
Erol, I., Velioglu, M. N., Serifoglu, F. S., Buyukozkan, G., Aras, N., Cakar, N. D., & Korugan,
A. (2010). Exploring reverse supply chain management practices in Turkey. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 15(1), 43-54.
Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M., Dekker, R., van der Laan, E., van Nunen, J. A. E. E.,
& Van Wassenhove, L. N. (1997a). Quantitative models for reverse logistics: A review.
European Journal of Operational Research, 103, 1-17.
306 G. Nakiboglu

Fleischmann, M., van Wassenhove, L. N., van Nunen, J. A. E. E., van der Laan, E., Dekker, R., &
Bloernhof-Ruwaard, J. M. (1997b). Quantitative models for reverse logistics: A review.
European Journal of Operational Research, 103(1 ), 1-17.
Garg, D., Luthra, S., & Haleem, A. (2016). An evaluation of barriers to implement reverse logistics:
A case study of Indian fastener industry. International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace,
Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing Engineering, 10(8), 1462-1467.
Geyer, R., & Jackson, T. (2004). Supply loops and their constraints: The industrial ecology of
recycling and reuse. California Management Review, 46(2), 55-73.
Gilanli, E., Altug, N., & Oguzhan, A. (2012). Reverse logistics activities in Turkey. Ege Academic
Review, 12(3), 391-399.
Ginger, P. M., & Starling, J. M. (1978). Reverse distribution channels for recycling. California
Management Review, 20(3), 72-82.
Gonzalez-Torre, P., Alvarez, M., Sarkis, J., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Barriers to the implemen-
tation of environmentally oriented reverse logistics: Evidence from the automotive industry
sector. British Journal of Management, 21, 889-904.
Guide, V. D. R., Jr., Teunter, R. H., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2003). Matching demand and
supply to maximize profits from remanufacturing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Man-
agement, 5(4), 303-316.
Hall, D. J., Huscroft, J. R., Hazen, B. T., & Hanna, J. B. (2013). Reverse logistics goals, metrics,
and challenges: Perspectives from industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 43(9), 768-785.
Ho, G. T. S., Choy, K. L., Lam, C. H. Y., & Wong, D. W. C. (2012). Factors influencing
implementation of reverse logistics: A survey among Hong Kong businesses. Measuring
Business Excellence, 16(3), 29-46.
Hsu, C. C., Tan, K. C., Zailani, S. H. M., & Jayaraman, V. (2013). Supply chain drivers that foster
the development of green initiatives in an emerging economy. International Journal of Oper-
ations & Production Management, 33(6), 656-688.
Jack, E. P., Powers, T. L., & Skinner, L. (2010). Reverse logistics capabilities: Antecedents and cost
savings. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(3),
228-246.
Jindal, A., & Sangwan, K. S. (2011). Development of an interpretive structural model of barriers to
reverse logistics implementation in Indian industry. In J. Hesselbach & C. Herrmann (Eds.),
Glocalized solutions for sustainability in manufacturing: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP Inter-
national Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Germany, May 2-4.
Kannan, D., Diabat, A., Alrefaei, M., Govindan, K., & Yong, G. (2012). A carbon footprint based
reverse logistics network design model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 67, 75-79.
Kannan, G., Sasikumar, P., & Devika, K. (2010). A genetic algorithm approach for solving a closed
loop supply chain model: A case of battery recycling. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34,
655-670.
Kapetanopoulou, P., & Tagaras, G. (2011 ). Drivers and obstacles of product recovery activities in
the Greek industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(2),
148-166.
Kokkinaki, A. I., Dekker, R., van Nunen, J., & Pappis, C. (2000). An exploratory study on
electronic commerce for reverse logistics. Supply Chain Forum an International Journal, 1,
10-17.
Kumar, S., & Putnam, V. (2008). Cradle to cradle: Reverse logistics strategies and opportunities
across three industry sectors. International Journal of Production Economics, 115, 305-315.
Lai, V. S., Wong, B. K., & Cheung, W. (2002). Group decision making in a multiple criteria
environment: A case using the AHP in software selection. European Journal of Operational
Research, 137, 134-144.
Lau, K. H., & Wang, Y. (2009). Reverse logistics in the electronic industry of China: A case study.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(69), 447-465.
Determining Reverse Logistics Motivation Factors and Barriers: Multiple ... 307

Mangla, S. K., Govindan, K., & Luthra, S. (2016). Critical success factors for reverse logistics in
Indian industries: A structural model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 608-621.
Mollenkopf, D., Russo, I., & Frankel, R. (2007). The returns management process in supply chain
strategy. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 37(7),
568-592.
Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the
assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146--156.
Mutha, A., & Pokharel, S. (2009). Strategic network design for reverse logistics and
remanufacturing using new and old product modules. Computers and Industrial Engineering,
56(1), 334-346.
Olorunniwo, F. 0., & Li, X. (2010). Information sharing and collaboration practices in reverse
logistics. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(6), 454-462.
Pokharel, S., & Mutha, A. (2009). Perspectives in reverse logistics: A review. Resources, Conser-
vation and Recycling, 53, 175-182.
Prakash, C., & Barna, M. K. (2015). Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the
solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment.
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 37, 599-615.
Presley, A., Meade, L., & Sarkis, J. (2007). A strategic sustainability justification methodology for
organisational decisions: A reverse logistics illustration. International Journal of Production
Research, 45(18-19), 4595--4620.
Rahimifard, S., Coates, G., Staikos, T., Edwards, C., & Abu-Bakar, M. (2009). Barriers, drivers and
challenges for sustainable product recovery and recycling. International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering, 2(2), 80-90.
Ravi, V., & Shankar, R. (2005). Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 72, 1011-1029.
Ravi, V., & Shankar, R. (2015). Survey of reverse logistics practices in manufacturing industries:
An Indian context. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 22(5), 874-899.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2005). Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-
of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
48, 327-356.
Rogers, D. S., & Tibben-Lembke, R. S. (1998). Going backwards - Reverse logistics trends
practices [pdf]. Reverse Logistics Executive Council. Accessed March 21, 2016, from http://
www .abrelpe.org.br/imagens_intranet/files/logistica_reversa. pdf
Roy, J., Nollet, J., & Beaulieu, M. (2006). Reverse logistics networks and governance structures.
Supply Chain Forum an International Journal, 7(2), 58-67.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of
Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of
environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. Journal of Operations Management,
28, 163-176.
Shaik, M. N., & Abdul-Kader, W. (2014). Comprehensive performance measurement and causal-
effect decision making model for reverse logistics enterprise. Computers & Industrial Engi-
neering, 68, 87-103.
Sharma, S. K., Panda, B. N., Mahapatra, S.S., & Sahu, S. (2011). Analysis of barriers for reverse
logistics: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Modeling and Optimization, 1(2),
101-106.
Srivastava, S. K. (2008). Network design for reverse logistics. Omega, 36, 535-548.
Srivastava, S. K., & Srivastava, R. V. (2006). Managing product returns for reverse logistics.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 36(7), 524-546.
Stock, J. R. (2001, October). Reverse logistics in the supply chain. Global Purchasing & Supply
Chain Strategies, 44-48.
Thiyagarajan, G., & Ali, S. (2016). Analysis of reverse logistics implementation barriers in online
retail industry. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(19), 1-6.
308 G. Nakiboglu

Vahabzadeha, A.H., Asiaeib, A., & Zailanic, S. (2015). Reprint of Green decision-making model in
reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 104,
334-347.
Vaidya, 0. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications.
European Journal of Operational Research, 169, 1-29.
Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods.
International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56-66.
Ye, F., Zhao, X., Prahinski, C., & Li, Y. (2013). The impact of institutional pressures, top
managers' posture and reverse logistics on performance - Evidence from China. International
Journal of Production Economics, 143, 132-143.