Journal of Cleaner Production: Kannan Govindan, Marina Bouzon

Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 318e337
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Review
From a literature review to a multi-perspective framework for reverse

logistics barriers and drivers
Kannan Govindan a, *, Marina Bouzon b
a
Center for Sustainable Supply Chain Engineering, Department of Technology and Innovation, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
b
Department of Production and Systems Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Caixa Postal 476, Brazil
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The emergence of stricter environmental regulations and the growing environmental consciousness of
Received 17 May 2016 customers have forced industries to start thinking about environmental operations management with
Received in revised form the help of reverse logistics application. In this process, influential factors such as drivers and barriers
21 February 2018
have to be examined, and stakeholders' different perspectives on RL implementation and development
Accepted 4 March 2018
Available online 7 March 2018
should also be considered. This paper presents a multi-perspective framework for reverse logistics
implementation using the lens of stakeholder theory. The multiple stakeholders' perspective framework
^ as de
Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo was developed based upon a structured literature review process. Fifty-four papers concerning these
Almeida topical areas were thoroughly assessed and classified according to their structural dimensions and
analytical categories. Two extensive lists of 37 drivers and 36 barriers, categorized and analyzed against
Keywords: the dimensions and categories, served as a basis for the development of the referred framework. Thereby,
Reverse logistics the overall contribution of this work proposes an understanding of the factors required for employing
Barriers reverse logistics from multiple perspectives, including those of the company, society, government, and
Drivers
customer. Additionally, each perspective is discussed separately with the aid of previous works devel-
Systematic literature review
oped in the field. Most of the encountered barriers are placed in the firm's perspective; however, these
barriers may be an effect from outside impediments. On the drivers' side, the factors must be
acknowledged so managers can prepare for changes by exploring these positive influential factors. A
consideration of the influential factors from multiple perspectives is critical for creating a comprehensive
industry strategy to successfully implement product return.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
2. Theoretical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
2.1. Theoretical foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
2.2. Previous literature reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
3. Research methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
3.1. Material collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
3.2. Descriptive analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
3.3. Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
3.4. Material evaluation and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
4. Descriptive analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
5. Content analysis and framework development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
5.1. Identification of stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
5.2. RL drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
5.3. RL barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
5.4. Towards a RL multi-perspective framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Govindan).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.040
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Govindan, M. Bouzon / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 318e337 319
6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
6.1. RL barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
6.1.1. Governmental perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
6.1.2. Customers' perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
6.1.3. Organizational perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
6.2. RL drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
6.2.1. Government perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
6.2.2. Customers' perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
6.2.3. Societal perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
6.2.4. Organizational perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
6.3. Further insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
6.4. Future research opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
7. Final remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
1. Introduction (Abdulrahman et al., 2014).

Given these impediments, it is still imprecise how internal and
Technological development, mass consumption, and a decrease external factors interactively stimulate green initiatives (Sarkis
in product life span have augmented production all over the world. et al., 2011), and how diverse are the many stakeholder perspec-
As a consequence, more raw materials are extracted and more tives engaged in the implementation process regarding these
waste is created (Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013). In order to solve drivers and barriers. In this manner, research on the drivers and
this increasing problem, the interest in closed-loop supply chains barriers that promote or hinder RL implementation, as well as on
and reverse logistics has attracted not only the attention of com- the stakeholders' influence, becomes essential. Failing to deal with
panies and professionals but also the researchers (Flapper et al., the interests of many stakeholders may damage company perfor-
2012; Govindan et al., 2015; Nikolaou et al., 2013). Reverse logis- mance (Avkiran and Morita, 2010).
tics (RL) is the practice of moving products from their usual final With the aforementioned in mind, this paper aims to offer
destination with the purpose of recapturing value or correct further insight into the domain of multiple stakeholders' perspec-
disposal (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001). For that, reverse lo- tives for RL drivers and barriers. To accomplish this task, this
gistics includes all of the actions involved in managing, reducing, research attempts to answer the question “what are the drivers and
processing, and disposing of waste (hazardous or nonhazardous) barriers according to each key stakeholder perspective?” Accord-
from several stages in a product lifecycle, for instance: production ingly, this paper intends to:
and packaging, use phase, and processes of reverse distribution
(Govindan et al., 2013; Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001). identify the most relevant papers related to RL, its barriers,
Important research has been done so far on RL topics, such as drivers, and stakeholders;
theory development (Dowlatshahi, 2000), network design classify these articles in terms of methods, industry sector,
(Srivastava, 2008; Pishvaee et al., 2010), and decision making (Ravi country specific, stakeholders, drivers, and barriers addressed in
et al., 2005). Although RL is strategically valued (Alvarez-Gil et al., the paper;
2007) and the RL approach is achieving popularity in practice, the present a summary of each previous paper's contribution rela-
accessible body of literature on the strategic field is limited tive to stakeholder and RL issues;
(Govindan et al., 2015; Narayana et al., 2014; Subramoniam et al., provide a multiple stakeholders' perspective analysis for RL
2009, 2013). drivers and barriers and a research agenda based on the
In the body of knowledge, several drivers e namely legislation, research gaps found during this study.
economic interest, social accountability, stakeholder pressures, and
ethics e have been presented as influential or motivational factors This research differs from previous works in the following as-
that compel firms to employ green activities (Andiç et al., 2012) pects. Firstly, the paper focuses on the field of RL and stakeholders'
such as RL. Internal pressures arise from employees (feel-good influence where attention has quickly flourished but in which few
factors related to environmental practices), from the firm's strategy papers have been published. Secondly, the chosen approach com-
to reduce cost risks, or from the objective of guaranteeing the in- bines stakeholder theory with the concepts of barriers and drivers,
tellectual property of end of life (EOL) products. At the same time, and provides a concrete theoretical framework for the develop-
external pressures from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ment of future research. Third, the originality of this research relies
government, community, clients, and even the media emerge in on the fact that no previous work was found in the field of multiple
order to make industries cope with environmental policies. stakeholders' perspective for drivers and barriers for RL. To the best
However, RL is not a symmetric representation of forward of the authors' knowledge, formal research dealing with barriers
supply chain (Fleischmann et al., 1997; Srivastava, 2008). Com- and drivers for RL implementation from a multiple stakeholder
panies face internal and external RL implementation impediments perspective is not exhaustive. Some previous studies have tried to
from many stakeholders (Abdulrahman et al., 2014). Most in- identify either drivers (Ho et al., 2012; Kannan et al., 2014) or
dustries still struggle to employ RL strategies as a result of a lack of barriers (Gonz alez-Torre et al., 2010; Ravi and Shankar, 2005;
interest of their supply chain (SC) partners (Bernon et al., 2013). In Shaharudin et al., 2014; Sharma et al., 2011) or both factors
addition, some firms consider RL an underestimated part of the SC (Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011; Rahimifard et al., 2009) for RL
for a plurality of motives, such as its uncertain profitability, its lack by, mostly, one stakeholder perspective. This work attempts to
of people technical skills, and its difficulties with SC partners bridge this gap by considering multiple stakeholders' perspectives,
320 K. Govindan, M. Bouzon / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 318e337
as the same RL drivers and barriers can be interpreted differently. stakeholders are seen as provokers of RL deployment. That is,
The remainder of this paper unfolds as follows. In the following stakeholders have many requirements which the company may
Section, a brief overview of the theoretical lens used in this work is satisfy through RL initiatives (Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007). Because
presented. Section 3 provides the research methods, whereas most firms perceive the dynamic and multi-dimensional nature of
Section 4 presents the descriptive analysis of the literature survey. doing business, uncovering the viewpoints of several stakeholders
The paper then shifts focus to the content analysis and the multi- can enlighten managerial decision-making in an effort of peer
perspective framework in Section 5. Section 6 discusses the re- benchmarking (Avkiran and Morita, 2010). Furthermore, recently,
sults by relating them to previous publications and uncovering the companies are increasingly accountable not only to their typical
opportunities available in the area. Finally, building on the subjects stakeholders such as shareholders, or state regulatory authorities,
analyzed in previous sections, Section 7 provides some concluding but also to new ones such as NGOs for their social and environ-
remarks and emergent topics in this area that are fertile areas for mental profiles and to consumers (for example, through social
further investigation. media communications) (Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013).
Nevertheless, different stakeholders may exhibit contrasting
2. Theoretical background perspectives on the aspiration of characteristics (Avkiran and
Morita, 2010; Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013). The conflicting ob-
RL implementation and management is commonly dependent: jectives of the stakeholders are many. Shareholders focus mostly on
(i) on the support and participation of the key stakeholders; (ii) on the company's profitability. Employees support their own interests
the shared responsibility through the reverse SC to bring back EOL and oppose, for example, a factory closure, even if this step would
products; and (iii) on the resources committed to RL operations. For increase a company's profitability (Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013).
these reasons, this work is primarily grounded in the stakeholder Government and regulators intensify legislation, which usually
theory. This theory is the core background for this research, used to raises the cost of products or services. NGOs might criticize and
understand and cluster factors, focusing on the relationship with publicly expose companies for not being environmentally friendly.
parties and the development of the perspectives for RL framework. The media can publish negative news about companies, harming
The use of this theory is well-established in previous literature, company's sales. In summary, companies must deal with the
since it is the most cited and used theory in Sustainable Supply various perspectives and incompatible interests of their influential
Chain Management (SSCM) areas (Touboulic and Walker, 2015). groups, which may require them to advance in specific capabilities
This section proceeds by detailing the theoretical rationale of this to manage these pressures (Sarkis et al., 2010). These examples
work. confirm the appropriateness of stakeholder theory for under-
standing how external factors influence RL (Alvarez-Gil et al.,
2.1. Theoretical foundation 2007).
In order to better draw the research gap, Table 1 lists previous
The stakeholder theory is a main theoretical foundation of this research relating RL to stakeholder theory and/or stakeholder
research. This theory has been widely used in environmental analysis. These papers were gathered from the main databases (e.g.
research (Shaharudin et al., 2014). The company's stakeholders play Springer, Emerald, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Science Direct, and
a relevant role in favoring, and occasionally hindering, sustain- Google Scholar) using the search terms “reverse logistics” and
ability in supply chain management (Meixell and Luoma, 2015). The “stakeholder theory” as keywords, title, and abstract search fields.
stakeholder theory indicates that “companies produce externalities As Table 1 shows, RL and stakeholder theory are subjects
that affect many parties (stakeholders) which are both internal and concurrently used in recent research; however, few works have
external to the firm” (Sarkis et al., 2011). dealt with RL issues using the lens of this theory. Some papers
There are a plurality of definitions of stakeholders (Mitchell recognize the importance of analyzing the relationship between
et al., 1997), but most of them share their essence in the defini- stakeholders' pressures and RL implementation (Abdullah et al.,
tion presented by Freeman (1984): “any group or individual who 2012; Abraham, 2011; Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007; Gonza lez-Benito
can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's and Gonza lez-Benito, 2006). Still, to the best of the authors'
objectives.” Groups, persons, organizations, societies, institutions, knowledge, no paper has yet researched multiple perspectives of
and the natural environment may be interpreted as current or stakeholders for the analysis of drivers and barriers for RL imple-
potential stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997). ‘‘Stakeholder theory is mentation. This argument is better solidified in Sections 3e5,
concerned with who has input in decision making as well as with where the research process is explained, and descriptive and con-
who benefits from the outcomes of such decisions” (Crane and tent analysis is presented.
Ruebottom, 2011; Phillips et al., 2003). Fig. 1 summarizes the use of stakeholder theory in this research.
Mitchell et al. (1997) developed a classification that groups This theory was used in many phases of the research process,
stakeholders based on three attributes: (i) the power of the stake- helping the authors to obtain and interpret data. It was used in an
holder to influence the company, (ii) the legitimacy or legality of the inductive approach: (i) to provide the list of stakeholders, (ii) to
stakeholder's connection with the company, and (iii) the urgency or trim this list to the most relevant stakeholders, (iii) to classify the
criticality of the stakeholder's request on the company. The authors influential factors according to the perspectives from parties, and
combined these attributes, creating a stakeholder typology which finally, (iv) to analyze the data by comparing to previous work.
includes: latent, expectant, and definitive stakeholders (Kim and Details on the research process per se are presented in the
Lee, 2012). Latent stakeholders hold only one of these three attri- sequence.
butes (power, legitimacy, and urgency). Expectant stakeholders In order to better understand and interpret the present research
possess two attributes, and definitive stakeholders, in turn, are outcomes, a second theoretical lens is used: organizational change
those who hold three attributes. Given this classification, this management. RL is considered as an environmental initiative, as its
research considers mostly the influence of expectant and definitive implementation may close the loop of the supply chain. With this in
stakeholders, as “corporate managers must pay attention to the mind, drivers to change for sustainability and barriers to change for
interests of these two last stakeholders” (Kim and Lee, 2012). sustainability must be considered. While drivers promote change,
Stakeholder pressure is a relevant motivational element for their efficacy is hindered by barriers to change (Lozano, 2012). In
green initiatives (Andiç et al., 2012). The claims of different this matter, corporate sustainability (CS) description relates to
Table 1
Previous papers on RL and stakeholders' issues.
Source Paper objective Main contribution

lez-Benito
(Gonza The article identifies the elements determining the implementation of Two dimensions of influences can be discriminated (governmental and
and Gonza lez- environmental logistics initiatives by studying 2 variables: the values and non-governmental). Only the governmental pressure is capable of
Benito, 2006) beliefs of the firm's managers and the environmental pressure of the explaining the implementation of green practices in logistics.
stakeholders.
(Kovacs et al., The paper suggests a framework for the evaluation of reverse SCs and The way the stakeholders of glass recycling SC in Finland reply to
2006) shows how stakeholder theory can be employed from a SC perspective. legislation changes is analyzed and described in different scenarios.
(Alvarez-Gil et al., The paper creates a model with internal, external, and individual factors The study points out that employees, the government, and customers'
2007) affecting RL implementation. salience have a relevant influence on the final decision for implementing
RL programs. On the other hand, shareholder pressure negatively impacts
the decision.
(Abraham, 2011) The paper aims to map RL systems in the garment aftermarket in India and More predictable business, increased market knowledge and better
to identify the collaboration between stakeholders. margins are the benefits augmented by collaboration in the RL chain.
(Kim and Lee, The article investigates the function of green culture in the relationship There are significant relationships between stakeholder pressure and
2012) between stakeholder demands and the implementation of environmental green logistics practices. Corporate eco-oriented culture fully mediates the
logistics initiatives. relationship between perceived stakeholder pressure and the adoption of
environmental logistics practices.
(Abdullah et al., The research aims to perceive the ongoing level of RL adoption among Regulatory pressure has a considerably strong influence on the level of RL
2012) manufacturing industries in Malaysia and to uncover the influence of implementation, while customer/stakeholder force has a moderate
regulatory pressure, customer/stakeholder pressure, corporate citizenship influence.
pressure, and financial pressure on RL adoption.
(Yusuf and Raouf, The paper proposes a framework for optimizing economic, social, and The research offers a gain model to optimize the benefits of stakeholders.
2013) environmental gains from RL for the stakeholders. It also emphasizes the diversity of waste and its method for operation in
Pakistani industry.
Fig. 1. The use of stakeholder theory.
stakeholder theory as its definition states that CS means “meeting 2.2. Previous literature reviews
the needs of a firm's direct and indirect stakeholders (such as
shareholders, employees, clients, pressure groups, communities, In order to assure the originality of this work, this section pre-
etc.), without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future sents relevant previous papers that have performed a literature
stakeholders as well” (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002, p. 131). review on RL domain. Table 2 compiles the most prominent review
Accordingly, Freeman (1984) postulates that a company is changed papers.
by both external stakeholders and internal stakeholders (Lozano Clearly, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no previous work
et al., 2016). has dealt with the problem pursued in the current study. No earlier
RL implementation requires adaptations in procedures, utiliza- work has dealt with a multiple stakeholders' perspective for RL,
tion of human resources, leadership priorities and values. Thus, considering drivers and barriers for its implementation. In addition,
organizational changes that menace the status quo, such as RL Agrawal et al. (2015) confirm that “research in the field of RL is in
endeavors, naturally encounter resistance at the many organiza- evolving phase and issues pertaining to adoption and imple-
tional levels (Gill, 2003; Lozano et al., 2015). mentation” have not been reviewed extensively.
Table 2
Previous literature reviews on RL.
Authors Literature review scope
Fleischmann et al. (1997) Review on quantitative models for reverse logistics, dividing the subject in three main areas: distribution planning, inventory control, and
production planning.
Carter and Ellram (1998) General review on RL and framework for future investigation.
De Brito et al., 2005 Review and content analysis of more than sixty case studies on RL.
Chanintrakul et al. (2009) Comprehensive review of the literature on RL network design from 2000 to 2008.
Pokharel and Mutha It presents an investigation on the current development in research and practice in RL through content analysis.
(2009)
Chan et al. (2010) Review on the implementation of just-in-time philosophy to RL.
Mahaboob Sheriff et al. Review on the strategic perspective of RL network design.
(2012)
Agrawal et al. (2015) Review of 242 articles on reverse logistics issues, such as: adoption and implementation, forecasting product returns, outsourcing, RL networks
from secondary market perspective, and disposition decisions.
Govindan et al. (2015) General review including 382 papers from 2007 to 2013 in reverse logistic and closed-loop supply chain domains.
Wang et al. (2017) Extensive bibliometric analysis of 912 published academic articles on reverse logistics from 1992 to 2015.
Campos et al. (2017) systematic literature review (SLR) of 39 papers aimed at identifying RL concepts and practices applied to the end-of-life (EOL) and end-of-use
(EOU) of pharmaceuticals.
The next topic presents the methods employed to gather from with some adaptations. The main steps adopted in this literature
literature these influential factors for RL implementation. review are illustrated in Fig. 2. Each of the steps presented in Fig. 2
is detailed in the sequence.
In which, peer reviewed articles obtained in leading databases
3. Research methods were considered; a search strategy was used, and the body of the
literature retrieved was evaluated in order to determine its quality
Literature reviews are characterized as mainly qualitative syn- and relevance. However the selection criteria were as follows:
thesis (Seuring and Gold, 2012). Fink (2013) defines literature re-
view as “a systematic, explicit, comprehensive, and reproducible ✓ Only those articles that had been published in reverse logistics
method for identifying, evaluating, and interpreting the existing with various focus including concepts, applications, strategies
body of original work produced by researchers and scholars.” In and stakeholder perspectives were selected.
this sense, literature reviews are the spine of almost every aca- ✓ Only those articles which clearly analyzed, categorized, and
demic manuscript (Seuring and Gold, 2012). explored the drivers and barriers of reverse logistics were
In order to minimize and control threats of validity, this paper selected.
followed a systematic approach based on a structured process, ✓ Conference papers, masters and doctoral dissertations, text-
ensuring the objectivity of the research. To assure rationality, the books and unpublished working papers were excluded from this
following aspects were taken into account. Databases and peer- review to increased the reliability of the study.
reviewed journals were considered; a search strategy was used,
and the body of the literature retrieved was evaluated in order to
determine its quality and relevance.
The review procedure is based on a work process from Govindan 3.1. Material collection
et al. (2013), Lage Junior and Godinho Filho (2010), Seuring and
Gold (2012), Brandenburg et al. (2014), and Govindan et al. (2015) In this phase, two major decisions to make are the material
Fig. 2. Research process.

Source: Research process outlined by the authors based on Seuring and Gold (2012), Brandenburg et al. (2014), and (Govindan et al., 2015; Govindan and Jepsen, 2016).
delimitation and the characterization of the unit of analysis comparing categories and data” (Seuring and Gold, 2012). This
(Seuring and Gold, 2012). Therefore, the selection process uses the means that all articles in the research portfolio were thoroughly
following filtering criteria: examined in full, when drivers, barriers, and stakeholders cited in
the manuscript were organized using a spreadsheet. Duplicated
(i) The literature review focuses upon previous works published data were removed and clusters emerged based on functional as-
in English from the last 11 years (from January 2004 to pects of RL. This process was iterative since the categories and
August 2015). clusters were revised by the authors twice. The information on
(ii) The scientific-technical bibliographic databases used to inductive and/or deductive approach is given in the right-hand
search for articles were: Springer, Emerald, Wiley, Taylor & column of Table 3.
Francis, Science Direct, ISI Web of Science, Inderscience, Structural dimensions were established according to the ob-
Google Scholar, and Scopus. jectives of this review. In addition, other structural dimensions
(iii) The keywords contained in the title and abstract used for used included ‘method used,’ ‘industry sector,’ and ‘country spe-
selecting the articles during the material collection phase are cific,’ as based on previous literature reviews (Brandenburg et al.,
‘reverse logistics,’ ‘closed-loop supply chain,’ or ‘reverse 2014; Govindan et al., 2015). This approach allowed us to find not
supply chain,’ and ‘drivers’ or ‘barriers’ or ‘stakeholders.’ only the main streams of publications in the topic but also the
Terms such as ‘reuse,’ ‘remanufacturing,’ and ‘recycling’ were research gaps.
also accepted during the publication gathering process.
(iv) Papers focusing on sustainable supply chain management 3.4. Material evaluation and results
(SCM) or green SCM were not considered directly, because
the focus of this work is on RL, not on the broad areas in Content analysis is a useful means to assess the symbolic con-
which it is commonly inserted. However, some papers from tent of published articles in a systematic manner to unearth
these topical areas were used in this research to reinforce the research opportunities drawn from the diverse literature base
analysis, although they were not included in the literature (Shaharudin et al., 2014). After the article selection process and the
review portfolio. definition of the major topics of analysis and its categories, a clas-
sification was performed to sort the articles by their main focus. In
This search resulted in more than 160 articles from more than 50 other words, the portfolio of collected papers on RL related issues
journals. After eliminating duplicate papers with the aid of the has been analyzed using the structural dimensions and analytic
software EndNote®, a sorting process was performed in which titles categories detailed previously in this paper (based on Stakeholder
and abstracts were analyzed to guarantee that their main topic was theory). For that, a spreadsheet software was used to minimize
suitable for this our research scope. This narrowing resulted in a set errors and to evaluate different aspects of the analyses (Govindan
of 58 papers. Then, a backward search was performed in the ref- et al., 2015). Three researchers were involved into content anal-
erences (a cross-referencing), and that process added one more ysis and paper coding, ensuring inter-coder reliability
relevant paper to our portfolio. Hence, careful research procedures (Brandenburg et al., 2014). This categorization scheme based on
were followed, resulting in a final set of 59 articles from 35 different theory with previously defined categories and precise definitions
journals. improves consistency of the coding and internal validity of the
Literature related to green purchasing, business environmental findings (Seuring and Gold, 2012). Lastly, an analysis of the review
behavior, green logistics, and industrial ecology was not consid- is performed to provide insights into the researched topic, pointing
ered, unless the article explicitly deals with RL issues. Following the out research gaps for future works in the RL area.
boundaries suggested in the field of green/environmental supply
chain (Sarkis, 2012), this literature survey limits the search scope to 4. Descriptive analysis
product return issues related to end of use and end of life (EOL)
products and packaging. From the 59 studied pieces of work, 54 are from journal articles,
4 from conference proceedings, and one book chapter. As the
3.2. Descriptive analysis research is focused on double-blind peer-review papers, the final
portfolio is comprised of 54 papers. Although single blind review is
A quantitative content analysis was used to examine the liter- good enough, but to improve the quality and reliability of the paper
ature from different bodies of studies. In this step, information this study only considers the double peer reviews where author
about the distribution of the papers across various journals is and reviewer identity was maintained as anonymous. According to
assessed, as well as the distribution across the years. In addition, Blank (1991) there is a consistent of referee bias in single blind
the descriptive analysis offers information on the country specif- reviewing, also in that study, various advantages of double blind
ically focused on in the paper, the industrial sector analyzed, and review were exposed.
the method used. These results are presented in Section 4. An overview of the journals used can be seen in Table A1 in the
Appendix. Journal of Cleaner Production has the largest number of
3.3. Classification publications, followed by the Int J of Production Economics and The
Int J of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. It is important to
Structural dimensions constitute the main subjects of analysis, mention that the first eight journals represent more than 45% of the
which are formed by analytic categories. These categories and the journal references identified.
corresponding structural dimensions are categorized in Table 3. The distribution of all papers along the years is presented in
Structural dimensions were established in a deductive way, i.e., Fig. 3. As can be seen, 2005 was the first year of publication of the
they were appraised before the material was analyzed, based on subject related to the topics ‘influential factors’ and ‘stakeholders.’
existing theory (Seuring and Gold, 2012). For the analytical cate- The number of publications was found to rise starting from 2011/
gories, some were derived deductively while others were deter- 2012. This increase shows a growing interest in RL related to topics
mined inductively. The latter means that “categories are derived such as influential factors and stakeholder analysis.
from the material under examination itself, employing an iterative The economic activities addressed in the articles were also
process of category building, testing and revising by constantly investigated. To determine this distribution, the classification of the
Table 3
Structural dimensions, analytic categories and definitions.
Structural Definition Analytical categories Inductive/

Dimensions Deductive
(deductive)
Method used Reported tools/procedure for identifying, gathering, and Survey, Case Study, Mathematical modelling, Focus Group, Literature Review, Deductive/
analyzing the data for attaining the paper's objective. and Theoretical (theoretical papers which are not literature reviews). Inductive
Industry sector Describes the specific industry sector in which the research North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industrial sector Deductive
was performed. classification was used.a
Country specific Describes the specific country in which the research was Worldwide countries. Deductive
developed.
Stakeholders Stakeholders' perspectives used in the manuscript. Stakeholders were taken from previous literature and defined in Section 5.1. Inductive
Drivers Influential factors cited in the paper. Drivers were taken from the studied literature and defined in Section 5.2. Inductive
Barriers Impediments cited in the paper. Barriers were taken from the studied literature and defined in Section 5.3. Inductive
a
NAICS was used in this paper due to its broad international use, which was considered for the revision process of other important international classifications such as the
International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities.
(Seuring and Gold, 2012). This step is provided in Sections 5.1, 5.2,
and 5.3. Some quantitative analyses are also given. On a second
stage, a latent content of the manuscript is extracted, which re-
quires an elucidation of the underlying meaning of arguments and
terms (Seuring and Gold, 2012). This step is also present in some
classifications in sub-Sections 5.1, 5.2, And 5.3, but it is mainly
attained in sub-Section 5.4 with the purpose of developing the
multi-perspective framework.
5.1. Identification of stakeholders
Fig. 3. Distribution of publications through the years. Given the classification offered by Mitchell et al. (1997) and
discussed in Section 2.2, it is a business reality that a company
never satisfies every stakeholder's claim. Hence, managers should
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was used. focus on the more significant stakeholders (expectant or definitive
The majority of papers address the ‘transportation equipment stakeholders) (Kim and Lee, 2012). Thereby, before determining the
manufacturing’ and the ‘electrical equipment, appliance, and drivers and barriers for RL, this topic intends to define the stake-
component manufacturing’ industry sectors. This result is hardly holders for RL. The encountered stakeholders are presented in
surprising, because RL practice in these sectors is strongly driven by Table 4.
legislation issues and direct economic benefits, such as the reva- Besides the stakeholders gathered from the portfolio's analyzed
lorization of products. The complete list is presented in Table A2 in papers, some additional papers were included in this analysis in
the Appendix. order to guarantee that this work comprises all relevant stake-
Regarding the specific country addressed in the papers, the holders for RL. Considering that RL is seen as part of green logistics
majority of publications analyzed refer to India, followed by China practice (Gonzalez-Benito and Gonza lez-Benito, 2006) and part of
and the United Kingdom. Some authors (Abdulrahman et al., 2014) green SC initiatives (Diabat and Govindan, 2011; Govindan et al.,
have stated that most of prior research on RL issues is focused on 2013; Muduli et al., 2013; Srivastava, 2007), previous works on
developed nations, but this scenario seems to be changing. As can stakeholders for environmental logistics were also considered,
be noted in Table A3 in the Appendix, studies focused on the BRIC namely studies by Avkiran and Morita (2010), Kim and Lee (2012),
countries are emerging in the body of knowledge. and Wassenhove and Besiou (2013).
Concerning the methods used in the papers, case-based By means of an inductive analysis, eight types of stakeholders
research and surveys are the most common methods applied by were identified as exerting influence on RL activities: Government,
papers from our portfolio. The category “others” includes mainly Customers, Society/Community, Market/Competitors, Suppliers,
articles that employ multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) tools, Organization (focal company/shareholders), Employees, and Media.
such as interpretive structural modelling (ISM) and analytic hier- These encountered stakeholders, shown in Table 4, serve as
archical process (AHP). No literature review deals with influential analytical categories for classifying each of the drivers and barriers,
factors and multiple perspectives from stakeholders for RL imple- to be described in the following topics.
mentation. The complete list can be viewed in the Appendix
(Table A4).
5.2. RL drivers
5. Content analysis and framework development Identifying and understanding the motivational factors, namely
drivers, for RL implementation is a major step to gain competi-
Content analysis provides a methodological frame to conduct tiveness. Drivers are considered motivational factors that lead
systematic, rigorous, and reproducible literature reviews (Seuring companies to employ some sort of activity. The key drivers of RL
and Gold, 2012). It is defined as any kind of methodological initiatives are not well known yet (Akdogan and Coşkun, 2012). In
assessment applied to text for social science goals (Shapiro and the literature, many drivers have been proposed to understand the
Markoff, 1997). motivational aspects that lead firms to perform RL, as shown in
In the process of content analysis, the first stage analyzes the Table 5. By means of the thorough literature review procedure
manifest content of documents and texts by statistical methods adopted and the papers classified in the spreadsheet already
Table 4
List of stakeholders by reference.
Stakeholder Description Sources
Government Government, legislation agencies. (Abdullah et al., 2012; Aitken and Harrison, 2013; Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007; Avkiran and Morita, 2010;
Crane and Ruebottom, 2011; Gonza lez-Torre et al., 2010; Hsu et al., 2013; Kannan et al., 2014; Kim
and Lee, 2012; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Narayana et al., 2014; Sarkis et al., 2010; Shaik and
Abdul-Kader, 2013; Subramoniam et al., 2009; Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013; Ye et al., 2013)
Customers Clients and consumers. (Abdullah et al., 2012; Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007; Avkiran and Morita, 2010; Crane and Ruebottom,
2011; Gonzalez-Torre et al., 2010; Hsu et al., 2013; Kannan et al., 2014; Kim and Lee, 2012;
Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Narayana et al., 2014; Rahimifard et al., 2009; Sarkis et al., 2010;
Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2013; Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013; Ye et al., 2013)
Society/NGOs Society, community and non- (Abdullah et al., 2012; Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007; Crane and Ruebottom, 2011; Gonz alez-Torre et al.,
governmental 2010; Hsu et al., 2013; Kim and Lee, 2012; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Sarkis et al., 2010;
organization representing the societal Subramoniam et al., 2009; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012; Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013)
interests.
Market/Competitors Market and competitors. (Abdullah et al., 2012; Crane and Ruebottom, 2011; Gonza lez-Torre et al., 2010; Ye et al., 2013)
Suppliers Upstream side of the SC. (Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007; Crane and Ruebottom, 2011; Hsu et al., 2013; Kannan et al., 2014;
Rahimifard et al., 2009; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012)
Organization Focal company including interest of (Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007; Avkiran and Morita, 2010; Crane and Ruebottom, 2011; Kim and Lee, 2012;
shareholders. Narayana et al., 2014; Rahimifard et al., 2009; Sarkis et al., 2010; Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2013;
Subramoniam et al., 2009; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012; Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013)
Employees Manpower from the focal company. (Avkiran and Morita, 2010; Crane and Ruebottom, 2011; Hsu et al., 2013; Kannan et al., 2014; Kim
and Lee, 2012; Sarkis et al., 2010; Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2013; Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013);
Kannan, 2018
Media Including traditional media and social (Crane and Ruebottom, 2011; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Sarkis et al., 2010; Wassenhove and
media. Besiou, 2013)
described in Section 3, 37 drivers have been found and classified according to the stakeholders involved, either as creating the
into categories based on their similarities and meaning. The drivers motivational factor or, conversely, as being influenced by the driver.
were classified by internal and external (i.e. is it related to internal This research also analyzed the popularity of RL drivers ac-
or external resources?), and each of them was related to one or cording to the number of times the driver appeared in the article
more stakeholders defined previously in Table 4. The selected portfolio. The result of this analysis is presented in Fig. 4.
drivers were then classified into eight clusters. These clusters Regulatory pressure for the adoption of environmental initia-
emerged inductively from the paper portfolio, based on functional tives is by far the leading driver according to the studied papers;
aspects of RL, and they were also inspired by previous classification almost half of the articles cited this driver. The next most
schemes found in literature, such as those offered by Abdulrahman commonly cited motivational factor is green consumerism, which
et al. (2014) and Govindan et al. (2014). The clusters are: appeared in 13 papers and clearly demonstrates that environ-
mental concern is a tendency among consumers. Economic
Policy related issues (P): this cluster includes issues on regula- viability, appearing 10 times, attained third place, which shows that
tions and laws concerning product take back and RL. companies will not perform product return practices unless RL can
Governance and SC process related issues (G&SC): this cluster improve economic efficiency.
refers to reverse supply chain drivers, co-operation issues, and
business partners. 5.3. RL barriers
Management related issues (M): this cluster includes issues
such as employee satisfaction, human resources support, and The barriers can be classified as external or internal (Srivastava,
department integration for RL practice.
2013). External barriers involve impediments from outside of firms
Market and competitor related issues (M&C): this cluster in- that disrupt the adoption of green activities, whereas internal
cludes customer satisfaction, competitive advantage potential,
barriers are the hindrances that exist within the company itself that
green market issues, and competitive pressures. obstruct the adoption of green efforts (Hillary, 2004). Many authors
Technology and infrastructure related issues (T&I): this cluster have considered and discussed the several barriers for RL imple-
includes information technology drivers, availability of eco- mentation. Similar to the drivers' classification, Table 6 depicts each
design and design for ‘X’ techniques and recovery technologies. encountered barrier, its description, classification as internal or
Economic related issues (E): this cluster includes financial and external, the stakeholders involved, and sources. The 36 selected
economic drivers related to RL. barriers were classified into seven clusters, following the same
Knowledge related issues (K): this cluster refers to internal re- approach used for the drivers' classification. The encountered
sources such as information flows and RL awareness in clusters are:
companies.
Social related issues (S): this cluster refers to RL drivers related Technology and infrastructure related issues (T&I): this cluster
to societal pressures, such as higher public awareness on envi-
includes information technology barriers, technical skills issues
ronmental conservation and corporate citizenship pressure. and barriers related to lack of infrastructure for RL development.
Governance and SC process related issues (G&SC): this cluster
From the 37 drivers, 23 were classified as internal to the orga- refers to reverse SC barriers, co-operation issues and perfor-
nization, and 14 classified as external. Internal drivers are those
mance measurement.
factors that exist in the firm itself and are related to resource Economic related issues (E): this cluster includes financial and
commitment that promote the adoption of RL, whereas external
economic barriers related to RL.
drivers involve motivational factors from outside the companies Knowledge related issues (K): this cluster refers to information
that impel the adoption of RL. The drivers were also classified
flows and RL awareness in companies.
Table 5
List of RL drivers, classification, and sources.
Driver Description Internal/ Stakeholders Sources

External involved
1 - Policy related issues

D1. Regulatory pressure Many nations have introduced laws to ensure effective External Government Agrawal et al., 2015; Aitken and Harrison, 2013; Alvarez-Gil
for product return/ disposal of products or may make it obligatory for the firms et al., 2007; Andiç et al., 2012; Chan and Chan, 2008; Chan
recovery to recover used products. et al., 2012; de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2013;
Jayaraman and Luo, 2007; Jindal and Sangwan, 2013;
Kannan et al., 2014; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011;
Krikke et al., 2013; Kumar and Putnam, 2008; Lau and
Wang, 2009; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Saavedra
et al., 2013; Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2013; Shaik and Abdul-
Kader, 2014; Srivastava, 2008; Subramanian et al., 2014;
Subramoniam et al., 2013; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012; Wang
and Sun, 2005)
D2. License to operate Firms are increasingly adopting RL practices in their External Government (Andiç et al., 2012)
business schedule in order to get license to operate.
D3. EOL levies at point Tax revenues at point of sales drive customers to return Internal Organization (Rahimifard et al., 2009)
of sale for the their EOL products.
consumer
D4. Motivation laws Take-back levies from manufacturers drives industries to External Government (Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Rahimifard et al., 2009)
take back their products. For example: special tax
discharge for ISO 14001 certified companies.
2eGovernance and SC process related issues
D5. Qualification and Well-trained SC partners may assist RL implementation External Suppliers, (Aitken and Harrison, 2013; Ho et al., 2012)
support of business and management. Customers
partners
D6. Cooperation and Cooperation with business partners in the SC can help the External Suppliers, (Ho et al., 2012; Janse et al., 2010; Saavedra et al., 2013;
integration with RL implementation. Customers Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2013; Subramoniam et al., 2009,
partners in the SC 2013; Xie and Breen, 2012)
3 - Management related issues
D7. Employee Feel-good factors, employee morale, individual satisfaction Internal Employees (Andiç et al., 2012)
satisfaction obtained by environmental practices in the company.
D8. Number of staff Number of employees is positively related to RL Internal Employees (Ho et al., 2012)
implementation.
D9. Human resources Company's human resources support boosts RL activities. Internal Employees (Ho et al., 2012)
support
D10. Top management RL implementation is facilitated when top managers are Internal Employees (Agrawal et al., 2015; Janse et al., 2010; Xie and Breen,
awareness and conscious about its relevance and committed to RL 2012)
commitment implementation.
D11. Department An integrated organizational structure (physical and non- Internal Organization (Subramoniam et al., 2009)
integration physical) with the manufacturing divisions has a positive
influence on the decision to perform RL.
4eMarket and Competitors related issues
D12. Customer Customer satisfaction and customer trust/loyalty can be External Customers (Andiç et al., 2012; Jayaraman and Luo, 2007; Jindal and
satisfaction increased by better after sales services. Sangwan, 2013; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011;
Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Shaik and Abdul-Kader,
2013)
D13.Competitive Firms might get competitive advantage from RL External Market/ (Andiç et al., 2012; Chan and Chan, 2008; Jayaraman and
advantage implementation, e.g. higher profits or lower costs, larger Competitors Luo, 2007; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011; Lau and
market share, differentiation, etc. Wang, 2009; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013)
D14. Green Customer pressure is an increasing concern for green External Customers (Andiç et al., 2012; Chan et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2013; Jindal
consumerism/ protection among consumers. and Sangwan, 2013; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011;
consumers' Lau and Wang, 2009; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Shaik
environmental and Abdul-Kader, 2013, 2014; Srivastava, 2008;
awareness Subramanian et al., 2014; Subramoniam et al., 2013)
D15. Green marketing Industries are progressively concerned about providing a External Society, (Jindal and Sangwan, 2013; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras,
green image. Additionally, firms do not want to get Media 2011; Lau and Wang, 2009; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013;
negative media attention by environmental action groups. Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2013; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012;
Wang and Sun, 2005)
D16. Long-term Firms are concerned about their long term survival in the Internal Organization (Andiç et al., 2012; Jindal and Sangwan, 2013; Kannan et al.,
sustainability market, considering, for example, the increasing shortage 2014; Kumar and Putnam, 2008; Mathiyazhagan and Haq,
of raw materials and the green consumerism. 2013)
D17. Competitors' Many companies face pressures from competitors External Market/ (Hsu et al., 2013; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Shaik and
pressures to adopt inducing them to adopt environmental initiatives. Competitors Abdul-Kader, 2014)
green initiatives
D18. Brand protection The outside RL competition and the consequential brand Internal Organization (Jindal and Sangwan, 2013; Subramoniam et al., 2013)
erosion may pressure the decision to perform RL.
5eTechnology and infrastructure related issues
D19. RL management The availability of specific IT for RL is a success factor for RL Internal Organization (Subramanian et al., 2014)
information system development.
D20. Recycling The availability of good recycling management system and Internal Organization (Lau and Wang, 2009)
management system recycling service drives RL practice.
D21. Technological Rapid innovations, quicker obsolescence and shortening Internal Organization (Lau and Wang, 2009; Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2014)
innovations product lifecycle propel RL activities.
Internal Organization
Table 5 (continued )
Driver Description Internal/ Stakeholders Sources

External involved
D22. Eco-design and Design for remanufacturing, recycle, or disassemble are (Kannan et al., 2014; Subramoniam et al., 2009, 2013; Xie
Design for X techniques that can enhance the chance of getting an EOL and Breen, 2012)
techniques product back because RL costs are reduced.
D23. Recycling and Many recycling and remanufacturing strategies are Internal Organization (Kannan et al., 2014; Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2013)
remanufacturing evolving towards continuous improvement by the
technologies researchers.
6 - Economic related issues
D24. Benefits of Economic benefits of recycling places more pressure on Internal Organization (Chan et al., 2012)
recycling companies to develop a better RL strategy.
D25. Reduction on raw Decreasing the use of raw materials by replacing them by Internal Organization (Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Rahimifard et al., 2009;
material recovered ones as well as reduction of final disposal costs. Subramanian et al., 2014; Subramoniam et al., 2013)
consumption and
waste disposal cost
D26. Value recovery RL enables recapturing value from spare parts, recovering Internal Organization (Chan and Chan, 2008; Chan et al., 2012; Janse et al., 2010;
assets. Kannan et al., 2014; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011;
Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Rahimifard et al., 2009;
Subramanian et al., 2014; Subramoniam et al., 2013)
D27. Second hand Other financial opportunities are realized from entering Internal Organization (Chan et al., 2012)
market the second hand market.
D28. Reduction of cost Companies implement RL in order to avoid fines and Internal Organization (Andiç et al., 2012; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013)
risks penalties and to lessen risks. Example: Carbon tax forces
fuel cost reduction.
D29. Economic viability RL can improve economic efficiency. Internal Organization (Agrawal et al., 2015; Chan et al., 2012; Jindal and Sangwan,
2013; Kannan et al., 2014; Krikke et al., 2013; Lau and
Wang, 2009; Ravi et al., 2015; Shaik and Abdul-Kader,
2013, 2014; Srivastava, 2008; Subramoniam et al., 2013;
Wang and Sun, 2005)
D30. Financial support Availability of initial capital for investment in RL Internal Organization (Ho et al., 2012)
operations.
7 - Knowledge related issues
D31. Knowledge on Awareness of manager and industries in general on Internal Organization, (Ho et al., 2012)
sustainable issues environmental issues, sustainable development, corporate Employees
and perception of RL citizenship.
benefits
D32. Cost and Full insight in cost and performance of RL operations. Internal Organization, (Janse et al., 2010; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013)
performance Employees
knowledge
D33. Intellectual The need to protect the IP of the product affects the Internal Organization (Subramoniam et al., 2013)
property (IP) decision to perform RL.
8eSocial related issues
D34. Higher public Greater concern of environment by the population drives External Society, (Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007; Lau and Wang, 2009)
awareness RL operations and claim for environmental behavior by Customers
NGOs.
D35. Corporate Firms are under pressure to act in a socially responsible External Society, (Chan and Chan, 2008; Hsu et al., 2013; Jayaraman and Luo,
citizenship pressure way, by meeting ethical, legal, and economic Media 2007; Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2014; Van Der Wiel et al.,
responsibilities. 2012); (Aitken and Harrison, 2013; Chan et al., 2012; Jindal
and Sangwan, 2013; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; Shaik
and Abdul-Kader, 2013)
D36. Increasing landfill Illegal landfills became a major threat and RL is a solution External Society (Jindal and Sangwan, 2013; Kannan et al., 2014)
to give a proper disposal to EOL products. Scarcity of
landfill.
D37. Environmental Hazardous substances can be released from EOL goods that External Society (Kannan et al., 2014)
conservations are dangerous for the environment.
Policy related issues (P): this cluster includes issues on regula- barrier according to the number of times this impediment is
tions and laws concerning product take back and RL. confirmed in the literature. Many authors (Abdulrahman et al.,
Market and competitors related issues (M&C): this cluster in- 2014; Aitken and Harrison, 2013; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras,
cludes competition advantage reasons and recovery market
2011; Skapa, 2011) have recognized personnel resources issues,
issues. such as lack of training and low level of technical knowledge. The
Management related issues (M): this cluster includes issues lack of initial capital and low involvement of top management
such as managers' posture concerning RL and the relative barriers come next, cited by 21 and 19 articles respectively.
importance of RL compared to other activities.
5.4. Towards a RL multi-perspective framework
From the 36 barriers, 23 were classified as internal to the or-
ganization, and 14 classified as external (one barrier was sorted as
Pressures that emerge from stakeholders are considered one of
both internal and external). As well as the analysis performed for
the most relevant determinants influencing a company's environ-
the drivers, the popularity of RL barriers was analyzed according to
mental initiative (Kim and Lee, 2012). In this sense, very little is
the number of times the obstacle appeared in the article portfolio.
known about how a company deals with the factors affecting its
The result of this investigation is presented in Fig. 5.
return operations when considering multiple stakeholders' per-
The lack of personnel technical skills appears as the leading
spectives, where the same variables may be interpreted in a
Fig. 4. Most frequently drivers according to appearance in previous literature.
different way. Aligning the many interests of stakeholders is crucial 6.1. RL barriers
to strategic planning, and not addressing the interests of the many
stakeholders may harm firm performance (Avkiran and Morita, 6.1.1. Governmental perspective
2010). From the government standpoint, six barriers were identified in
A primary motivation for the construction of this framework is the literature. The lack of specific legislation (B24) was found as an
to show the connections among different perceptions from the impediment, such as absence of supportive policies for EOL man-
multiple RL stakeholders on a common set of drivers and barriers. agement. Lack of waste practices (B25) is also understood as a RL
To do so, this research focuses on the definitive stakeholders for RL barrier. In many countries, waste management practices are not
implementation. According to the already discussed classification implemented due to an ineffectively regulated waste management
of stakeholders based on legitimacy, power, and urgency, the system, as confirmed by Starostka-Patyk et al. (2013). Next is lack of
definitive stakeholders for RL are government, society, and cus- inter-ministerial communication (B26), which can generate con-
tomers. The chosen stakeholders are in line with the suggestion flicting laws (Abdulrahman et al., 2014) and, consequently, com-
from (Fineman and Clarke, 1996) for the “green stakeholders” and plications for implementing RL. Another factor hindering RL from
also represent the most used stakeholders according to the litera- the government perspective is the lack of motivation laws (B27).
ture review on stakeholder pressure in SSCM by Meixell and Luoma This barrier can be interpreted as the lack of directives or regula-
(2015). tions to stimulate manufacturers' to perform RL and maintain a
The perspectives of each definitive stakeholder are shown in green environment and also to motivate customers to buy green
Tables A5 to A7 in the Appendix, and the multiple perspective products (Shaharudin et al., 2014). Still, from this perspective, the
framework involving RL influential factors is presented in Fig. 6. misuse of environmental regulations (B28) may harm RL imple-
Information used to build the aforementioned tables was gathered mentation, as previously mentioned by Abdulrahman et al. (2014),
from the massive literature compilation presented in Tables 5 and 6. Andiç et al. (2012), and Gonza lez-Torre et al. (2010). At last, there
Considering these external perspectives, Fig. 6 presents the are complications in extended producer responsibility across na-
multiple perspectives of definitive stakeholders who exert pres- tions (B29). Abdulrahman et al. (2014) previously confirmed this
sures and place obstacles for RL development. Due to the huge complexity created by the globalization of the supply chains.
number of barriers and drivers from the organizational point of
view, for this framework, only the most widely used drivers and
6.1.2. Customers' perspective
barriers were considered, extracted from Figs. 4 and 5.
From the customers' perspective, including clients and con-
sumers, three barriers were identified from the literature. Diffi-
culties with SC members (B7) is pointed out as an impediment.
There is a reduced support and coordination from customers in the
6. Discussion SC for RL implementation, as lack of the retailers' willingness to
share costing information, and an unwillingness of support from
Based on the deliberation of this research, there are some the distributors, dealers, and retailers towards the RL practices
investigation directions noticeable by researchers. Grounded on the (Bernon et al., 2013). When bringing this issue to an international
classifications adopted for this research, the findings are divided context, it is relevant to mention that some countries' laws put
into three sub-sections: RL barriers, RL drivers, and further insights. more responsibility for RL on the manufacturers whereas other
Table 6
RL barriers, classification, and sources.
Barrier Name Description Internal/ Stakeholders Sources

External Involved
1 - Technology and infrastructure (T&I)

B1. Lack of technical skills There is a lack of skilled manpower and lack of Internal Employees, (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Aitken and Harrison, 2013;
capabilities to perform RL activities. Organization Bouzon et al., 2015; Chan and Chan, 2008; Daily and
Huang, 2001; Ganjali et al., 2014; Gonza lez-Torre et al.,
2010; Govindan et al., 2013; Hillary, 2004;
Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011; Perron and Student,
2005; Prakash and Barua, 2015; Pumpinyo and
Nitivattananon, 2014; Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Rogers
and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Sarkis et al., 2010;

Shaharudin et al., 2014; Sharma et al., 2011; Skapa,
2011; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2008;
Wang and Sun, 2005; Yusuf and Raouf, 2013)
B2. Lack of IT systems IT connectivity issues, including: lack of information and Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Aitken and Harrison, 2013;
standards technological systems, incompatibility of IT systems and Bernon et al., 2013; Bouzon et al., 2015; Chan and Chan,
inadequate information technology support. 2008; Chileshe et al., 2015; Gonz alez-Torre et al., 2010;
Janse et al., 2010; Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Rogers et al.,

1999; Sharma et al., 2011; Skapa, 2011; Wang and Sun,
2005; Yusuf and Raouf, 2013)
B3. Lack of most recent Lack of latest available technologies for performing External Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bouzon et al., 2015; Chan
technologies product/material recycling. et al., 2012; Ganjali et al., 2014; Lau and Wang, 2009;
Pumpinyo and Nitivattananon, 2014; Shaharudin et al.,
2014)
B4. Lack of facilities Deficient industrial infrastructure for reverse operations Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bouzon et al., 2015; Chileshe
in terms of handling equipment, storage, and vehicles. et al., 2015; Gonzalez-Torre et al., 2010; Shaharudin
et al., 2014)
B5. Technology and There is a complexity of design to recycle/reuse used Internal Organization (Andiç et al., 2012; Beamon, 1999; Bouzon et al., 2015;
Research and products and manufacturers resist improving design for Ganjali et al., 2014; Govindan et al., 2013; Rahimifard
Development issues EOL recovery. Recycling technologies or design for ‘X’ et al., 2009; Shaharudin et al., 2014)
related to product techniques are mostly not in practice, especially in
recuperation developing countries.
B6. Complexity in operation RL systems are more uncertain and complex when Internal/ Organization (Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011; Wang and Sun,
compared to forward distribution because the recovery External 2005)
options and processes vary in view of characteristics of
products and life cycles, capacity of facilities, and
resources required.
2eGovernance and SC process (G&SC)
B7. Difficulties with supply Lack of support and poor coordination in the SC for RL External Suppliers, (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Agrawal et al., 2015; Bernon
chain members implementation and management. Customers et al., 2013; Bouzon et al., 2015; Chileshe et al., 2015;
Gonz alez-Torre et al., 2010; Mangla et al., 2012; Ravi and
Shankar, 2005; Sharma et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2008;
Wang and Sun, 2005)
B8. Limited forecasting and Many firms face difficulties in forecasting and planning Internal Customers, (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Abraham, 2011; Bouzon
planning RL as a result of the degree of assortment of products and Organization et al., 2015; Chan et al., 2012; Janse et al., 2010; Lau and
flows (i.e. stochastic return and demand, variable Wang, 2009; Shaharudin et al., 2014; Sharma et al.,
product mix). 2011; Yusuf and Raouf, 2013)
B9. Inconsistent quality When compared to forward logistics, the product quality External Organization (Abraham, 2011; Bouzon et al., 2015; Ravi and Shankar,
is not consistent. 2005; Shaharudin et al., 2014; Sharma et al., 2011; Yusuf
and Raouf, 2013)
B10. Complexity for finding Finding third parties to collect used goods is not easy. External Organization (Ganjali et al., 2014; Govindan et al., 2013; Shaharudin
third party for RL Additionally, there are few consultancy companies for
et al., 2014; Skapa, 2011)
the field of RL.
B11. Lack of suitable Lack of appropriate performance metrics and a Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Janse et al., 2010; Ravi and
performance performance management system for RL. Shankar, 2005; Shaharudin et al., 2014; Sharma et al.,
management system 2011; Yusuf and Raouf, 2013)
B12. Inappropriate Lack of co-operation between departments for Internal Organization (Gonza lez-Torre et al., 2010; Govindan et al., 2013; Ravi
organizational co- communication, causing restrictions in the information and Shankar, 2005; Shaharudin et al., 2014)
operation flow.
3 - Economic related issues (E)
B13. Lack of initial capital RL is a restructuring process that demands investment. Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; AlKhidir and Zailani, 2009;
Andiç et al., 2012; Bouzon et al., 2015; Carter and Ellram,
1998; Chan and Chan, 2008; Ganjali et al., 2014;
Gonz alez-Torre et al., 2010; Govindan et al., 2013;
Hervani et al., 2005; Lau and Wang, 2009; Mangla et al.,
2012; Mudgal et al., 2010; Pumpinyo and
Nitivattananon, 2014; Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Rogers
and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Sharma et al., 2011; Skapa,
2011; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012; Wang and Sun, 2005;
Yusuf and Raouf, 2013)
B14. Funds for training Lack of funding for training human resources for RL Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Ganjali et al., 2014)
operations.
Lack of support for investments in monitoring systems Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bouzon et al., 2015; Ganjali
for RL, storage and handling operations. Investing in et al., 2014; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011)
(continued on next page)

External Involved
B15. Return monitoring product recovery activities is not justifiable in economic

system/storage and terms.
handling
B16. Financial burden of tax Complex flows of products and the varied bought-in Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Lau and Wang, 2009; Sharma
services embedded in RL create an elevated degree of tax et al., 2011)
difficulty and lead to unpredicted tax and costs.
B17. Uncertainty related to There is a demand for profit from shareholders and the lez-Torre et al., 2010;
Internal Organization (Alvarez-Gil et al., 2007; Gonza
economic issues establishment of product recovery activities constitutes a Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011; Shaharudin et al.,
highly uncertain investment, one in which it is hard to 2014)
see the economic benefits.
B18. Lack of economy of Compared to forward flows, RL might be uncertain Internal Organization (Bouzon et al., 2015; Prakash and Barua, 2015)
scale regarding the volume of returned products, creating a
difficulty on attaining economy of scale.
4eKnowledge related issues (K)
B19. Lack of knowledge on Difficulty in obtaining information about the best Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Agrawal et al., 2015; Bouzon
RL practices practices in RL. et al., 2015; Prakash and Barua, 2015)
B20. Lack of information on No proper dissemination of information regarding take External Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bouzon et al., 2015;
take back channels back channels available for customers to return their Govindan et al., 2013; Shen and Tam, 2002)
products.
B21. Lack of awareness Lack of publicity and knowledge of RL benefits. Internal Organization, (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Agrawal et al., 2015; Aitken
concerning RL and its Employees and Harrison, 2013; Bouzon et al., 2015; Shaharudin
benefits et al., 2014)
B22. Lack of taxation Companies can face a cost burden due to lack of Internal Organization, (Bouzon et al., 2015; Gonzalez-Torre et al., 2010;
knowledge on returned knowledge of customs procedures, and financial support Employees Govindan et al., 2013; Lau and Wang, 2009; Meade et al.,
products for value-added tax payments. 2007; Mudgal et al., 2010; Rahimifard et al., 2009; Ravi
and Shankar, 2005; Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001;
Sharma et al., 2011; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012; Yusuf and
Raouf, 2013)
B23. Lack of environmental Lack of knowledge on environmental laws and Internal Organization, (Janse et al., 2010)
regulations awareness unawareness of environmental impact on the firm's Employees
activities and benefits of implementing RL.
5ePolicy related issues
B24. Lack of specific laws Lack of supportive policies: a lack of legislation or External Government (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Agrawal et al., 2015; Bouzon
appropriate laws is seen as a major barrier for companies et al., 2015; Carter and Ellram, 1998; Chan and Chan,
to be involved in EOL returns. 2008; Ganjali et al., 2014; Krikke et al., 2013; Lau and
Wang, 2009; Mangla et al., 2012; Shaharudin et al., 2014;
Sharma et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2008)
B25. Lack of waste In many countries, waste management practices are not External Government (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bouzon et al., 2015; Ganjali
management practices implemented due to a lack of clear return policies or not et al., 2014; Janse et al., 2010)
fully regulated waste management.
B26. Lack of inter-ministerial Lack of inter-ministerial communication could provide External Government (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bouzon et al., 2015)
communication conflicting laws.
B27. Lack of motivation laws Lack of regulations or directives to motivate External Government (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; AlKhidir and Zailani, 2009;
manufacturers to perform RL and maintain a green Bouzon et al., 2015; Ganjali et al., 2014; Govindan et al.,
environment and also motivate customers to buy green 2013; Perron and Student, 2005; Pumpinyo and
products Nitivattananon, 2014; Shaharudin et al., 2014; Zhu et al.,
2012)
B28. Misuse of Some environmental laws are not well implemented: for External Government (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Andiç et al., 2012; Gonza lez-
environmental example, non-deterrent penal sanctions and loopholes in Torre et al., 2010)
regulations WEEE regulations.
B29. Difficulties in extendedComplexity created by the globalization of the supply External Government (Abdulrahman et al., 2014)
producer responsibility chains, hindering the implementation of the extended
across countries producer responsibility.
B30. Company polices Many firms fear cannibalization of their first quality Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Aitken and Harrison, 2013;
against RL products by remanufactured ones, making policies Chan and Chan, 2008; Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Rogers
against product recovery operations.
et al., 1999; Sharma et al., 2011; Skapa, 2011)
6 - Market and competitors related issues (M&C)
B31. Perception of a poorer Customers might think recovered products or the use of External Customer (Bouzon et al., 2015; Carter and Ellram, 1998; Gonza lez-
quality product recycled material as a lower quality standard. Torre et al., 2010; Rahimifard et al., 2009; Shaharudin
et al., 2014)
B32. Undeveloped recovery Difficulty on establishing end-of-life recycled material External Market/ (Abraham, 2011; Bouzon et al., 2015; Rahimifard et al.,
marketplaces markets and on establishing remanufactured products Competitors 2009; Shaharudin et al., 2014)
markets.
B33. Little recognition of Many companies do not recognize RL as a factor for Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bouzon et al., 2015; Janse
competitive advantage creating competitive advantages. et al., 2010; Rogers et al., 1999; Shaharudin et al., 2014;

Skapa, 2011)
7 - Management related issues
B34. Low importance of RL Product recovery activities are perceived as inconsistent Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bouzon et al., 2015; Chan and
relative to other issues with the firm's main operations (low priority when Chan, 2008; Ganjali et al., 2014; Kapetanopoulou and
compared to other duties). Tagaras, 2011; Rogers et al., 1999; Shaharudin et al.,

2014; Skapa, 2011; Walker et al., 2008; Wang and Sun,
2005)
Resistance of top management to change to RL due to Internal Organization (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bernon et al., 2013; Bouzon
organizational culture. Resistance to change existing lez-Torre et al., 2010; Govindan et al.,
et al., 2015; Gonza

External Involved
B35. Low involvement of top investments, information systems and habits. Lack of 2013; Hillary, 2004; Lin and Ho, 2008; Perron et al.,
management and strategic planning and structure for RL. 2006; Prakash and Barua, 2015; Ravi and Shankar, 2005;
strategic planning Rogers et al., 1999; Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001;
Sarkis et al., 2010; Shaharudin et al., 2014; Sharma et al.,

2011; Skapa, 2011; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012; Walker
et al., 2008; Yusuf and Raouf, 2013; Zhu et al., 2007)
B36. Limited approval of A system does not permit one firm to hold many Internal Organization (Andiç et al., 2012)
disposal licenses products' disposal permissions at the same time.
Fig. 5. Most frequently used barriers according to appearance in previous literature.
countries' laws adopt a more shared responsibility between all (B35), the third most widely used barrier. The resistance of top
actors in the SC (including retailers and distributors). Consequently, management to adopt RL is due to organizational culture, and their
these differences in laws result in very different sets of challenges resistance to change information systems, ongoing investments,
and opportunities. From the downstream side of the SC, there is an and habits is debated by many authors (Abdulrahman et al., 2014;
important influence for RL activities because customers and clients Bernon et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2014; Shaharudin et al., 2014).
become suppliers for return operations. In this sense, there is a Similar barriers are also debated in organizational change man-
barrier for implementing product recovery systems (B8) since the agement literature, which postulates that the implementation of
forecasting and planning of returns are limited (Shaharudin et al., sustainable practices is not seen as adding value to the company
2014; Starostka-Patyk et al., 2013). Finally, the perception of a (Lozano, 2012). In addition, RL practice needs synchronization from
poorer quality product may be a barrier (B31) from the customers' all levels of the employees, from bottom-line to top management
point of view. Customers might think that remanufactured prod- (Bouzon et al., 2015). Lack of IT standards (B2) is the fourth most
ucts or the use of recycled material results in lower quality stan- widely cited impediment for RL. Many authors (Bernon et al., 2013;
dards (Gonza lez-Torre et al., 2010; Rahimifard et al., 2009). Chan and Chan, 2008; Gonza lez-Torre et al., 2010; Janse et al., 2010;

Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Skapa, 2011) have confirmed problems in
IT connectivity, such as incompatibility of IT systems and inade-
6.1.3. Organizational perspective
quate IT support. Finally, a firm's lack of taxation knowledge on
Most of the barriers were identified from the organizational
returned products (B22) also hinders RL implementation (fifth
viewpoint. Eleven barriers were listed. The most widely cited bar-
most cited). Companies can face a cost burden due to their igno-
rier, lack of personnel technical skills (B1), is related to the orga-
rance of customs procedures and financial support for value-added
nizational perspective. The low commitment level of workers, low
tax payments (Gonz alez-Torre et al., 2010; Govindan et al., 2014;
level of technical knowledge, and lack of training and qualifications
Sharma et al., 2011; Van Der Wiel et al., 2012).
were mentioned by several authors (Abdulrahman et al., 2014;
Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011; Shaharudin et al., 2014). Lack of
initial capital for investing in RL operations (B13) is stated by many 6.2. RL drivers
authors (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Andiç et al., 2012; Chan and
Chan, 2008; Lau and Wang, 2009; Yusuf and Raouf, 2013) and, 6.2.1. Government perspective
consequently, ranks as the second most cited barrier. Another key Three motivational factors were identified from the govern-
barrier from the organizational perspective is the low participation mental point of view. First, regulatory pressure for recovering EOL
of top management and lack of strategic planning regarding RL products (D1) serves as the most widely used driver. Many nations
Fig. 6. Multi-perspective framework for RL implementation.
have introduced directives or legislation to guarantee effective 6.2.3. Societal perspective

disposal of goods or they may make it obligatory for firms to No barrier was found in literature coming from the society
recover used/EOL products (Hsu et al., 2013; Kapetanopoulou and prism. That is, none of the 36 barriers found in this thorough
Tagaras, 2011; Shaik and Abdul-Kader, 2013). This driver is also literature research process emerges from this stakeholder or is
highlighted by Lozano (2012), incentivizing corporate sustainability related directly to the societal perspective. The authors believe that
practices (drivers to change). The second driver is the license to society, community and non-governmental organizations repre-
operate (D2). Companies are progressively adopting RL initiatives in senting the societal interests claim for responsible environmental
order to get a license to operate (Andiç et al., 2012). Finally, in- behavior; thus, they do not create any direct impediment for RL
centives such as tax exemptions were also found as a motivational implementation and development. On the other hand, five moti-
factor for RL (D4). Take-back levies from manufacturers drives in- vational factors were gathered during the review process. Green
dustries to take back their products (Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013; marketing (D15) is a growing concern among industries, in order to
Rahimifard et al., 2009; Srivastava, 2013). respond to pressures from groups such as NGOs. This driver is the
fourth most widely used by authors from our portfolio. In addition,
firms fear unfavorable media attention by green action organiza-
tions or groups (Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013). As already dis-
6.2.2. Customers' perspective cussed from customers' perspective, a higher public awareness of
The literature review process uncovered five drivers from the environmental issues (D34) is a driver for RL from the social
customers' point of view. The qualification and support of business standpoint. Next, corporate citizenship pressure (D35) emerges in
partners, such as clients and suppliers, acts as a motivational factor support of green initiatives, taking the third place for the most used
for RL implementation (D5). In this matter, well-trained supply drivers. In this matter, firms are under pressure to “behave in a
chain partners may assist RL management (Aitken and Harrison, socially responsible manner by meeting legal, ethical, and eco-
2013; Ho et al., 2012). Not only training, but also cooperation was nomic responsibilities placed on them” (Abdullah et al., 2012).
identified as a propelling force towards RL (D6). Cooperation with Some authors posit that the scarcity of landfill (D36) drives RL
clients, such as shared responsibility for returned products, can (Jindal and Sangwan, 2013; Kannan et al., 2014). Because illegal
promote RL implementation (Ho et al., 2012; Janse et al., 2010; landfills pose a major threat, RL is a solution to provide proper
Subramoniam et al., 2013). From the market perspective, customer disposal to EOL products.
satisfaction is a driving force for after-sales initiatives (D12).
Regarding this issue, the support developed through proper 6.2.4. Organizational perspective
disposal of products and RL activities can enhance customer loyalty From firms' point of view, including shareholders' claims, five
(Abdullah et al., 2012; Kapetanopoulou and Tagaras, 2011). Still drivers emerged. First, concern about the long-term sustainability
concerning marketing issues, green consumerism (D14) was the of the firm's business (D16) is a driving force (Jindal and Sangwan,
second most widely used driver. Consumers' environmental 2013; Mathiyazhagan and Haq, 2013). Companies are worried
awareness is a growing tendency, pressuring companies to cope about their survival in the long run in the market, considering, for
with environmental standards and legislation. example, the increasing shortage of raw materials and the green
consumerism. Second, eco-design (D22) drives RL implementation. (B24) and lack of motivation laws (B27) e from the governmental
The introduction of practices and techniques such as design for perspective e and their influence in the system. The lack of specific
remanufacturing, recycle, or disassemble can enhance the chance laws may hinder the investment in R&D initiatives towards
of getting an EOL product back because RL costs are reduced reducing EOL costs (B5) and provoke the low involvement of top
(Subramoniam et al., 2013; Xie and Breen, 2012). Next, there is an management (B35) e both internal barriers. The lack of motivation
economic benefit boosting RL practices. The possible reduction on laws may also have an effect on aggravating the barrier B34 (low
raw material consumption and waste disposal cost (D25) drives importance of RL relative to other issues). From the customers'
product return initiatives. Firms are interested in decreasing the perspective, limited forecasting and planning (B8) may harm the
use of raw materials by replacing them by recovered ones and, at involvement of top managers in RL efforts (B35). The presented
the same time, diminishing disposal costs (Rahimifard et al., 2009; multi-perspective framework elucidates these potential links be-
Subramoniam et al., 2013). Still from an economic perspective, the tween factors that could be further investigated in future research.
possibility of recovering the remaining value of used products
drives RL implementation (D26). This value may come from spare 6.4. Future research opportunities
parts, recapturing value and recovering assets (Subramoniam et al.,
2013). This driver is also mentioned in corporate sustainability With the assistance of previous analysis and proposed frame-
literature (Lozano, 2012). Finally, the economic viability (D29) is work, the following future research questions can be raised.
mentioned by many authors as a main driver for RL (Jindal and
Sangwan, 2013; Kannan et al., 2014; Krikke et al., 2013; ✓ What is the interactions and influential relationships among
Subramoniam et al., 2013), attaining the fifth position for the most drivers and barriers of reverse logistics? By addressing this, the
widely used drivers. influential driver and barrier can be identified, further, two
prioritized driver and barrier can focused to better imple-
6.3. Further insights mentation of reverse logistics.
✓ How to include social pillars in reverse logistics to become
Content analysis from 59 articles reveals a plurality of factors reverse logistics more sustainable? However, the previous
affecting RL implementation, both internally and externally. The studies only reported RL as eco efficient perspective, but to gain
choice of stakeholders for the framework was successful. The full advantage of supply chain and competitiveness, RL has to
multiple matrix of associated perspectives, including company, addressed all pillars including economy, environment and so-
society, government, and customers, was satisfactory since 12 from ciety. Addressing this research question improve the perfor-
the 15 most widely used drivers (see Fig. 4) are considered in the mance of RL to promote sustainable development.
framework as well as 14 from the 15 most widely used barriers (see ✓ How does the customer perspective on RL affect the firm to
Fig. 5). implement RL in their operations? Many studies deals with the
From the theoretical viewpoint, some insights arise. First, some customer perspective with the name of green customer, but very
business customers frequently want the SC partner to follow their few studies shed light on customer perspectives on RL, even
green standards, which might include RL operations. In addition, many customers don't have enough awareness on RL. Hence, by
expectations are changing and consumers may prefer greener addressing this question, the knowledge on RL can be improved
products from companies with a good social and environmental among customers and it would improve the sustainable rela-
reputation (Wassenhove and Besiou, 2013). Second, the role of tionship between company and customers through RL. In
government can have a great influence on firms' strategic decision addition, the organization come to know the expectation of the
making by requiring ecological behavior to comply with regula- customer regarding RL implementation.
tions. Thus, firms have to meet environmental laws to avoid legal ✓ What are the suitable approaches for implantation of RL at or-
actions (Sarkis et al., 2010). Third, NGOs and society have played an ganization level? From the Fig. 6, it can be clearly understood
important role in encouraging companies to behave in socially that more barriers can be seen on organization perspective than
responsible way. Furthermore, they frequently work (in a direct or any other perspective. Hence, this question will address the RL
indirect manner) with the Government to pressure corporate implementation barriers with proposed approaches.
behavior. Lastly, “companies generally need to satisfy the demand
of shareholders to prevent the loss of their capital investment” 7. Final remarks
(Kim and Lee, 2012). Thus, a recognized view in the business world,
mainly among executives, is that “a firm's primary loyalty is to its This paper reviewed more than a decade's worth of research
shareholders” (Avkiran and Morita, 2010). Confirming this infor- focusing on RL, stakeholders, and influential factors issues. More
mation and the outcomes from this research, Meixell and Luoma than one hundred sixty articles were identified, from which 59
(2015) posit that shareholders are influential in logistics de- were used in the analysis. In general, the number of publications in
cisions, including RL. the field is growing. The data were gathered and analyzed from the
Another relevant consideration to be done at this analysis is on literature with the purpose of furthering our perception on the
the difference between the types of effect from stakeholder pres- aspects that enable or inhibit RL implementation from a multiple
sures. Meixell and Luoma (2015) state that the stakeholder de- stakeholder perspective. A systematic approach of content analysis
mands may result in the company becoming aware of the was applied to enhance the reliability and validity of results. Papers
stakeholder's concern or may simply reflect the company's goals have been evaluated according to the structural dimensions and
towards a sustainable initiative (i.e. RL), “rather than resulting in related analytic categories, extracted deductively, and deductively/
implementation of a practice.” This is why the present study inductively respectively. Thirty-seven RL drivers were identified in
focused on expected or definitive stakeholders, in order to deal literature, while 36 barriers emerged from the paper portfolio. All
with influential factors that effectively affect RL implementation. influential factors were classified as internal or external and
On the barrier side, some insights arise. Most of the encountered assigned to one or more stakeholders.
barriers are placed in the firm's perspective; however, it becomes The overall contribution of this study was to obtain insights
clear how these barriers may be an effect from outside impedi- about the factors for RL implementation from a manifold company,
ments. An example of this argument is the lack of specific laws society, government, customer association perspective and the
creation of a RL multi-perspective framework for RL drivers and contingencies among them, and allowing deeper insights. Beyond
barriers. Concerning the managerial implications, a significant that, the proposed RL multi-perspective framework needs to be
analysis of the influential elements, as well as recognizing the ac- empirically investigated and tested. In addition, now that influen-
tors either creating them or being influenced by these factors, can tial factors are selected and classified in this framework, the next
be an important source of information to managers and decision step is to understand the interactions among the RL barriers and
makers. The consideration of these influential factors from this drivers. Moreover, there is an emerging need to analyze the link
multiple perspective is critical for creating a comprehensive in- between RL barriers and drivers, as well as the level of importance
dustry strategy to successfully implement RL. On the organizational or influence of each factor in the system. Further research can be
change management side, drivers must be acknowledged, so done by including other stakeholders in the framework or adapting
managers can plan for change by exploring these positive influen- this structure to a country context. A priority rank of overcoming
tial factors, as change may represent an opportunity if anticipated. actions regarding RL barriers can also be extracted considering the
On the other hand, facing the plurality of impediments, different importance level of each barrier.
organization levels must be involved so firms can better overcome Moreover, regardless of the fact that three researchers were
the internal and external barriers to change, integrating their ef- included in the process for content analysis and validation, the
forts for RL more holistically. categorization of these papers remains interpretative and hence
Even though this work was systematically concluded, clearly subjective. More comprehensive bibliometric citation analyses
there are limitations that present opportunities for future studies. appear as a further solution and structured approach to classify
Firstly, an issue that can be addressed in further research on the these factors. In this regard, the encountered limitations create
topic is the fact that some drivers can be seen as barriers and vice- space for future research on these RL topical areas. There are still
versa, depending on the context in which the issue is analyzed. A some fertile topics of research to be considered, such as the use of
typical example is the case of regulatory pressure for product re- multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) tools to evaluate the in-
turn. Although such laws are created to ensure effective product teractions among factors influencing RL implementation.
disposal (hence, a driver), the same laws might include some
conditions that complicate the effective implementation of RL,
resulting in a circumstance that might be considered a barrier.
Secondly, a limitation of this work is concerned with extracting Appendix
the interaction among different drivers and barriers, calculating
Table A1
References divided by journals.
Journal title Number of articles
Journal of Cleaner Production 5

Int J of Production Economics 4
The Int J of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 4
Int J of Operations & Production Management 3
Supply Chain Management: An Int J 3
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 3
Int J of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 2
Academy of Management Perspectives 1
Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 1
Applied Sciences 1
Benchmarking: An Int J 1
British Journal of Management 1
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 1
Computers & Industrial Engineering 1
European Journal of Operational Research 1
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 1
Int J of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling 1
Int J of Logistics Management 1
Int J of Modelling and Optimization 1
Int J of Production Research 1
Int J of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 1
Int J of Sustainable Engineering 1
Int J of Technology Management 1
Journal of Applied Science and Engineering Management 1
Journal of Business Research 1
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 1
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 1
Journal of Operations Management 1
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 1
Management Decision 1
Measuring Business Excellence 1
Omega 1
Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences 1
Production Planning & Control 1
Resources Policy 1
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1
Sustainability 1
Table A2
Distribution according to industry sector.
Industry Sector Papers
Many (more than 2 sectors) 14

Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 12
Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing 10
Chemical Manufacturing 2
Apparel Manufacturing 1
Paper Manufacturing 1
Primary Metal Manufacturing 1
Construction 1
Not specified 12
Table A3
Country specific.
Country Papers
India 12
China 5
UK 3
Malaysia 3
Many (more than 2) 3
Spain 3
Brazil 3
Hong Kong 2
Turkey 2
Australia 1
Czech Republic 1
Greece 1
Holland 1
Pakistan 1
Poland 1
Taiwan 1
USA 1
Thailand 1
None 9
Table A4
Methods used in papers.
Method Papers
Case study 16
Survey 15
Other 9
Theoretical 6
Literature review 4
Mathematical Modelling 4
Table A5
Customers' perspective.
Drivers Barriers
D5. Qualification and support of business partners B7. Difficulties with supply chain members
D6. Cooperation and integration with partners in the SC B8. Limited forecasting and planning
D12. Customer satisfaction B31. Perception of a poorer quality product
D14. Green consumerism/consumers' environmental awareness
D34. Higher public awareness
Table A6
Governmental perspective.
Drivers Barriers
D1. Regulatory pressure for product return/recovery B24. Lack of specific laws
D2. License to operate B25. Lack of waste management practices
D4. Motivation laws B26. Lack of inter-ministerial communication
B27. Lack of motivation laws
B28. Misuse of environmental regulations
B29. Difficulties in extended producer responsibility across countries
Table A7 659e667.
Societal perspective. Dowlatshahi, S., 2000. Developing a theory of reverse logistics. Interfaces 30,
143e155.
Drivers Barriers Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Bus. Strat. Environ. 11, 130e141.
D15. Green marketing e
Fineman, S., Clarke, K., 1996. Green stakeholders: industry interpretations and
D34. Higher public awareness
response. J. Manag. Stud. 33, 715e730.
D35. Corporate citizenship pressure Fink, A., 2013. Conducting Research Literature Reviews. Sage Publications.
D36. Increasing landfill Flapper, S.D.P., Gayon, J.P., Vercraene, S., 2012. Control of a production-inventory
D37. Environmental conservations system with returns under imperfect advance return information. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 218, 392e400.
Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Van der Laan, E., Van Nunen, J., Van
Wassenhove, L., 1997. Quantitative models for reverse logistics: a review. Eur. J.
References Oper. Res. 103, 1e17.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman,
Abdullah, N.A.H.N., Yaakub, S., Abdullah, H.H., 2012. The impact of customer and Boston.
stakeholder pressure, financial and competitive pressure, regulatory pressure Ganjali, M., Shirouyehzad, H., Shahin, A., 2014. Evaluating barriers of reverse lo-
and corporate citizenship pressure on reverse logistics adoption. In: 2nd In- gistics using DEMATEL method. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 51, 61.
ternational Conference on Management (2nd ICM 2012), 11th-12th June 2012 Gill, R., 2003. Change management - or change leadership? J. Change Manag. 3,
(Langkawi Kedah, Malaysia). 307e318.
Gonz alez-Benito, J., Gonz 2006. The role of stakeholder pressure and
alez-Benito, O.,
Abdulrahman, M.D., Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., 2014. Critical barriers in
implementing reverse logistics in the Chinese manufacturing sectors. Int. J. managerial values in the implementation of environmental logistics practices.
Prod. Econ. 147, 460e471. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44, 1353e1373.
Gonz
alez-Torre, P., Alvarez, M., Sarkis, J., Adenso-Díaz, B., 2010. Barriers to the
Abraham, N., 2011. The apparel aftermarket in India - a case study focusing on
reverse logistics. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 15, 211e227. implementation of environmentally oriented reverse logistics: evidence from
Agrawal, S., Singh, R.K., Murtaza, Q., 2015. A literature review and perspectives in the automotive industry sector. Br. J. Manag. 21, 889e904.
reverse logistics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 97, 76e92. Govindan, K., Jepsen, M.B., 2016. ELECTRE: a comprehensive literature review on
Aitken, J., Harrison, A., 2013. Supply governance structures for reverse logistics methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250 (1), 1e29.
systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33, 745e764. Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A., 2013. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for
Akdog an, M.Ş., Coşkun, A., 2012. Drivers of reverse logistics activities: an empirical measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line
investigation. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 58, 1640e1649. approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 345e354.
AlKhidir, T., Zailani, S., 2009. Going green in supply chain towards environmental Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., Haq, A., 2014. Barriers analysis for green
sustainability. Global J. Environ. Res. 3, 246e251. supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic
Alvarez-Gil, M.J., Berrone, P., Husillos, F.J., Lado, N., 2007. Reverse logistics, stake- hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 555e568.
holders' influence, organizational slack, and managers' posture. J. Bus. Res. 60, Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., Kannan, D., 2015. Reverse logistics and closed-loop
463e473. supply chain: a comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
€ Baltacıog
Andiç, E., Yurt, O., lu, T., 2012. Green supply chains: efforts and potential 240, 603e626.
applications for the Turkish market. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 58, 50e68. Hillary, R., 2004. Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise.
Avkiran, N.K., Morita, H., 2010. Benchmarking firm performance from a multiple- J. Clean. Prod. 12, 561e569.
stakeholder perspective with an application to Chinese banking. Omega 38, Ho, G.T.S., Choy, K.L., Lam, C.H.Y., Wong, D.W.C., 2012. Factors influencing imple-
501e508. mentation of reverse logistics: a survey among Hong Kong businesses. Meas.
Beamon, B.M., 1999. Designing the green supply chain. Logist. Inf. Manag. 12, Bus. Excell. 16, 29e46.
332e342. Hsu, C.-C., Tan, K.C., Zailani, S.H.M., Jayaraman, V., 2013. Supply chain drivers that
Bernon, M., Upperton, J., Bastl, M., Cullen, J., 2013. An exploration of supply chain foster the development of green initiatives in an emerging economy. Int. J. Oper.
integration in the retail product returns process. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Prod. Manag. 33, 656e688.
Manag. 43, 586e608. Janse, B., Schuur, P., Brito, M., 2010. A reverse logistics diagnostic tool: the case of
Blank, R.M., 1991. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: the consumer electronics industry. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 47, 495e513.
experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. Am. Econ. Rev. Jayaraman, V., Luo, Y., 2007. Creating competitive advantages through new value
1041e1067. creation: a reverse logistics perspective. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 21, 56e73.
Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., Rodriguez, C.M.T., 2015. Reducing the extraction of Jindal, A., Sangwan, K.S., 2013. Development of an interpretive structural model of
minerals: reverse logistics in the machinery manufacturing industry sector in drivers for reverse logistics implementation in Indian industry. Int. J. Bus.
Brazil using ISM approach. Resour. Policy 46, 27e36. Perform. Supply Chain Model. 5, 325e342.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Seuring, S., 2014. Quantitative models for Kannan, D., 2018. Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor
sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur. J. theory for the sustainable supplier selection process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 195,
Oper. Res. 233, 299e312. 391e418.
De Brito, M.P., Dekker, R., Flapper, S.D.P., 2005. Reverse logistics: a review of case Kannan, D., Diabat, A., Shankar, K.M., 2014. Analyzing the drivers of end-of-life tire
studies. In: Distribution Logistics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 243e281. management using interpretive structural modeling (ISM). Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Campos, E.A.R.D., Paula, I.C.D., Pagani, R.N., Guarnieri, P., 2017. Reverse logistics for Technol. 72, 1603e1614.
the end-of-life and end-of-use products in the pharmaceutical industry: a Kapetanopoulou, P., Tagaras, G., 2011. Drivers and obstacles of product recovery
systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 22 (4), 375e392. activities in the Greek industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 31, 148e166.
Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M., 1998. Reverse logistics: a review of the literature and Kim, S.T., Lee, S.Y., 2012. Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental
framework for future investigation. J. Bus. Logist. 19, 85e102. logistics practices: is eco-oriented culture a missing link? Int. J. Logist. Manag.
Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K., 2008. A survey on reverse logistics system of mobile phone 23, 238e258.
industry in Hong Kong. Manag. Decis. 46, 702e708. Kova cs, G., Spens, K.M., Korkeila, R., 2006. Stakeholder response to future changes in
Chan, H.K., Yin, S., Chan, F.T., 2010. Implementing just-in-time philosophy to reverse the reverse supply chain. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2, 160e176.
logistics systems: a review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48, 6293e6313. Krikke, H., Hofenk, D., Wang, Y., 2013. Revealing an invisible giant: a comprehensive
Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K., Jain, V., 2012. A framework of reverse logistics for the survey into return practices within original (closed-loop) supply chains. Resour.
automobile industry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50, 1318e1331. Conserv. Recycl. 73, 239e250.
Chanintrakul, P., Coronado Mondragon, A.E., Lalwani, C., Wong, C.Y., 2009. Reverse Kumar, S., Putnam, V., 2008. Cradle to cradle: reverse logistics strategies and op-
logistics network design: a state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Bus. portunities across three industry sectors. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 115, 305e315.
Perform. Supply Chain Model. 1, 61e81. Lage Junior, M., Godinho Filho, M., 2010. Variations of the kanban system: literature
Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Hosseini, M.R., Lehmann, S., Wagner, B., 2015. Barriers review and classification. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 125, 13e21.
to implementing reverse logistics in South Australian construction organisa- Lau, K.H., Wang, Y., 2009. Reverse logistics in the electronic industry of China: a case
tions. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 20, 179e204. study. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 14, 447e465.
Crane, A., Ruebottom, T., 2011. Stakeholder theory and social identity: rethinking Lin, C.-Y., Ho, Y.-H., 2008. An empirical study on logistics service providers' inten-
stakeholder identification. J. Bus. Ethics 102, 77e87. tion to adopt green innovations. J. Technol. Manag. Innovat. 3, 17e26.
Daily, B.F., Huang, S.-C., 2001. Achieving sustainability through attention to human Lozano, R., 2012. Orchestrating organisational changes for Corporate Sustainability:
resource factors in environmental management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21, overcoming barriers to change. Greener Manag. Int. 57.
1539e1552. Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Seatter, C.S., 2015. Teaching organisational change
de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., de Souza Azevedo, F., Arantes, A.F., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2013. management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the Uni-
Green supply chain management in local and multinational high-tech com- versity of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean.
panies located in Brazil. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 68, 807e815. Prod. 106, 205e2015.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K., 2011. An analysis of the drivers affecting the imple- Lozano, R., Nummert, B., Ceulemans, K., 2016. Elucidating the relationship between
mentation of green supply chain management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, sustainability reporting and organisational change management for sustain-
ability. J. Clean. Prod. 125, 168e188.
Mangla, S., Madaan, J., Chan, F.S., 2012. Analysis of performance focused variables Seuring, S., Gold, S., 2012. Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in
for multi-objective flexible decision modeling approach of product recovery supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 17, 544e555.
systems. Global J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 13, 77e86. Shaharudin, M.R., Zailani, S., Tan, K.C., 2014. Barriers to product returns and re-
Mathiyazhagan, K., Haq, A.N., 2013. Analysis of the influential pressures for green covery management in a developing country: investigation using multiple
supply chain management adoptiondan Indian perspective using interpretive methods. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.1012.1071.
structural modeling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 68, 817e833. Shaik, M.N., Abdul-Kader, W., 2013. Transportation in reverse logistics enterprise: a
Meade, L., Sarkis, J., Presley, A., 2007. The theory and practice of reverse logistics. Int. comprehensive performance measurement methodology. Prod. Plann. Contr.
J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 3, 56e84. 24, 495e510.
Meixell, M.J., Luoma, P., 2015. Stakeholder pressure in sustainable supply chain Shaik, M.N., Abdul-Kader, W., 2014. Comprehensive performance measurement and
management: a systematic review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45, causal-effect decision making model for reverse logistics enterprise. Comput.
69e89. Ind. Eng. 68, 87e103.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identifi- Shapiro, G., Markoff, G., 1997. Methods for drawing statistical inferences from text
cation and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. and transcripts. In: Roberts, C.W. (Ed.), Text Analysis for the Social Sciences.
Manag. Rev. 22, 853e886. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 9e31.
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P., Raj, T., 2010. Modelling the barriers of green Sharma, S., Panda, B., Mahapatra, S., Sahu, S., 2011. Analysis of barriers for reverse
supply chain practices: an Indian perspective. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 7, logistics: an Indian perspective. Int. J. Model. Optim. 1, 101e106.
81e107. Shen, L., Tam, V.W., 2002. Implementation of environmental management in the
Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A., Kannan, D., Geng, Y., 2013. Role of behavioural Hong Kong construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 535e543.
factors in green supply chain management implementation in Indian mining Mahaboob Sheriff, K.M., Gunasekaran, A., Nachiappan, S., 2012. Reverse logistics
industries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 76, 50e60. network design: a review on strategic perspective. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 12,
Narayana, S.A., Elias, A.A., Pati, R.K., 2014. Reverse logistics in the pharmaceuticals 171e194.
industry: a systemic analysis. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 25, 379e398.
Skapa, R., 2011. Reverse logistics in the Czech republic: barriers to development.
Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., Allan, S., 2013. A reverse logistics social re- Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brunensis 59, 363e370.
sponsibility evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach. Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature
J. Clean. Prod. 56, 173e184. review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 9, 53e80.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., Sarkis, J., 2005. Performance measurement for green Srivastava, S.K., 2008. Network design for reverse logistics. Omega 36, 535e548.
supply chain management. Benchmark Int. J. 12 (4), 330e353. Srivastava, S.K., 2013. Issues and challenges in reverse logistics. In: Gupta, S.M. (Ed.),
Perron, G.M., Student, I.P., 2005. Barriers to Environmental Performance Improve- Reverse Supply Chains: Issues and Analysis. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL,
ments in Canadian SMEs. Dalhousie University, Canada. pp. 61e82.
Perron, G.M., Co ^ te
, R.P., Duffy, J.F., 2006. Improving environmental awareness Starostka-Patyk, M., Zawada, M., Pabian, A., Abed, M., 2013. Barriers to reverse lo-
training in business. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 551e562. gistics implementation in enterprises. In: Advanced Logistics and Transport
Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C., 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Bus. (ICALT), 2013 International Conference on. IEEE, pp. 506e511.
Ethics Q. 479e502. Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., Abdulrahman, M., Liu, C., 2014. Factors for
Pishvaee, M.S., Farahani, R.Z., Dullaert, W., 2010. A memetic algorithm for bi- implementing end-of-life product reverse logistics in the Chinese
objective integrated forward/reverse logistics network design. Comput. Oper. manufacturing sector. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 21, 235e245.
Res. 37, 1100e1112. Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., Chinnam, R.B., 2009. Remanufacturing for the
Pokharel, S., Mutha, A., 2009. Perspectives in reverse logistics: a review. Resour. automotive aftermarket-strategic factors: literature review and future research
Conserv. Recycl. 53, 175e182. needs. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1163e1174.
Prakash, C., Barua, M.K., 2015. Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., Chinnam, R.B., Subramoniam, S., 2013. Remanu-
solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy facturing Decision-Making Framework (RDMF): research validation using the
environment. J. Manuf. Syst. 37, 599e615. analytical hierarchical process. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 212e220.
Pumpinyo, S., Nitivattananon, V., 2014. Investigation of barriers and factors affecting Touboulic, A., Walker, H., 2015. Theories in sustainable supply chain management: a
the reverse logistics of waste management practice: a case study in Thailand. structured literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45, 16e42.
Sustainability 6, 7048e7062. Van Der Wiel, A., Bossink, B., Masurel, E., 2012. Reverse logistics for waste reduction
Rahimifard, S., Coates, G., Staikos, T., Edwards, C., Abu-Bakar, M., 2009. Barriers, in cradle-to-cradle-oriented firms: waste management strategies in the Dutch
drivers and challenges for sustainable product recovery and recycling. Int. J. metal industry. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 60, 96e113.
Sustain. Eng. 2, 80e90. Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., 2005. Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sec-
logistics. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72, 1011e1029. tors. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14, 69e85.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M.K., 2005. Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics Wang, B., Sun, L., 2005. A review of reverse logistics. Appl. Sci. 7, 16e29.
for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach. Comput. Ind. Wang, J.J., Chen, H., Rogers, D.S., Ellram, L.M., Grawe, S.J., 2017. A bibliometric
Eng. 48, 327e356. analysis of reverse logistics research (1992-2015) and opportunities for future
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., Gunasekaran, A., 2015. Survey of reverse logistics practices in research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 47 (8), 666e687.
manufacturing industries: an Indian context. Benchmark Int. J. 22, 874e899. Wassenhove, L., Besiou, M., 2013. Complex problems with multiple stakeholders:
Rogers, D.S., Tibben-Lembke, R., 2001. An examination of reverse logistics practices. how to bridge the gap between reality and OR/MS? J. Bus. Econ. 83, 87e97.
J. Bus. Logist. 22, 129e148. Xie, Y., Breen, L., 2012. Greening community pharmaceutical supply chain in UK: a
Rogers, D.S., Tibben-Lembke, R.S., Council, R.L.E., 1999. Going backwards: reverse cross boundary approach. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 17, 40e53.
logistics trends and practices. Reverse Logistics Executive Council Pittsburgh, Ye, F., Zhao, X., Prahinski, C., Li, Y., 2013. The impact of institutional pressures, top
PA. managers' posture and reverse logistics on performancedevidence from China.
Saavedra, Y.M.B., Barquet, A.P.B., Rozenfeld, H., Forcellini, F.A., Ometto, A.R., 2013. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 143, 132e143.
Remanufacturing in Brazil: case studies on the automotive sector. J. Clean. Prod. Yusuf, I., Raouf, A., 2013. Reverse logistics: an empirical study for operational
53, 267e276. framework. Proc. Pakistan Acad. Sci. 50, 201e210.
Sarkis, J., 2012. A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain man- Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-H., 2007. Green supply chain management: pressures,
agement. Supply Chain Manag. 17, 202e216. practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. J. Clean.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., Adenso-Diaz, B., 2010. Stakeholder pressure and the Prod. 15, 1041e1052.
adoption of environmental practices: the mediating effect of training. J. Oper. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-H., 2012. Green supply chain management innovation
Manag. 28, 163e176. diffusion and its relationship to organizational improvement: an ecological
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.-H., 2011. An organizational theoretic review of green supply modernization perspective. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 29, 168e185.
chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 130, 1e15.

Journal of Cleaner Production: Kannan Govindan, Marina Bouzon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production: Kannan Govindan, Marina Bouzon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production: Kannan Govindan, Marina Bouzon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 318e337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

From a literature review to a multi-perspective framework for reverse

1. Introduction (Abdulrahman et al., 2014).

Source Paper objective Main contribution

Fig. 1. The use of stakeholder theory.

Authors Literature review scope

Fig. 2. Research process.

Structural Deﬁnition Analytical categories Inductive/

5.1. Identiﬁcation of stakeholders

Stakeholder Description Sources

Driver Description Internal/ Stakeholders Sources

1 - Policy related issues

Driver Description Internal/ Stakeholders Sources

Fig. 4. Most frequently drivers according to appearance in previous literature.

Barrier Name Description Internal/ Stakeholders Sources

1 - Technology and infrastructure (T&I)

Barrier Name Description Internal/ Stakeholders Sources

B15. Return monitoring product recovery activities is not justiﬁable in economic

Barrier Name Description Internal/ Stakeholders Sources

Fig. 5. Most frequently used barriers according to appearance in previous literature.

Fig. 6. Multi-perspective framework for RL implementation.

have introduced directives or legislation to guarantee effective 6.2.3. Societal perspective

Journal title Number of articles

Journal of Cleaner Production 5

Industry Sector Papers

Many (more than 2 sectors) 14

You might also like