4.7 Article

Barriers to the implementation of cleaner production in Chinese SMEs: government, industry and expert stakeholders' perspectives

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 16, 期 7, 页码 842-852

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.05.002

关键词

cleaner production; small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); stakeholder; barrier; analytic hierarchy process (AHP); prioritization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper applies an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to examine and prioritize underlying barriers to adoption of cleaner production (CP) by small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in China from the perspectives of government, industry and expert stakeholder groups. First, on the basis of the findings of previous research and literature review, 20 barriers are identified and grouped into four categories: (1) policy and market barriers; (2) financial and economic barriers; (3) technical and information barriers; and (4) managerial and organizational barriers. Second, an AHP model is developed and a survey questionnaire was designed, tested, and refined. Third, the questionnaire was distributed to the representatives of three stakeholders of CP, i.e. enterprise managers, government officials, and experts. The returned questionnaires were validated in terms of consistency and in some cases followed up for verification. Fourth, the 20 barriers were rated by analyzing the valid questionnaires through the AHP model. The top three barriers to CP adoption by Chinese SMEs were found to be: (a) lack of economic incentive policies; (b) lax environmental enforcement, and (c) high initial capital cost. The researches conclude that current governmental policy should give higher priority to lessening those external policy and financial barriers rather than internal technical and managerial barriers. The findings shed some new light on readjusting public policy in order to help to facilitate widespread CP implementation in SMEs in China. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据