4.7 Article

Identification and analysis of reverse logistics barriers using fuzzy Delphi method and AHP

期刊

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 182-197

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.021

关键词

Reverse logistics; End-of-life product; Barrier analysis; Fuzzy Delphi; AHP; Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The environmental consciousness of customers and the emergence of stricter environmental regulations has pushed industries to think about environmental management by means of reverse logistics (RL) implementation. In order to implement RL systems, a careful analysis of barriers that hinder the reverse flow must be taken. However, most existing research on the barriers for RL implementation is focused on developed countries. Among the most important emerging economies, Brazil, the largest Latin America economy, faces challenges such as a deficient logistics infrastructure and the recently enacted National Policy on solid waste. To bridge this gap, this paper identifies and evaluates the barriers for RL in the Brazilian context. An eleven-step research methodology is proposed. First, literature was thoroughly reviewed. fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) was used to obtain the critical list of barriers by experts and industrial managers' opinions. Then, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) questionnaires were answered by electrical-electronic equipment (EEE) industry sector experts in order to obtain the priority ranking of barriers. This paper contributes with a compilation of the RL barriers from a systematic literature review process, a list of most common RL barriers accepted by Brazilian organizations, and a priority ranking of RI, barriers for the electrical-electronic industry sector in Brazil. The Economic related issues category of barriers seems to be the first priority. The financial burden of tax and the uncertainty related to economic issues appear to be major obstacles for RL implementation. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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