Table 4. The quantitative results from...

Table 4.

The quantitative results from the final Delphi survey

Serial no.	RL barriers	Code	RL sub-barriers	Average score	Accept/Reject
1	Management related	R1	Lack of commitment and accountability from upper management	6.50	Accept
		R2	Lack of collaboration with RL professionals and SC partners	5.85	Accept
		R3	Lack interest among stakeholders for RL	5.10	Reject
		R4	Resistance to the departure from traditional practices	6.65	Accept
		R5	Deficiency of strategic planning for enhancing RL implementations	5.70	Accept
		R6	Inadequate strategic planning to improve RL implementations	5.70	Accept
2	Financial and economic	R7	Availability of sufficient and timely capital	5.25	Accept
		R8	Minimal profitability	5.60	Accept
		R9	RL is costly	6.00	Accept
		R10	Uncertainty concerning economic matters	5.75	Accept
3	Infrastructure and technological	R11	Limitation of technology for product recovery, waste management	5.60	Accept
3	Infrastructure and technological	R12	Lack of logistics and infrastructure facilities	5.50	Accept
4	Regulatory	R13	Absence of governmental rules and regulations regarding end-of-life (EoL) items	5.85	Accept
		R14	Lack of regulatory restrictions	5.80	Accept
		R14	Lack of standards for recycling management	5.90	Accept
5	Governance, supply chain and operations	R16	Lack of collaboration among supply chain partners	5.95	Accept
		R17	Limited forecasting and planning	5.35	Accept
		R18	Product quality inconsistency in comparison to forward logistics	5.25	Accept
		R19	Challenges in locating a third-party RL provider	5.30	Accept
6	Marketing recycled/ remanufactured products	R20	Undeveloped recovery marketplaces	5.20	Reject
		R21	Managing quality uncertainty, return timing and demand	5.90	Accept
		R22	Customers’ perceptions of inferior quality products	5.90	Accept
		R23	Lack of community pressure	5.90	Accept
7	Consumer awareness	R24	Customer acuity about RL	5.59	Accept

Serial no.	RL barriers	Code	RL sub-barriers	Average score	Accept/Reject
1	Management related	R1	Lack of commitment and accountability from upper management	6.50	Accept
		R2	Lack of collaboration with RL professionals and SC partners	5.85	Accept
		R3	Lack interest among stakeholders for RL	5.10	Reject
		R4	Resistance to the departure from traditional practices	6.65	Accept
		R5	Deficiency of strategic planning for enhancing RL implementations	5.70	Accept
		R6	Inadequate strategic planning to improve RL implementations	5.70	Accept
2	Financial and economic	R7	Availability of sufficient and timely capital	5.25	Accept
		R8	Minimal profitability	5.60	Accept
		R9	RL is costly	6.00	Accept
		R10	Uncertainty concerning economic matters	5.75	Accept
3	Infrastructure and technological	R11	Limitation of technology for product recovery, waste management	5.60	Accept
3	Infrastructure and technological	R12	Lack of logistics and infrastructure facilities	5.50	Accept
4	Regulatory	R13	Absence of governmental rules and regulations regarding end-of-life (EoL) items	5.85	Accept
		R14	Lack of regulatory restrictions	5.80	Accept
		R14	Lack of standards for recycling management	5.90	Accept
5	Governance, supply chain and operations	R16	Lack of collaboration among supply chain partners	5.95	Accept
		R17	Limited forecasting and planning	5.35	Accept
		R18	Product quality inconsistency in comparison to forward logistics	5.25	Accept
		R19	Challenges in locating a third-party RL provider	5.30	Accept
6	Marketing recycled/ remanufactured products	R20	Undeveloped recovery marketplaces	5.20	Reject
		R21	Managing quality uncertainty, return timing and demand	5.90	Accept
		R22	Customers’ perceptions of inferior quality products	5.90	Accept
		R23	Lack of community pressure	5.90	Accept
7	Consumer awareness	R24	Customer acuity about RL	5.59	Accept

Source(s): Authors’ own creation

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable