Table 4.

The quantitative results from the final Delphi survey

Serial no.RL barriersCodeRL sub-barriersAverage scoreAccept/Reject
1Management relatedR1Lack of commitment and accountability from upper management6.50Accept
R2Lack of collaboration with RL professionals and SC partners5.85Accept
R3Lack interest among stakeholders for RL5.10Reject
R4Resistance to the departure from traditional practices6.65Accept
R5Deficiency of strategic planning for enhancing RL implementations5.70Accept
R6Inadequate strategic planning to improve RL implementations5.70Accept
2Financial and economicR7Availability of sufficient and timely capital5.25Accept
R8Minimal profitability5.60Accept
R9RL is costly6.00Accept
R10Uncertainty concerning economic matters5.75Accept
3Infrastructure and technologicalR11Limitation of technology for product recovery, waste management5.60Accept
R12Lack of logistics and infrastructure facilities5.50Accept
4RegulatoryR13Absence of governmental rules and regulations regarding end-of-life (EoL) items5.85Accept
R14Lack of regulatory restrictions5.80Accept
R14Lack of standards for recycling management5.90Accept
5Governance, supply chain and operationsR16Lack of collaboration among supply chain partners5.95Accept
R17Limited forecasting and planning5.35Accept
R18Product quality inconsistency in comparison to forward logistics5.25Accept
R19Challenges in locating a third-party RL provider5.30Accept
6Marketing recycled/ remanufactured productsR20Undeveloped recovery marketplaces5.20Reject
R21Managing quality uncertainty, return timing and demand5.90Accept
R22Customers’ perceptions of inferior quality products5.90Accept
R23Lack of community pressure5.90Accept
7Consumer awarenessR24Customer acuity about RL5.59Accept
Source(s): Authors’ own creation

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal