Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Barriers to the implementation of cleaner production

in Chinese SMEs: government, industry and
expert stakeholders’ perspectives
H. Shi a, S.Z. Peng b, Y. Liu b, P. Zhong c,*
a
Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 205 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
b
The Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21, 8# Yuyuantan Nan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100038, China
c
Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research Center, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
Received 13 December 2004; received in revised form 13 May 2007; accepted 15 May 2007
Available online 5 July 2007

Abstract

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. Sec-
ond, 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 val-
idated in terms of consistency and in some cases followed up for verification. Fourth, the 20 barriers were rated by analyzing the valid ques-
tionnaires 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.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cleaner production; Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); Stakeholder; Barrier; Analytic hierarchy process (AHP); Prioritization

1. Introduction million RMB fixed assets. SMEs generally accounted for

Chinese industrial small- and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) have been growing rapidly in terms of the total num-
ber and their contribution to the gross industrial output values.
This is due to the booming of township and village enterprises
(TVEs) since the early 1980s. According to the Provisional
Regulation on Small and Medium Enterprises in China
(2003), SMEs are the enterprises that have either less than
2000 employees, or 300 million RMB1 annual sales, or 400
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ86 10 58884880.
E-mail address: zhongping@gmail.com (P. Zhong).
1
RMB (also known as Chinese yuan) is Chinese currency. One RMB yuan
equals to 0.121 US dollar approximately during the period of the research.
99.88% of the total number of manufacturing establishments
in China on 2002, and they contribute significantly to Chinese
social, economic and industrial development [1].
However, most SMEs are currently confronted with difficul-
ties such as obsolete equipment and technology, untrained and
inexperienced laborers, and insufficient financial resources.
Their production has caused significant negative environmental
impacts [2]. SMEs in the printing and dying, foundry, tannery,
food processing, pulp and paper, electroplating and chemical in-
dustries are the most energy-intensive and polluting industries
in China, and have impacted the surrounding environment and
harmed the neighbouring residents’ health [3e4].
In order to reverse the worrisome trends of heavy energy con-
sumption and environmental pollution, the Chinese government

0959-6526/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.05.002
 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852 843

has had more than 150,000 small polluting enterprises closed, SMEs. Section 3 explains the AHP methodology for prioritizing
suspended, merged or transformed since 1996 [5]. However, CP barriers. Section 4 presents the quantitative results from
these tough measures only temporarily mitigate the problem AHP analysis. Section 5 concludes the paper with the top three
of industrial pollution caused by SMEs without removing the barriers for CP implementation in Chinese SMEs and also sheds
root cause. Since 1990s, China’s environmental protection strat- some new light on priorities for future policy development to
egy has embarked on a gradual transition from end-of-pipe promote CP in SMEs.
(EOP) pollution treatment to pollution prevention. Cleaner pro-
duction (CP) has been recognized and promoted by the Chinese
2. Barriers to the implementation of CP in Chinese SMEs
government because it prevents pollution at the source and may
prove a more cost-effective alternative to a conventional EOP
Successful implementation of CP needs not only internal co-
control approach [2]. On 1 January 2003, the Cleaner Produc-
operation among managerial, technical, and operating staffs of
tion Promotion Law (CPPL) of China took effect. The new
industrial enterprises, but also external supports and incentives
law is the highlight of a number of initiatives that the Chinese
of finance, policy and the marketplace [11]. It is essential to re-
government has taken to establish CP as one of China’s strate-
duce the major internal and external barriers for enterprises
gies for sustainable development. It is also unprecedented as the
which prevent them from effectively adopting CP. Properly
first national law specializing in promotion of CP in developing
identifying critical barriers to implementation of CP in Chinese
countries. This law became an indication of normative and legal
SMEs is prerequisite to formulating appropriate public policies
management for CP and the milestone for a new pathway to in-
to remove or mitigate them.
dustrialisation in China [6].
In recent years, there has been growing interest in examin-
However, the CP Promotion Law is only newly adopted. The
ing special challenges hindering SMEs to take up CP. Thiru-
widespread adoption of CP on the ground is far from satisfactory
chelvam et al. [12] point out that the barriers for SMEs to
[7]. A number of barriers exist in the introduction, development
adopt CP technologies in the Asian context are as follows:
and application of CP in Chinese SMEs. Shortly after CP was
(1) lack of awareness, education and training on cleaner pro-
first introduced in China in 1993, some prominent barriers
duction technologies; (2) financial and economic factors; (3)
were identified in relation to awareness, financial and managerial
lack of coordination and slackness; and (4) lack of infrastruc-
aspects [8e10]. With the gradual improvement of policy and
ture, including space. Other barriers include the ‘‘invisibility’’
institution of CP, some barriers have been removed, but many
of energy efficiency and pollution mitigation measures and the
others continue to exist and some new barriers have emerged.
difficulty of demonstrating and quantifying their impacts.
To effectively reduce existing barriers and to create a fa-
Cooray [13] summarizes that SME-specific barriers to imple-
vourable environment for CP adoption in SMEs, the research
ment cleaner production schemes include the lack of professional
was designed to quantitatively identify, rank and prioritize
management skills, poor record keeping, resistance by decision-
the barriers. There are a number of features that differentiate
makers (exacerbated by the concentration of power in few per-
this research from the previous studies of CP barriers. First,
sons), over-emphasis on production, non-involvement of workers,
the research was designed to prioritize the barriers in a quanti-
limited technical capabilities and access to technical information,
tative way based on a questionnaire survey while previous
limited skilled human capital, lack of in-house monitoring,
ones were primarily based on qualitative case studies. Previous
deficiencies in maintenance, unstable finances and the high cost
studies of CP barriers tended to take stock of a range of bar-
combined with limited low availability of capital for CP.
riers without prioritizing and ranking them.
To develop an initial set of likely barriers to CP implemen-
Secondly, the research was focused on SMEs while the pre-
tation in Chinese SMEs, the authors reviewed the related liter-
vious ones targeted all scales of industry. According to Shi
ature [9e10,14e19], drew on the practical experiences in CP
[11], SMEs face special challenges in adopting CP because
implementation in China by the Centre for Environmentally
they are mostly confronted with punitive measures rather
Sound Technology Transfer (CESTT),2 and conducted exten-
than supportive and inducing policies.
sive discussions with Chinese experts and researchers special-
Thirdly, this research focused upon comparing and con-
ized in CP from 2002 to 2003. As a result (see Table 1), 20
trasting the perspectives of government, industry and experts
barriers were identified3 and grouped into four major cate-
on the same issue e CP barriers. Any substantial difference
gories: (1) policy and market barriers (PMB); (2) financial
in stakeholders’ perspectives may shed some new light on
and economic barriers (FEB); (3) technical and information
the underlying reasons for ineffective CP policies and on the
barriers (TIB); and (4) managerial and organizational barriers
possible improvements in future policy improvements.
(MOB). Both PMB and FEB are essentially external barriers,
Fourthly, this research utilized the analytic hierarchy pro-
whose influence is beyond the control of the enterprises, while
cess (AHP) methodology for prioritizing the barriers to CP im-
TIB and MOB are primarily internal barriers, which are
plementation for the first time. AHP is a quantitative and
mostly dependent upon the enterprises’ own characteristics.
normative analytic method, which can significantly reduce in-
herent subjectivity for both the interviewees who participate in 2
The four co-authors of the paper either used to or continue to work on CP
the survey and the researchers who conduct the research. promotion at CESTT.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 3
Taking into consideration the prominence of the barriers, only those rela-
2 examines the barriers to implementation of CP in Chinese tively significant barriers were included in the study.
844 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852
Table 1
List of four groups of refined barriersa
No. Barriers (abbreviation)
B1 Policy and market barriers (PMB)
B1.1 Lax environmental enforcement (LEE)
B1.2 Absence of economic incentive policies (AEI)
B1.3 Lack of market preference/demands (LMP)
B1.4 Inadequate industrial self-regulation (ISR)
B1.5 Weak public awareness and pressure (WPA)
B2 Financial and economic barriers (FEB)
B2.1 High initial capital cost (HIC)
B2.2 Difficulty in accessing financial capital (DAC)
B2.3 Poor financial performance of CP (PFP)
B2.4 Lack of effective evaluation measures for CP (LEM)
B2.5 Lack of financing service for SMEs (LFS)
B3 Technical and information barriers (TIB)
B3.1 Limited in-plant expertise/capability (LIC)
B3.2 Lack of access to external technical support (LES)b
B3.3 Difficulty to access information on CP (DAI)
B3.4 Additional infrastructure requirements (AIR)
B3.5 Lack of technical training on the workshop floor (LTT)
B4 Managerial and organizational barriers (MOB)
B4.1 Higher priorities to production expansion/
market share (HPP)
B4.2 Concern about competitiveness (CAC)
B4.3 Management resistance to change (MRC)
B4.4 Lack of awareness of CP (LOA)
B4.5 Inadequate management capacity (IMC)
a
The abbreviations and the barrier sequence numbers are consistent in the article.
b
This barrier (B3.2) involves both external and internal characteristics. It is noted that LES (B3.2) and DAI (B3.3) under the TIB category are affected by both
internal and external factors.
3. Methodology for prioritizing the
CP barriers e analytic hierarchy process
The AHP devised by Saaty [20e22] is a powerful and flex-
ible decisionmaking tool to help people in setting priorities and
making the best decision when both qualitative and quantitative
aspects of a decision need to be considered. By reducing com-
plex decisions to a series of one-on-one comparisons, and then
synthesizing the results, AHP not only helps decisionmakers ar-
rive at the best decision, but also provides a clear rationale why
it is the best. It can be used to predict likely outcomes, plan pro-
jected and desired futures, facilitate group decisionmaking, ex-
ercise control over changes in the decisionmaking system,
allocate resources, select alternatives, do costebenefit analysis,
prioritize and rank pending solutions, evaluate employees and
allocate wage increases [20e26].
As regard to prioritization, AHP has been widely used to
reflect the importance, or weights, of the factors [27];
Description
Weak enforcement of environmental regulations does not make the adoption of CP
an urgent task.
There are no economic incentives such as tax exemptions and grants for installation
of CP in SMEs.
Customers do not demand or prefer products produced in a more environmentally
sound manner.
Government assistance or initiatives fail to result in self-regulation at the factory level.
Weak public awareness and insufficient community pressures on SMEs to improve their
environmental performance are common problems.
Higher initial capital costs of clean(er) technology as compared to conventional
technologies prevent SMEs from implementing CP.
Financing channels for SMEs are very limited in China, especially for CP projects.
Low returns and longer gestation periods make SMEs reluctant to invest in CP.
Difficulty to quantify the financial performance of CP projects.
Chinese financing service institutes are insufficient and most of them are more willing
to serve big companies than SMEs.
Limited in-plant technical staffs are fully occupied on daily production, let alone identify
and implement new CP.
SMEs are incompetent at accessing external technical support while the external support
is insufficient per se.
SMEs face difficulty in accessing and appreciating CP related information and act on them.
Integrating CP into existing production systems often encounters problems with space,
infrastructure or other reasons.
In SMEs, training programs for the employees to operate and maintain CP at shop floor
level are insufficient.
Managers consider that expansion of production capacity and market share is more
important than implementing CP.
Adoption of CP often incurs additional costs and undermines enterprises’ competitiveness
in the marketplace.
Managers worry about the risks in changing the current production processes and
technologies.
Managers and staffs are unaware of CP’s economic and environmental benefits.
Managers lack the basic managerial and technical capacity to implement CP.
however, little has been done to design a formal method for
the prioritization of barriers to CP, not to mention barriers en-
countered during the implementation of CP in Chinese SMEs.
The APH method is used in this study.
To investigate the views of different stakeholders on barriers
hindering the introduction and implementation of CP in Chinese
SMEs, the authors conducted a three-phased study, including:
(1) identifying barriers and structuring a hierarchy model for
prioritization, (2) constructing the questionnaire and collecting
data, and (3) determining the normalized weights for each bar-
rier category and each specific barrier. Opinions coming from
different stakeholders including governments, enterprises and
experts were collected via carefully designed questionnaires,
then synthesized and analyzed by an AHP software tool.4
4
Well-known and commonly available, AHP software packages include
Expert Choice Professional, Decision Pro., Decision Analysis, and Precision
Tree.
 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852 845

3.1. Identifying barriers and structuring a hierarchy
model for prioritization
After the identification of all the prominent barriers to the
implementation of CP in Chinese SMEs, a tree-hierarchy
was structured to facilitate the prioritization process (Fig. 1).
The tree is segmented into four levels: the top level contains
the overall barriers inhibiting the promotion of CP; the second
level contains the four barrier categories; the third level in-
cludes five specific barriers under each barrier category, 20
in total; and the last level is the final goal of this studydpriori-
tization of the barriers inhibiting CP promotion in Chinese
SMEs.
3.2. Developing the questionnaire and collecting data
The next step in AHP is data collection. This was done
through a systematic series of pair-wised comparisons among
the specific barriers and barrier categories at each level. Pair-
wised comparisons allow respondents to focus on only two cri-
teria at a time, thereby, translating the complex, multi-criteria
prioritizing problem into a series of pair-wised assessments.
The AHP then converts these comparisons to criteria (barrier)
weights using a matrix algebra-based algorithm while also
checking for consistency in the results.
Following the tree-hierarchy in Fig. 1, questionnaires were
designed to facilitate data collection and capture the views of
different stakeholders. By completing the questionnaire, pair-
wised comparisons were conducted at two separated levels, first
at the specific barrier level and then at the barrier category level.
Following this sequence, interviewees can have a better under-
standing about each specific barrier and more importantly
each barrier category. Thus, more reliable results of the relative
importance of each barrier category and specific barrier can be
obtained.
The questionnaire used in the research was slightly restruc-
tured from the traditional AHP questionnaires, which were
constructed in the form of a matrix and comparisons between
criteria in each level were conducted by comparing the relative
importance between criteria in columns and rows in the pre-
constructed comparison matrixes. By using a revised question-
naire rather than the methodologically strict questionnaire,
understandability and accurate opinions were much easier to
obtain. The reformed questionnaire converts pair-wised com-
parisons between columns in a matrix format into pair-wised
comparisons in the same column, but retains the obvious fea-
ture of pair-wised comparison. Table 2 shows a sample table
of level 2 barrier categories comparison in the revised ques-
tionnaire, one compares each barrier category to the others
and fills in importance scale, bXY, reflecting the relative impor-
tance of barrier category X to barrier category Y as illustrated in
Table 3. The comparisons between specific barriers under each
barrier category were compared likewise.
An improved nine-point scale, converting the weight from
numerals to symbols, was used to assign relative weights to
pair-wised comparisons between the categories and between
the specific barriers (see Table 3). The interviewees would as-
sign a symbol to each comparison by the scale.
More than 300 questionnaires were distributed to three stake-
holder groups, governments, enterprises and experts, who play
the most important role in the promotion and implementation
of CP. One hundred and nineteen completed questionnaires
were returned, among which 65 passed the consistency test
and were therefore, validated for the quantitative analysis.

Level 1: Goal
To remove the key barriers inhibiting CP uptake

Level 2: Barrier B1. Policy & B2. Financial & B3. Technical & B4. Managerial &
categories Market Economic Information Organizational

B 1.1 Lax B 2.1 High initial capital B 3.1 Limited in-plant B 4.1 Higher priorities
environmental cost expertise/capability to production expansion
enforcement

B 1.2 Lack of economic B 2.2 Difficulty in B 3.2 Lack of access to B 4.2 Concern about
incentive policies accessing external technical competitiveness
financing/capital support
Level 3: Specific
barriers B 1.3 Lack of market B 2.3 Poor financial B 3.3 Difficulty to B 4.3 Management
preference/demands performance of CP access information on resistance to change
CP

B 1.4 Inadequate B 2.4 Lack of effective B 3.4 Additional B 4.4 Lack of

industrial self- evaluation measures for infrastructure awareness of CP
regulation CP requirements

B 1.5 Weak public B 2.5 Lack of financing B 3.5 Lack of technical B 4.5 Inadequate
Level 4: awareness and pressure service institute for training at workshop management capacity
Prioritized SMEs floor
barriers

Identification of Key Barriers Inhibiting CP Promotion

Fig. 1. A hierarchy model of the CP barrier study.

846 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852

3.3. Determining the normalized weights Table 2

Barrier categories comparison (level 2) table in the questionnairea
With the completion of the pair-wised comparisons (in this The level of barrier categories
case, 46 pair-wised comparisons were made for each question- Barrier category X Comparison Barrier category Y
naire, eight pair-wised comparisons for specific barriers under (bXY)
each barrier category and six for the comparisons between 1. Policy and market b12 2. Financial and economic
each barrier category), mathematical computations were con- barriers barriers
ducted. The first step in the evaluation is to normalize each b13 3. Technical and information
barriers
matrix by adding the values of each bXY. So a matrix (B5) b14 4. Managerial and organizational
can be normalized: barriers
0 1 0 1 2. Financial and economic b23 3. Technical and information
b11 b12 . b1n 1 b12 . b1n barriers barriers
B b21 b22 b2n C B . b2n C
B
B¼@
. C ¼ B 1=b12 1 C b24 4. Managerial and organizational
. . . .A @ . . . .A barriers
bn1 bn2 . bnn 1=b1n 1=b2n . 1 3. Technical and information b34 4. Managerial and organizational
barriers barriers
Then the local weight WBi6 was calculated according to the
a
formula [28]: The table illustrates the pair-wised comparisons on the second level, and
the comparisons under each barrier category were conducted similarly.
 1n
Q
n
bij dataset. The resultant priority weights denote the relative
j¼1
WBi ¼  1n importance of the barrier categories and specific barriers.
Pn Q
n
i¼1 bij
j¼1 4. Results and analysis
For each questionnaire, there are five sets of local weights
calculated from five matrixes, including four comparison ma- The research team made great effort to increase the response
trixes of specific barriers and one on barrier category compar- rate of the questionnaire survey by improving the understand-
ison. The sum of one given set of the calculated local weight ability of the questionnaire, conducting relevant methodology
always equals to 1. training, and maintaining follow-up discussions. As a result, al-
After determining the local weights, the global weights of together 119 finished questionnaires were returned. However,
each specific barrier and barrier category are calculated. Differ- the problem with the questionnaire responses in terms of
ent from local weights, the global weight indicates the relative poor consistency prevailed. In the end, only 65 questionnaires
importance of each barrier or each barrier category among all satisfying the consistency test were used to analyze the weights
the studied barriers or barrier categories. Therefore, the global of CP barriers through the AHP model. A brief representative
weights of the four barrier categories on the second level of profile of the research is given in Table 4.
the tree-hierarchy model (see Fig. 1) are the same as their local Using the AHP model, four sets of normalized weights
weights. On the third level, the global weights of specific bar- were generated for assessing the significance of critical bar-
riers are the product of the local weights and the global weights riers in the promotion of CP in Chinese SMEs (see Table 5).
of associated barrier categories on the second level. Each set has two columns of local weights and global weights
To avoid misdirection analysis affected by interviewees’ in- for each barrier category and each specific barrier, the first
compatible judgments, AHP establishes a consistency indica- three sets are results from the perspectives of the government,
tor as the standard judgment if the values are incompatible. enterprise and expert groups, respectively, and the last set is
The questionnaires involved in incompatible judgments were the aggregate analysis results, which was based on the collec-
normally discussed with their answerers. Only the matrixes tive judgments of all the participating stakeholders whose
that passed the consistency test were included in the final
analysis. Table 3
An in-house AHP software program, developed by CESTT The pair-wised comparison scale
in accordance with the matrix principle, was used to calculate Importance scale Explanation of the scales Equivalent
the results. However, the results are no different from those algorithm
obtained from applying any other AHP software to the same >>>> X is extremely more important than Y 9
>>> X is drastically more important than Y 7
5 >> X is strongly more important than Y 5
The value of bXY indicates the relative importance of barrier X to barrier Y,
> X is moderately more important than Y 3
and the value of bYX manifests the relative importance of barrier Y to barrier X,
¼ X is equally important to Y 1
therefore bYX ¼ 1/bXY and bXY ¼ 1 in case of X ¼ Y.
6 < X is moderately less important than Y 1/3
The value of a local weight indicates the perceived relative importance of
<< X is strongly less important than Y 1/5
a barrier or barrier category within its comparison matrix, i.e. the relative im-
<<< X is drastically less important than Y 1/7
portance of the specific barrier among the barrier category it belongs to or the
<<<< X is extremely less important than Y 1/9
relative importance of the barrier category.
 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852
Table 4
Representative profiles of the valid questionnaires
Stakeholder Number of valid Percent of
group responses valid surveys
Government 18 27.7
Enterprise 27 41.5
Expert 20 30.8
Total 65 100
judgments passed the consistency test. Given the role of SMEs
as the ultimate implementers of CP, the research gives a higher
weight to their perspectives. The aggregate rating assigns
30%, 40% and 30% of weights to the viewpoints of govern-
ment, enterprise and expert stakeholder groups, respectively.
4.1. Aggregate ranking of the barriers to the CP
adoption in Chinese SMEs
As shown in Table 5, the B1-Policy and market barriers
(PMB) category as the most prominent barrier category with
a normalized global weight of 0.347 on the second hierarchy
level (in the aggregate column). The B2-Financial and eco-
nomic barriers (FEB) category follows closely behind with
a global weight of 0.334, which is only slightly less than
that of PMB. The global weights of the B4-Market and orga-
nizational barriers (MOB) and B3-Technical and information
barriers (TIB) categories are both less than half of the global
weights of PMB or FEB. They are regarded as the third and
fourth significant barrier categories (MOB ¼ 0.161 and
TIB ¼ 0.158). The two external barrier categories, i.e. PMB
and FEB, as illustrated in Section 2, are the most significant
ones hindering the adoption of CP in Chinese SMEs. The
two external barrier categories jointly contribute 0.681 out
of the total weight of 1.000. On the other hand, the two inter-
nal barrier categories, MOB and TIB, accounting for the rest
(0.319 out of the total weight 1.000), are also significant and
cannot be overlooked for widespread implementation of CP
in Chinese SMEs.
At the third hierarchy level, B1.2-Absence of economic in-
centive policies (AEI) is regarded as the most prominent bar-
rier under the B1-PMB barrier group with a local weight of
0.286. B1.1-Lax environmental enforcement (LEE) under
PMB has a local weight of 0.275, only slightly less than
AEI. Under this barrier category, three other specific barriers,
B1.5-Weak public awareness and pressure (EPA), B1.3-Lack
of market preference/demand (LMP) and B1.4-Inadequate in-
dustrial self-regulation (ISR) possess the local weights of
0.165, 0.150 and 0.125, respectively. Because PMB is the
most prominent barrier category on the second level, AEI
and LEE are the two most important barriers among all 20 bar-
riers, with global weights of 0.099 and 0.095, respectively. At
the third hierarchy level under the B2-FEB barrier category,
B2.4-Lack of effective evaluation measures for CP
(LEM ¼ 0.166) and B2.5-Lack of financing service for
847
Nature of respondents
Science and Technology Bureaus, Development Planning Commissions, Environment
Protection Bureaus at the national and local levels
Enterprises in metal casting, building materials, textile, paper, chemical, environmental
equipment suppliers, etc.
Experts and researchers on environmental protection, energy efficiency, industrial
development, CP and policy research fields, etc.
SMEs (LFS ¼ 0.161) are less important barriers than B2.1-
High initial capital cost of CP (HIC ¼ 0.245), B2.3-Poor finan-
cial performance of CP (PFP ¼ 0.228) and B2.2-Difficulty in
accessing financing/capital (DAC ¼ 0.200). However, the dif-
ferences are not significant. As for the specific barriers under
B3-TIB, the local weight of B3.2-Lack of access to external
technical support (LES ¼ 0.268), B3.3-Difficulty accessing in-
formation on CP (DAI ¼ 0.251) and B3.1-Limited in-plant ex-
pertise/capacity (LIC ¼ 0.230) are about two times greater
than those of B3.5-Lack of technical training on the workshop
floor (LTT ¼ 0.131) and B3.4-Additional infrastructure re-
quirements (AIR ¼ 0.120), each. There is not much difference
between the importance of the specific barriers under the B4-
MOB barrier category, the local weights of B4.1-Higher prior-
ities to production expansion/market share (HPP ¼ 0.242) and
B4.2-Concern about competitiveness (CAC ¼ 0.225) are
slightly higher than those of B4.4-Lack of awareness of CP
(LOA ¼ 0.190), B4.3-Management resistance to change
(MRC ¼ 0.174) and B4.5-Inadequate management capacity
(IMC ¼ 0.170).
By examining the global weight ranking for the 20 specific
barriers (see Table 6), B1.2-Absence of economic incentive pol-
icies (AEI ¼ 0.099), B1.1-Lax environmental enforcement
(LEE ¼ 0.095), B2.1-High initial capital cost (HIC ¼ 0.082),
B2.3-Poor financial performance of CP (PFP ¼ 0.076), B2.2-
Difficulty in accessing financing/capital (DAC ¼ 0.067),
B1.5-Weak public awareness and pressure (WPA ¼ 0.057),
B2.4-Lack of effective evaluation measure for CP (LEM ¼
0.055) and B2.5-Lack of CP financing services (LFS ¼
0.054) are regarded as the top eight barriers which need to be
overcome most urgently for widespread CP uptake in Chinese
SMEs. On the other hand, B3.4-Additional infrastructure re-
quirements (AIR ¼ 0.019), B3.5-Lack of technical training at
workshops (LTT ¼ 0.021), B4.5-Inadequate management ca-
pacity (IMC ¼ 0.027), B4.3-Management resistance to change
(MRC ¼ 0.028), B4.4-Lack of awareness of CP among staffs
(LOA ¼ 0.031), B4.2-Concern about competitiveness (CAC ¼
0.036), B3.1-Limited in-plant expertise/capacity (LIC ¼
0.036) and B4.1-Higher priorities to production/market share
(HPP ¼ 0.039) are the eight least significant and pressing bar-
riers among all the studied barriers. It is worth noting that all
of the top 10 barriers are external barriers, while the 10 least
prominent barriers are internal barriers. The researchers con-
clude that the immediate priorities should be placed on substan-
tially improving external policy and market conditions instead
848 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852

Table 5
Local and global weights of all barrier categories and specific barriers
Barriers Government Enterprise Experts Aggregate
Local Global Local Global Local Global Local Global
weight weight weight weight weight weight weight weight
B1 Policy and market barriers (PMB) 0.311 0.311 0.320 0.320 0.418 0.418 0.347 0.347
B1.1 Lax environmental 0.236 0.073 0.253 0.081 0.342 0.143 0.275 0.095
enforcement (LEE)
B1.2 Absence of economic 0.243 0.075 0.308 0.099 0.299 0.125 0.286 0.099
incentives policies (AEI)
B1.3 Lack of market preference/ 0.199 0.062 0.149 0.048 0.101 0.042 0.150 0.052
demands (LMP)
B1.4 Inadequate industrial 0.132 0.041 0.145 0.047 0.091 0.038 0.125 0.043
self-regulation (ISR)
B1.5 Weak public awareness 0.190 0.059 0.145 0.046 0.166 0.070 0.165 0.057
and pressure (WPA)
B2 Financial and economic 0.357 0.357 0.371 0.371 0.263 0.263 0.334 0.334
barriers (FEB)
B2.1 High initial capital cost (HIC) 0.223 0.080 0.280 0.104 0.220 0.058 0.245 0.082
B2.2 Difficulty in accessing 0.202 0.072 0.208 0.077 0.187 0.049 0.200 0.067
financial capital (DAC)
B2.3 Poor financial performance 0.266 0.095 0.183 0.068 0.251 0.066 0.228 0.076
of CP (PFP)
B2.4 Lack of effective evaluation 0.130 0.046 0.171 0.063 0.194 0.051 0.166 0.055
measures for CP (LEM)
B2.5 Lack of financing service for 0.178 0.064 0.158 0.059 0.148 0.039 0.161 0.054
SMEs (LFS)
B3 Technical and information 0.099 0.099 0.183 0.183 0.183 0.183 0.158 0.158
barriers (TIB)
B3.1 Limited in-plant expertise/ 0.223 0.022 0.250 0.046 0.211 0.039 0.230 0.036
capability (LIC)
B3.2 Lack of access to external 0.263 0.026 0.294 0.054 0.239 0.044 0.268 0.042
technical support (LES)
B3.3 Difficulty to access information 0.272 0.027 0.209 0.038 0.287 0.052 0.251 0.040
on CP (DAI)
B3.4 Additional infrastructure 0.126 0.012 0.130 0.024 0.100 0.018 0.120 0.019
requirements (AIR)
B3.5 Lack of technical training at 0.116 0.012 0.117 0.021 0.163 0.030 0.131 0.021
workshop floor (LTT)
B4 Managerial and organizational 0.233 0.233 0.126 0.126 0.136 0.136 0.161 0.161
barriers (MOB)
B4.1 Higher priorities to production/ 0.276 0.064 0.247 0.031 0.200 0.027 0.242 0.039
market share (HPP)
B4.2 Concern about competitiveness 0.211 0.049 0.238 0.030 0.220 0.030 0.225 0.036
(CAC)
B4.3 Management resistance 0.132 0.031 0.206 0.026 0.174 0.024 0.174 0.028
to change (MRC)
B4.4 Lack of awareness of 0.185 0.043 0.184 0.023 0.202 0.027 0.190 0.031
CP (LOA)
B4.5 Inadequate management 0.195 0.045 0.125 0.016 0.205 0.028 0.170 0.027
capacity (IMC)

of the capacity and awareness of the SMEs for CP to thrive in
Chinese SMEs.
4.2. Comparison and contrast of the perspectives of three
stakeholder groups
As shown in Table 6, three categories of interviewees, gov-
ernment, enterprise and expert, all placed much higher impor-
tance on external barrier categories (PMB ¼ 0.311, 0.320 and
0.419, FEB ¼ 0.357, 0.371 and 0.263) than internal barrier
categories (TIB ¼ 0.099, 0.183 and 0.183, MOB ¼ 0.233,
0.126 and 0.136). This further underscores the common under-
standing of all the stakeholders involved that external barriers
currently are much more significant than internal barriers in
hindering the CP implementation in Chinese SMEs.
However, it should be noted that although the three stake-
holder groups all regard external barriers more important,
there are considerable differences in the assigned weights
for each barrier category by the three stakeholder groups in-
volved. As shown in Fig. 2, the expert group assigns the
 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852 849

Table 6
Ranking of global weights of barrier categories and specific barriers
Ranking Aggregate results For governments For enterprises For experts
Barriers and Global weight Barriers and Global weight Barriers and Global weight Barriers and Global weight
categories categories categories categories
Level 2
1 B1 PMB 0.347 B2 FEB 0.357 B2 FEB 0.371 B1 PMB 0.418
2 B2 FEB 0.334 B1 PMB 0.311 B1 PMB 0.320 B2 FEB 0.263
3 B4 MOB 0.161 B4 MOB 0.233 B3 TIB 0.183 B3 TIB 0.183
4 B3 TIB 0.158 B3 TIB 0.099 B4 MOB 0.126 B4 MOB 0.136
Level 3
1 B1.2 AEI 0.099 B2.3 PFP 0.095 B2.1 HIC 0.104 B1.1 LEE 0.143
2 B1.1 LEE 0.095 B2.1 HIC 0.080 B1.2 AEI 0.099 B1.2 AEI 0.125
3 B2.1 HIC 0.082 B1.2 AEI 0.075 B1.1 LEE 0.081 B1.5 WPA 0.070
4 B2.3 PFP 0.076 B1.1 LEE 0.073 B2.2 DAC 0.077 B2.3 PFP 0.066
5 B2.2 DAC 0.067 B2.2 DAC 0.072 B2.3 PFP 0.068 B2.1 HIC 0.058
6 B1.5 WPA 0.057 B4.1 HPP 0.064 B2.4 LEM 0.063 B3.3 DAI 0.052
7 B2.4 LEM 0.055 B2.5 LFS 0.064 B2.5 LFS 0.059 B2.4 LEM 0.051
8 B2.5 LFS 0.054 B1.3 LMP 0.062 B3.2 LES 0.054 B2.2 DAC 0.049
9 B1.3 LMP 0.052 B1.5 WPA 0.059 B1.3 LMP 0.048 B3.2 LES 0.044
10 B1.4 ISR 0.043 B4.2 CAC 0.049 B1.4 ISR 0.047 B1.3 LMP 0.042
11 B3.2 LES 0.042 B2.4 LEM 0.046 B1.5 WPA 0.046 B2.5 LFS 0.039
12 B3.3 DAI 0.040 B4.5 IMC 0.045 B3.1 LIC 0.046 B3.1 LIC 0.039
13 B4.1 HPP 0.039 B4.4 LOA 0.043 B3.3 DAI 0.038 B1.4 ISR 0.038
14 B3.1 LIC 0.036 B1.4 ISR 0.041 B4.1 HPP 0.031 B4.2 CAC 0.030
15 B4.2 CAC 0.036 B4.3 MRC 0.031 B4.2 CAC 0.030 B3.5 LTT 0.030
16 B4.4 LOA 0.031 B3.3 DAI 0.027 B4.3 MRC 0.026 B4.5 IMC 0.028
17 B4.3 MRC 0.028 B3.2 LES 0.026 B3.4 AIR 0.024 B4.4 LOA 0.027
18 B4.5 IMC 0.027 B3.1 LIC 0.022 B4.4 LOA 0.023 B4.1 HPP 0.027
19 B3.5 LTT 0.021 B3.4 AIR 0.012 B3.5 LTT 0.021 B4.3 MRC 0.024
20 B3.4 AIR 0.019 B3.5 LTT 0.012 B4.5 IMC 0.016 B3.4 AIR 0.018

highest weight to the B1-Policy and market barriers (PMB ¼ (DAC ¼ 0.067), are also the top five barriers of all three stake-
0.419), while both the government group and the enterprise holder groups except experts regard B1.5-Weak public aware-
group rank PMB (0.311 and 0.320, respectively) the second ness and pressure (WPA ¼ 0.070) as the third most prominent
prominent barrier category, less important than the Financial barrier while B2.2-Difficulty in accessing financing (DAC ¼
and Economic Barriers (FEB ¼ 0.357 and 0.371). This might 0.049) is ranked 8th.
imply that Chinese experts, in contrast to government officials The ranking of specific barriers reveals consistent results as
and enterprises, are much more concerned about policy and the ranking of barrier categories. Interviewees that come from
market conditions in the process of fostering CP in China. government emphasize financial and economic barriers (FEB)
As a result, this elevates PMB to the most prominent barrier by ranking PFP and HIC in the first and second place, while
category in the aggregate evaluation. Similarly, the govern- they pay the least attention to technical and information bar-
ment group believes that the technical and information bar- riers (TIB) by ranking them among the bottom five. In con-
riers (TIB) is the least prominent barrier category (0.099), trast, expert interviewees put more emphasis on policy and
which is only half of the weights assigned by the enterprise market barriers (PMB) and less concern about the roles played
(0.183) and expert (0.183) groups. Therefore, in the aggregate by managerial and organizational barriers (MOB) in hindering
evaluation, TIB is ranked the least important barrier category
due to the opinion of government groups. In Fig. 2, it also
can be found that the trajectory of results from the enterprise
group is closer to the trajectory of the aggregate results,
since the enterprise group constitutes 40% of the aggregate
weighting.
At the third hierarchy level, there is considerable agreement
among the three stakeholder groups concerning the top five spe-
cific barriers to CP implementation in SMEs. As shown in Table
6, the top five barriers of the aggregate results, i.e. B1.2-Absence
of economic incentives policies (AEI ¼ 0.099), B1.1-Lax envi-
ronmental enforcement (LEE ¼ 0.095), B2.1-High initial capi-
tal cost (HIC ¼ 0.082), B2.3-Poor financial performance of CP
(PFP ¼ 0.076), and B2.2-Difficulty in accessing financing Fig. 2. Trajectory of the results from different perspectives.
850 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852
the uptake of CP; they rank LEE, AEI and WAP as the top
three barriers and placed four MOB barriers among the bottom
five. With respect to enterprise representatives, they have
views similar to governmental representatives by ranking all
five barriers under the FEB category among the top seven bar-
riers, and distribute TIB and MOB barriers almost evenly in
the bottom of the ranking list.
Although there are some differences in the weights of differ-
ent barriers, the distribution of external barriers and internal
barriers remains almost unchanged. Nearly all the external bar-
riers are ranked in the top half while internal barriers stand on
the lower half of the ranking list.
5. Discussion and conclusions
5.1. Focusing on the prioritized barriers
By integrating the perspectives of government, enterprise
and expert stakeholders, the study suggests that the dominant
barriers hindering CP implementation come from the policy
and finance arenas, which are mostly external to SMEs.
More specifically, the absence of economic incentive policies
(AEI), lax environmental enforcement (LEE), high initial cap-
ital cost (HIC), poor financial performance of CP (PFP) and
difficulty in accessing finance/capital (DAC) are the five
most prominent impediments among 20 barriers studied. The
finding is consistent with the conclusions of previous empiri-
cal research on CP dissemination, in which regulatory and fi-
nancial barriers were identified as the most important and
obstinate impediments to the implementation of CP in China
[8,9]. The newly implemented CP Promotion Law has recog-
nized the necessity of creating a more favourable political and
economic environment for CP to thrive in China.
Nevertheless, a few distinctive findings are revealed by com-
paring the prioritization of barriers with those from previous
studies on the CP barriers in China [8,9]. Awareness of the eco-
nomic and environmental performance of CP at the management
level (i.e. barrier LOA) and technological hurdles at the opera-
tional level (i.e. barrier LIC) are no longer the most prominent
barriers as the previous studies concluded. As shown in Table 6,
lack of awareness of CP (LOA) and limited in-plant expertise/
capacity (LIC) is only ranked the 16th and 14th, respectively,
among the 20 barriers studied. This change in perception may
be an outcome of continuous efforts to promote CP by Chinese
governments at all levels, CP advocators, research institutes,
enterprises, and many international development institutions.
By the end of 2002, more than 20 local and sectoral CP centres
were established, more than 500 CP training workshops were
organized and more than 10,000 people were trained through
the workshops [6,29]. Another reason may also account for
the declining seriousness of lack of CP awareness and in-plant
expertise barriers. The hierarchical structure of the study and
the AHP approach determine a specific barrier at the third level
cannot be outstanding if the barrier category that it belongs to is
not prominent at the second level. Noteworthy, LOA and LIC
barriers are not prominent even within the TIB and MOB barrier
categories.
Another significant finding is that three stakeholder groups
have different perspectives although they remain in agreement
at the barrier category level. As shown in Fig. 2, the results
from the enterprise group stresses more extensively, the finan-
cial and economic barriers (FEB) and technical and informa-
tion barriers (TIB) and downplay the internal managerial
and organizational barriers (MOB). On the other hand, govern-
ment representatives tend to emphasize the impact of internal
managerial and organizational barriers (MOB). The expert
group seems more neutral and balanced, despite its relative
emphasis of policy and market barriers (PMB).
In sum, taking different perspectives of key stakeholder
groups into consideration during the CP policymaking pro-
cesses is of vital importance for greater effectiveness of Chi-
na’s CP policy in the long run.
5.2. Focusing on current CP strategies
When comparing the evolution of China’s CP strategies
with the prioritized barriers, we find that many of the promi-
nent barriers are exactly the main goals of present CP policies.
Since the mid-1990s, the Chinese government has endeav-
oured to integrate CP into its existing environmental legisla-
tion system. In the meantime, a series of economic policies
have been promulgated to alleviate the difficulties confronting
SMEs, especially in relation to access to financing. During the
same period, many national and local environmental protec-
tion bureaus, international organizations (including the World
Bank, United Nations Environment Programme, United Na-
tions Industrial Development Organisation, Asian Develop-
ment Bank, Canadian International Development Agency,
US Environmental Protection Agency, etc.) in cooperation
with enterprises have worked on CP demonstration by means
of providing cleaner technologies, expertise, and/or capital.
However, only moderate progress has been achieved as com-
pared to the large amount of inputs. Widespread uptake of
CP in Chinese SMEs is still far out on the horizon.
When the CP Promotion Law began to take effect on 1 Jan-
uary 2003, a comprehensive CP policy system started to take
shape in China. The law is unprecedented across the world,
which establishes CP as a national policy. It provides CP with
a more favourable political context, and it further assigns spe-
cific responsibilities among relevant governmental agencies
and stakeholders to enhance its implementation. Furthermore,
mandatory requirements and economic incentives are gradually
being instituted. Concrete measures include establishing CP
funds, allocating part of the pollution levy to finance CP initia-
tives, implementing a deadline system for phasing out obsolete
technologies, adjusting governmental procurement regulations
in favour of CP, formulating industry- or region-specific CP
guidelines or technical standards, integrating CP into the educa-
tion system, and establishing an environmental information dis-
closure scheme within the national CP policy framework [30].
At the same time, the small- and medium-sized enterprise
(SME) Promotion Law was also promulgated. This is another
national law aimed at promoting healthy and sustainable devel-
opment of Chinese SMEs. It stimulates CP and designates
 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852
special funds to promote SMEs. In addition to these two laws,
several resultant administrative decrees have been issued re-
cently to reinforce the implementation of the laws.
However, it will take years for the CP Promotion Law and
other recent policies to be widely accepted and effectively im-
plemented. Therefore, it is too early to evaluate their effective-
ness. Nevertheless, one issue is for certain: the well-designed
policies will help Chinese SMEs to overcome some of the bar-
riers to cleaner and sustainable production. On the other hand,
some barriers, including lax environmental enforcement and
the lack of financial service institutions, which are deeply em-
bodied in China’s current political and economic systems, are
barely touched. They will remain outstanding shortcomings of
CP implementation in China.
5.3. Conclusions
For CP to thrive in Chinese SMEs, it is necessary to miti-
gate and remove various regulatory and institutional, market
and financial, technical and informational, managerial and or-
ganizational barriers. In the context of Chinese SMEs, re-
sources should be allocated to remove the most prominent
and crucial barriers. Only in this way can serious industrial
pollution in China, which is seriously affecting human health
and the environment for over two decades, be gradually alle-
viated and industries developed in a more sustainable manner.
As revealed in the study, particular attention should be paid to
the policy, market, financial and economic arenas as SMEs per-
ceive the existence of an inducing external environment as the
optimal strategy for CP adoption. Meanwhile, creating a favour-
able internal environment in SMEs is also necessary to institu-
tionalize CP into current SMEs’ managerial and organizational
structure as well as their technological and informational config-
urations. A prioritization and ranking of 20 pre-identified barriers
is shown in Table 6. Among these specific barriers, the absence of
economic incentive policies (AEI), lax environmental enforce-
ment (LEE) and high initial capital cost (HIC) are identified as
the most prominent. Poor financial performance of CP (PFP), dif-
ficulty in accessing finance/capital (DAC) and weak public
awareness and pressure (WPA) are ranked 4th, 5th and 6th,
respectively, on the list. They are followed by lack of effective
evaluation measures for CP (LEM) and lack of financing service
institution for SMEs (LFS). Interestingly, limited in-plant exper-
tise/capacity (LIC) and lack of awareness of CP at the manage-
ment level (LOA) are only ranked 14th and 16th among all the
studied barriers.
Some preliminary conclusions can be drawn while com-
paring China’s current CP strategy with the findings of this
research on barrier prioritization. However, because the
most important CP policies (e.g., the CP Promotion Law)
were only recently put into practice, it is too early to evaluate
their effectiveness thoroughly and comprehensively [7]. Nev-
ertheless, these researchers conclude that priority for future
policy development should, at least in the near term, be
placed on improving the external regulatory, economic, and
market conditions in order for CP to prosper in Chinese
SMEs.
851
Acknowledgements
This research was partly funded by the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) through the project
entitled ‘‘Small and Medium Scale Industries in Asia: Energy,
Environment and Climate Interrelations’’ of the Asian Regional
Research Programme in Energy, Environment and Climate e
Phase III (ARRPEEC-III) coordinated by the Asian Institute
of Technology (AIT). The authors would like to thank S. Ku-
mar, C. Visvanathan and C. Ma for their advice on the research
methodology, and thank Dr. Gary Miller and two anonymous
referees for their helpful comments on early drafts of this paper.
The authors are responsible for any remaining errors.
References
[1] Liao W. Analysis on the current state of small and medium enterprises in
China. Public Finance Research 2004;4:26e8 [in Chinese].
[2] Shi H, Zhang L. China’s environmental governance of rapid industriali-
zation. Environmental Politics 2006;15(2):271e92.
[3] CCICED (China Council for International Cooperation on Environment
and Development). Summary report on environmental protection invest-
ment and financing mechanism in China, Oct. 2003, Beijing [in Chinese].
[4] Zhou YQ. Pollution control strategy of Chinese SMEs. Enterprise Vital-
ity 2006;1:82e3 [in Chinese].
[5] Beijing Evening News. Environmental impact assessment e a new word
has been born to effect the development of China. Beijing: Beijing Even-
ing News Publishing House; August 6, 2003 [in Chinese].
[6] Shi Z, Hou X, Bao J. Study on pursuance mechanism for cleaner produc-
tion in China. Environmental Protection 2004;2:12e4 [in Chinese].
[7] Mol A, Liu Y. Institutionalising cleaner production in China: the cleaner
production promotion law. International Journal of Environment and
Sustainable Development 2005;4(3):227e45.
[8] MPRCEE (Modern Policy Research Center for Environment and Econ-
omy), NEPA, The World Bank. Cleaner production in China: design of
an effective policy package and action plan 1997. Unpublished report
of the B-4 Subproject Research Group.
[9] Wang J. China’s national cleaner production strategy e China’s environ-
ment in the new century. Environmental Impact Assess Review 1999;
19(5):437e56.
[10] SETC (State Economic and Trade Commission, P.R. China). An intro-
duction to cleaner production. Beijing: Chinese Inquisition Press; 2000.
p. 39e43 [in Chinese].
[11] Shi H. Cleaner production in China. In: Mol A, van Buuren J, editors.
Greening industrialization in transitional Asian countries: China and
Vietnam. Lanham, MD: Lexington; 2003. p. 63e82.
[12] Thiruchelvam M, Kumar S, Visvanathan C. Policy options to promote
energy efficient and environmentally sound technologies in small- and
medium-scale industries. Energy Policy 2003;31(10):977e87.
[13] Cooray N. Cleaner production assessment in small and medium industries
of Sri Lanka. Global competitiveness through cleaner production: proceed-
ings of the second Asia Pacific Cleaner Production Roundtable; 1999.
[14] UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Cleaner production
assessment in industries e barriers for cleaner production from the per-
spective of industries. Available from: http://www.uneptie.org/pc/cp/
understanding_cp/cp_industries.htm; 2001.
[15] Fan L, Li G. Analysis on barriers to implement cleaner production and
relevant policy measures. Science & Technology Law 2004;2:114e8
[in Chinese].
[16] Hilson G. Barriers to implementing cleaner technologies and cleaner pro-
duction (CP) practices in the mining industry: a case study of the Amer-
ica. Minerals Engineering 2000;13(7):699e717.
[17] Zilahy G. Organizational factors determining the implementation of
cleaner production measures in the corporate sector. Journal of Cleaner
Production 2004;12(4):311e9.
852 H. Shi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 842e852
[18] Moors EHM, Mulder KF, Vergragt PJ. Towards cleaner production: bar-
riers and strategies in the base metals producing industry. Journal of
Cleaner Production 2005;13(7):657e68.
[19] Ciccozzi E. Recent experiences and challenges in promoting cleaner pro-
duction investments in developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion 2003;11:629e38.
[20] Saaty TL. Decision making for leaders. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning
Publications; 1982.
[21] Saaty TL. The analytical hierarchy process. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill; 1994.
[22] Saaty TL. Multicriteria decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publica-
tions; 1996.
[23] Vaidya OS, Kumar S. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of
applications. European Journal of Operational Research 2006;169(1):
1e29.
[24] Shi H. Concept paper e study of barriers to overcome for the promotion
of cleaner technology in SMI, Methodology Workshop of SMIs Project,
Beijing, China. 29e30 August 2002.
[25] Winebrake J, Creswick B. The future of hydrogen fueling systems for transpor-
tation: an application of perspective-based scenario analysis using the analytic
hierarchy process. Technical Forecasting and Social Change 2003;70:359e84.
[26] Chin KS, Pun KF, Xu Y, Chan JSF. An AHP based study of critical fac-
tors for TQM implementation in Shanghai manufacturing industries.
Technovation 2002;22:707e15.
[27] Zahedi F. The analytic hierarchy process e a survey of the 865 method
and its applications. Interfaces 1986;16(4):96e108.
[28] Xu S. Practicable determinative methodology e the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP). Tianjin: Tianjin Press; 1988 [in Chinese].
[29] Xie Z. A prosperous future for circular economy in China. Qiu Shi
2003;13:53e5 [in Chinese].
[30] NPC (National People’s Congress of China). Cleaner production promo-
tion law. Approved by the Standing Committee of the National People’s
Congress (NPC) of the People’s Republic of China in the 28th Session on
June 29, 2002, Available from: http://www.chinacp.org.cn/eng/cppolicy-
strategy/cp_law2002.html [English version]; http://www.chinacp.org.cn/
newcn/chinacp/cplaw.htm [Chinese version].