Adopting Sustainable Manufacturing: the Case of Indian SMEs in ElectronicsManufacturing IndustriesM. K. Singh1a, M. P. Gupta1b, J. Madaan1c and Harish Kumar1d1 Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, New Delhi, IndiaAbstractThe regenerative capability of the environment in near future will not be capable ofcompensating for man- made actions due to increasing industrialization. Therefore, thesustainability issue would be a challenge. The manufacturing industries developed for humanwelfare would highly be affected by sustainability issues and would play a significant role toestablish sustainability in future. The eco-system with new business models, new technology andnew lifestyle would be pillars for sustainable growth which will be the concern for themanufacturing sector. The purpose of the research chapter is to work on business strategy onaccount of sustainability of manufacturing industries. We have considered the effect ofgovernment policies and “Make in India” initiative taken for creating better environment formanufacturing in the country. Sustainability is a crucial issue in manufacturing organization. Theresearch and innovations would be the main driver and play important role in sustainablemanufacturing. We propose an extended literature review of sustainable manufacturing industriesand government policies can address the issue of sustainability. The research study identifies thekey factors that will drive the sustainability in high technology manufacturing industries in India.The research findings suggest that sustainability is dynamic in nature. The “best of technologicalsolutions” and “enactments of new laws” would be the key driving factors for sustainability inhigh technology manufacturing industries in the country. Key Words: Sustainability, high-technology industries, sustainable manufacturinga)E-mail –manojksiet@gmail.com

1

b)E-mail - mpgupta@dms.iitd.ac.inc)E-mail - jmadaaniitd@gmail.comd)E-mail -harishkr08@gmail.com

Electronics Policies for Competitiveness and Sustainability: Focus on Manufacturing in India

Abstract

The new business plans socio-techno innovation and developments are the key mainstays for the sustainability and gainfulness of an organization associated with any sector. The "best of technological solutions" and "establishments of new laws" are the key driving variables for sustainability in high innovation producing industries in any nation. The development of (EMI) is exceptionally pivotal for the nation. The study investigates the hybrid approach to analyze why the manufacturing policies to attain the competitiveness and sustainability of electronics industry. The study applies Political, Economic, Social and Technological (PEST) and Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threat (SWOT) analysis to evaluate the external and internal components for electronics industry in India. Further, PAPRIKA tool is used to rank the factors obtained from the cross matrix of PEST and SWOT. The finding suggests that the competitiveness should focus on building long term capabilities like skills, innovation, an empowering social system, institutions and ecological ambitions. The study would benefit to policy makers, investors, industrialist and academicians for drawing the insights for long term strategy for improving the electronics manufacturing industries. The article proposes a framework to improve the competitiveness and sustainability by focusing on four core dimension namely external environment, government policies and initiatives, infrastructure development and user perspectives.

Keywords: Competitiveness, Electronics manufacturing industries, Industrial policies, PEST, SWOT and PAPRIKA

1. Introduction

The electronic manufacturing industries is fastest developing sector in the India. The government recent strategy declared in 2012, focused on a turnover of $400 Billion by 2020. The government permitted 100% FDI through automatic route, incentives, capital subsidy and accessibility. In India, the electronic business is characterized in six categories to be specific consumer electronics (having gigantic market), modern

2

electronics, PCs, communication and components and broadcasting. It has been predicted that demand and supply gap is expected to reach $ 1200 Billion by 2020 for India.

India is facing the difficulties in hardware fabrication due to different reasons such as high cost of energy, high cost of capital, deficient framework, poor production network issues, and so forth. The most recent innovation of EMI is supplanting the current technology. The same is constraining for the organizations to migrate to new technology platform in less time (Gupta and Jana 2003; Kume and Fujiwara 2016). Indian EMI is confronting supply network issues, foundation and regulatory issues which is debilitating the competitiveness (Kaur, Kumar and Kumar 2017). The major reasons in manufacturing cost are mainly due to the high rate of energy, poor network, and costlier raw materials. In this way, higher esteem expansion builds the item costs. Consequently, it is fundamental to perceive the need of EMI as a priority sector and encourage for the development and sustainable improvement.

The utilization of Electronic Hardware in 2014-15 was $63.6 Billion, though imports represented 58 percent of the aggregate utilization (NITI Aayog 2016). In India, the greater part of the electronics items are accessible through imports just to fulfill the demand. Supply chains and turn around store network challenges the noteworthy and these difficulties should be tended to adequately improve the performance of EMI sector in India (Madaan and Wadhwa, 2007; Tyagi, Kumar and Kumar 2015). The demand of electronics products goods has been increased due to advancements in information communication technology (ICT) infrastructure, increment in per capita income, customer awareness, other government activities, high use and accessibility of web including broadband associations and cell phones and accessibility of various products at low cost.

The past and present policies for electronics manufacturing industries are not adequate for improving the conditions competitiveness and sustainability in India. This study undergo various industrial policies since independence and tries to figure out measures for improvement of competitiveness and sustainability of electronics manufacturing. Setting 'competitiveness' and 'sustainability' at the 'center stage' for the manufacturing companies is unpredictable task (European Commission 2010). The manufacturing sector of India is confronting genuine difficulties and is way behind world class hones (Dangayach and Deshmukh 2003; Arnold, Javorcik, Lipscomb and Mattoo 2016). The electronics industries is confronting hardened rivalry because of imports and multinational companies. The manufacturing industries development rates are not exceedingly industrious in time as compared to developed countries (Mathew 2017). The contenders are outfitted with most recent technologies and have built up the capacities of acquiring new item in responsive way (Chandra and Pankaj 1998). Keeping in mind the end goal to conquer the issues and difficulties, modifications in approaches is required to pace up sustainability and competiveness.

The electronic industry of the nation is in beginning stage was fundamentally overwhelmed by the administration or government endeavors or auxiliaries. Post usage of the financial reforms of 1991, nation began to travel on capitalized line (Thakur, Gupta and Singh 2012). The changes prompt straightforwardness in remote venture standards, permitting 100% FDI in all areas, lessening in tariff structure, goods trade liberalization.

The ecosystem system made by the legislature, have offered catalyst to the business enterprise and flexibility in government functioning. The flexibility soaked up is

3

required for development and sustainability of the industry (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Sushil and Singh 2015; Momaya, Bhat and Lalwani 2017). The electronic manufacturing area is impacted by different divisions like automobile, information communication tools and so on, in the meantime the EMI have potential for making work open doors for semi-skilled and talented manpower socio-economic development of the (Singh, Kumar, Gupta and Madaan 2016; Kumar, Singh, Gupta and Madaan 2016). At the same time, the EMI have coordinate effect on socio-economic development of the nation. The easy to use hardware merchandise outfitted with ICT assets can be valuable in e-learning, tele-health and e-governance activities in both rural and urban zones (Gupta, Kumar and Bhattacharya 2004; Kumar, Singh, Gupta and Madaan 2016), yet indigenous development of gadgets products is at incipient phase of improvement in the nation. The raising the trade deficit become a serious concern and seems to become a long term issue. The stagnant manufacturing contribution to the GDP is serious concern to business community as well as to the economists who have focused on important variables required for productivity. So far the industrial policies have not impacted the growth in electronics manufacturing, but the trade deficit have increased. The foreign reserve is vanishing at high rate due to imports.

The policy makers ignored long term vision for manufacturing. The technology capability building was ignored and lost commitment from the government. The policies could not build up competitive advantage in the country nor for the business firm. Indian government faces tough task in identifying the major constrains faced by the industries. Therefore, the industrial policies are needed address these challenges that can be implemented at ground level in institutional and political contexts. The study addresses issues of competitiveness and sustainability and suggest some measures required for the framing the policy for electronics manufacturing industry.

2. Literature review

2.1 Industrial Policies

Industrial policies should be the focused attempt by a government on to a specific sector for future economic growth with societal goals. (Krugman and Obstfeld 2003) often the challenges are met by setting incentives for the investors particularly focusing on technical progress, promoting education and research (Aliginger 2007). Academic scholars (Rodrik 2004; Aiginger 2007; Aghion, Boulanger and Cohen, 2011) advocated a new concepts of a ‘systemic’ industrial policy, which should be based on novel technologies and support society’s enduring needs.

Industrial policies need to acquire and developing the knowledge, supporting research and innovation. This can be supported by systematic investments in Universities, incentives for research labs, network link of public and private engaged in innovations. Apart from his the effective industrial policies, has to deliver outcome in terms of building competitive manufacturing capabilities. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) advocates industrial policy to be more facilitating, co-ordinating by the government in view of strategic priorities.

Warwick (2013) embraces a broader and thorough explanation of an industrial policy with an exception to traditional approach of industrial policy based on product market interventions including tariff protection, subsidies and state ownership, to a phase of improving

4

market intricacies by taxes and subsidies, operating mainly on factor markets (R and D, training, ease of finance), and further to next stage of building up systems, robust networks, develop institutions, and align strategic priorities in the interest of societal needs. The policies that care about the gaps and challenges of the sector and simultaneously, promotes and protects the infant or tiny industries, needs to be designed in view of developing economies. The policies discriminates at firm or sector level as compared to horizontal policies which generally recognizes all the sector and firms in homogenous manner and ignores discrimination. Apart from this, policy must create a healthy and competitive environment and protect monopolistic privileges. Important aspects of the industrial policies are effective implementation which decides the success and failure. The design objectives of the policy must be specific with respect to the available resources in order to be successful.

Policy makers to be very cautious while identifying the real problem of low competitiveness because the wrong assessment would be misleading. Along with above cautions, if problem and causes identified are also correct, and measure to deal the issues are not addressed in the policy may turn out to be ineffective in prevailing environmental condition. (Khan 1995, 2010)

Therefore, a rigorous exercise is must with explicit commitment to experimentation. The countries relying on state aid and regulation performed poor in micro economic terms. Whereas countries focusing on building policies promoting positive externalities have superiorly performed (Aiginger and Sieber 2006). Scandinavian countries invested heaving on R and D, education and focused on knowledge driven economy have performed well in various sectors fulfilling economic goals. The industrial polies in India started with initiative of horizontal polies, without any focus on specific sector. The industrial policy must be oriented towards productivity measures means improving growth rate, investment and R and D.

2.2 Industrial Competitiveness

The state of competition in industry depends on several competitive forces (Oral and Ozkan 1986). The high technology manufactures are facing various challenges due to high competition and changing needs towards sustainable development (Law and Guna sekaran 2012). The market challenges has forced the manufactures to collapse the life cycle, which simultaneously have resulted in uncertainty with supplier and limited logistics resources (Law and Gunasekaran 2009). Fast changing customer requirements and rapid introduction of new product to the market with latest technological developments, the electronics goods have short product life cycle. Due to market forces, manufactures adapt new technologies to improve their competitiveness (Silva 2008; Law and Gunasekaran 2012; Gaulier, Lemoine and Ünal-Kesenci 2007). The high tech industries requires skilled labour and specific knowledge in technology along with capacity, logistics, recourses and efficient network which effects the business performance and competitiveness (Ruiqrok and waqner 2003). In order to remain viable and sustainable, the high-tech manufacturing firms have to \constantly develop and advance (Law and Guansekaran 2012). Product innovation concept is also given importance in case of high technology manufacturing. The open innovation, being complex and quiet significant to improve performance and competitiveness (Cavaco and Machado 2015).

5

3. Methodology

The article address competitiveness and sustainability in view of industrial policies outlined for electronics manufacturing industries. The sustainability can't be connected in homogenous way for all sector of the economy. The setting of the sustainability is seen and talked about in four areas to be specific political, economy, social and technological. Industry manages setting of internal and external components. The external components incorporates outside partners, working business condition which is additionally investigated by utilizing macro-environmental tool, like PEST. The inner setting to the industry refer to its inward partners, government roles and strategies, customers points of view, capacities and so on. (Pojasek 2013). The internal setting is analyzed utilizing the SWOT analysis. Both internal and external setting in perspective of EMI are necessary in order to understand the challenges looked to achieve the sustainability. These confronted factors of strength, weakness, opportunities and threats are raked using PAPRIKA to get more insight. The study applies PEST and SWOT to evaluate the external and internal components for EMI in India along with factors ranking by PAPRIKA technique.

Fig.1: Methodology followed for identifying the challenges for manufacturing policies.

3.1 PEST Analysis

The PEST is essential tool and utilized before SWOT analysis. The PEST factors ordinarily help in recognizing the SWOT factors. PEST helps in surveying the external condition and emphasize on factors such as a business, contenders and market conditions. The technique is helpful as business appraisal, basic leadership method and marketing tool. Though, SWOT evaluate the internal factors for business (Ha and Coghill 2006). PEST tool helps in solving the complex and unclear problem in clear format using four

6

perceptions that can help in enhance decision-making processes. A PEST study can hurl light on crucial issues, which might miss in general (Peng and Nunes 2007). The PEST analysis is utilized as a part of Table 1 to highlight essential issues and concern of electronic manufacturing industries.

3.2 SWOT Analysis

The SWOT analysis, the acronym utilized are Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (Piercy and Giles 1989; Kearns 1992). The SWOT helps in giving an unmistakable framework to marketable plan, reviewing direction and technique of an organization (Lee, Lo, Leung, Ruth, Ko, and Sai 2000). In this way, SWOT analysis is used to addresses the fundamental inquiries for electronic enterprise.

What is the strength of electronics manufacturing industries in the prevailing environment?

What are the open doors available for electronics manufacturing industries to the investors and entrepreneurs for doing business?

What are the shortcomings of electronics manufacturing industries for business conditions?

What are the threats to the investors or the entrepreneurs in electronics manufacturing industries for doing business?

Table 1. PEST Analysis of Electronics Manufacturing Industries

Political Economic Environmental issues and resource consumptions Prevailing and upcoming legislations International legislation like WTO National and international regulatory bodies Government policies on manufacturing sector Trading policies Domestic market lobbying/ international pressure groups Wars and conflicts Foreign policy Recent government initiative “Make in India” for

manufacturing industries.

Economic growth of country Growth of different sectors in the country GDP of the country Overseas economies and trends Capital funding, grants and initiatives Tax-structure Seasonality/natural calamites Trade and market cycles Industry specific factors Interest and exchange rates effect on the sector International trade/monetary issues/rating agencies.

Social Technology Purchasing power Living standards Demographics Consumer attitudes and opinions Laws in existence Brand power, company, technology image Major events/festival Buying access and trends Marketing, advertising and publicity Ethical issues

Research and development funding Competing technology advances Technology dependence Replacement technology/solutions Manufacturing capacity information and communication technology E-commerce technology Technology policy Innovations/patents Intellectual property rights issues

PAPRIKA

The PAPRIKA is multi criteria decision making (MCDM) approach in which decision maker’s answers a pair-wise ranking questions (Saaty and Ergu 2015). PAPRIKA works on adaptive conjoint analysis for the answers of the pair-wise comparisons. Based on the answers another question is presented. PAPRIKA presents comparison of two criteria at a time as compared to full-profile method comprising all criteria at one time. This makes PAPRIKA superior and easy to think for choosing one alternative from two. These questions are repeated with alternatives till enough

7

information is available for ranking the alternatives. PAPRIKA identifies a set of alternative and eliminates them. The elimination helps in minimizing the number of question to be asked (Hansen and Ombler 2008). The numbers of question to be answered depends on number of criteria’s and levels selected for the problem. This is done by logical property of ‘transitivity’. For example alternative ‘A’ is ranked ahead of alternative ‘B’ and alternative ‘B’ is ranked ahead of alternative ‘C’, then by transitivity ‘A’ must be ranked ahead of ‘C’. And so PAPRIKA does ranking implicitly. The relative weights of the chosen alternatives is based on linear programming technique.

In comparison to PAPRIKA, other methods rely on scaling or ratio for decision preferences which are difficult to judge particularly where decision making is of strategic or higher level. PAPRIKA, with the help of 1000minds software, involves a simple ordinal – ranking – measurement of decision-makers’ preferences.

4. Results and Findings

The table 3 analysis the external components with the internal components for EMI sector. This gives the inside investigation of current circumstance of EMI sector in India. The country must focus on sustainability of high technology industries. The initiatives and focus on recent technology and investment may upgrade the technological capability of the nation. The government will at the same time help the innovative work in electronic by making the better human asset in electronic industry. The investors specialists including the FDIs are being energized and inspired by motivations, for example, benefits in assess, rebates in foundation, taxes and hardware use, ease in procedural obstacles. India's rising per capita wage and upgrades in expectations for everyday comforts have made gigantic interest for high technology products which additionally makes the India a colossal lucrative market.

Table 2. SWOT Analysis of Electronics Manufacturing Industries

Strengths Weaknesses

Availability of cheap labour Availability of skilled and technically qualified

manpower. Huge market potential Matured electronics component industry Better political environment Raising income High capability in software skills Growing foreign investment Ease of doing business Recently taken initiatives like Make in India, Digital

India, Skill India etc.

Poor IPR management and piracy Poor supply chain coordination Weak infrastructure Focus to small components manufacturing Focus on assembling of components Poor investment in RandD Non availability of Land Poor coordination between central and regional governments Low level of motivation for entrepreneurs Failure to establish the “Brand Name” Digital inequalities

Opportunities Threats

Huge Market opportunities Better investment opportunities

(Investment incentives, tax holidays) Increased contract manufacturing Export benefits/incentives Stable political environment Rapid growth in mobile subscriber penetration Encouragement of domestic manufacturing New policies and reforms to encourage more investment

into the sector India emerging as a center for chip design services

Dependence on imported goods, raw material and key components

Low level of technological innovations Poor technology forecasting WTO agreements Free trade agreements with countries(ASEAN) Power shortage in country Competition from countries like China, Taiwan and South

Korea Raising infrastructure costs Currency fluctuations Global economic slowdown Low prices of electronics goods

8

By doing the SWOT analysis a few components applicable to EMI were recognized. The rising investments, raising per capita pay, tremendous market demand and ease availability at low cost manpower are the principle driving elements for EMI in India. In the meantime the elements giving risk and shortcoming should be tended effectively, then only the objectives of sustainability of EMI can be implemented.

The literature supports the functioning of "clusters" of EMI connected horizontally and vertically. Supplier and manufacturing enterprises must increase considerable interest as far as coordination inside groups, as they create inputs that are broadly utilized and are critical to advancement. The fundamental working standard on which groups are built up is “collaborating while competing” providing a supporting eco-framework.

Table 3. Summary of PEST and SWOT analysis of EMI in India

SWOT / PEST Strength(S) Weakness(W) Opportunities (O) Threats (T)

Polit

ical

asp

ect (

P)

Initiatives by the government like “Make in India” for manufacturing industries.

Announcement of manufacturing and electronics policy, 2011 and 2012 respectively.

Strict labour laws Land issues Wider gaps in policy

making and implementing agency

Foreign Direct Investment through automatic route

Time bound framework for project approval/implementation

Cheap manufacturing in foreign country

International Treaties (Like WTO agreements)

Econ

omic

asp

ect (

E) Raising income of citizens Low rate of inflation Incentives for investment

in manufacturing Huge domestic demand

Inadequate expenditure in infrastructure

Poor supply chain coordination of components

Weak ecosystem for business

High cost raw material availability

Boosting Special economic zones

Low interest rate loan for manufacturers/ entrepreneurs

Raising imports of goods

Depreciation in Indian rupees

Soci

al

aspe

ct (S

) Skilled labour on low wages

Employment creations

Devalued wages for skilled labour

Limited labour mobility

Training programs for labours

Employment opportunities for youth

Low level E-waste public perception

Laws affecting social issues

Tech

nolo

gica

l as

pect

(T)

Technological absorption Raising no. of

technological agreements

Dependent on technological knowhow at high- end products

Meager expenditure on RandD and knowledge creation

Potential for technological innovations

Sustainable investment in green technologies

High end technological innovations with capital investments

Digital inequalities in country

The cluster idea offers manufacturing friendly eco-system and competitive environment for the local business. The cluster builds the innovation, customization, profitability, advancement, customization, joint endeavors activities, economies of scale and the natural wellbeing models and diminishes the ineffective and input raw material expenses in the industry segment (Dhir and Sushil 2017). It is at the same time watched that the clients get the upside of innovation and information at an optimized cost. An arrangement of standard indicators (Table 4) have been mapped, the development and

9

focuses of EMI sector which prompt the sustainable development for manufacturing from significant weighted factors obtained through PAPRIKA.

Further, a few recommendations have been drawn to achieve the sustainability of EMI sector in India. Indian EMI sector could be sustainable regarding political environment, government policies are creative, role of government are clearly defined for industries, wisely consumption of available resource, some flexible labour laws and ease of doing business.

As far as monetary condition towards the development of EMI sector, India ought to be proficient in quality framework, create special financial zones, utilization of renewable power source, capacity to preparing the assets, successful waste management, and quality item with ease, high manufacturing efficiency. Electronics manufacturing industries may likewise be enhanced by means of arrangement of industrial groups, effective trade cycle and development of different sectors to consume the electronics items.

Social parts of EMI area could be enhanced by concentrating on clients' needs, foreseeing market potential, open doors for jobs, quality satisfaction. Social and moral esteems are additionally having critical effect in the development of electronics businesses. The organizations should also be concentrating on cutting the contamination level in their production cycles.

Fig. 2a Radar chart of weights of Strength 2b. Radar chart of weights of Weakness

10

2c. Radar chart of weights of Opportunities 2d. Radar chart of weights for Threats

The radar chart is plotted for the factors of strength, weakness, opportunities and threats when contrasted to PEST as shown in Fig. 2a to 2d.

Factors for strength: 10 significant factors were identified that influence the strength of the electronics industry. The major factors after analysis that influences; demand (8.5%), citizen’s income (17.9%), incentives to investment (17.3%), government initiatives and policy together constitute to 21.9%. Factors for weakness: inadequate infrastructure (14.6%), gaps in policy making and implementation (12.2%), high cost of raw material (12.2%), meager expenditure on R and D (12.2%), weak ecosystem for business (9.8%), devalued wages for skilled labour (9.8%), dependent on technological know-how (9.8%) are the main factors of weakness.Factors for opportunities: potential for technological innovations (23.3%), foreign direct investments (16.8%), boosting special economic zones (16.8%), employability opportunities, training programs for skill development (15.8%) are the factors which can turn around the conditions of the electronics industry.

11

Factors for threats: cheap manufacturing facilities in foreign countries (22.2%), depreciation in Indian rupees (22.2%), threat from high-end technological innovations (22.2%), international treaties (11.1%) and raising imports of the goods (11.1%) are major contributing factors for threats.The above factors of the having significant weights are identified by the PAPRIKA technique. These factors influence the competitiveness and sustainability perspectives of electronics industry.

Table 4: Factors impacting the competitiveness and sustainability of the electronics manufacturing Industries in India.

S. No. List of significant factors identified from PAPRIKA Technique.

1. Market demand 2. Citizen’s income 3. Incentives to investment 4. Government initiatives and policy together constitute to 5. Inadequate infrastructure 6. Gaps in policy making and implementation 7. High cost of raw material 8. Meager expenditure on R and D 9. Weak ecosystem for business 10. Devalued wages for skilled labour 11. Dependent on technological know-how 12. Potential for technological innovations 13. Foreign direct investments14. Boosting special economic zones 15. Employability opportunities, 16. Training programs for skill development 17. Cheap manufacturing facilities in foreign countries 18. Depreciation in Indian rupees19. International treaties 20. Raising imports of the goods 21. Threat from high-end technological innovations22. User Choices for product choices23. User satisfaction24. Product quality and reliability

All the significant policy derivable have come out from the SWOT, PEST and weighted factors obtained from PAPRIKA. These factors have been classified into four groups namely government policies and initiatives, infrastructure capability, external environment and user perspectives (Figure 3 based on the context relevance) based on the expert opinion in the workshop. The fourth group user’s perspective was added after the expert opinion. In the concluding session of the experts, the decision to include the user’s perspective was held by building the consensus. The sub-component addressing the user perspective are product features, product quality and reliability and user satisfaction (Prakash and Barua 2016; Marakanon and Panjakajornsak 2017; Singh, Kumar, Gupta and Madaan 2017). Nathan and Overman (2013) emphasized the government role to improve the resources of related industries which are important to

12

economic development by designing the suitable industrial policy. The raising imports are serious concern for the government therefore, in order to overcome this hurdle government have to come up with bundles of specific objectives and built the capability and customer centric government policies in the prevailing external environment.

Fig. 3: Policy derivable to improve the competitiveness and sustainability of electronics manufacturing industries.

The government have played a dismal role in human capital development and performance, by implementation of effective policy framework. Government must come up with policies which stands and deliver in present business environment. The special economic zones established as export processing zones are not functioning effectively. In India currently, about 200 SEZs are operating and approximately 565 are given permission to operate, which are expected to deliver better performance in the country. The zone have special privileges in terms of minimum regulatory regime with expeditious single window clearance mechanism. The function delivery in terms of promotion in exports, foreign investments and establishments of industrial units.

For developing countries having huge market demand and technology savvy user, the technology push and market pull works in support of each other (Narkhede 2017). Shang et al. (2010) emphasised applying green supply chain capability and its impact on firm’s performance to drive the competitive sustainable advantage. Garetti and Taisch (2011)

13

have emphasised the role of advance technologies for sustainable development, which impacts whole industrial sector.

Now technologies have integrated with business and management, the larger view of manufacturing emphasis on improving the competence of industry. The technology capability is emphasised by Bhaduri and Ray (2004), according to author, the technology capability is influenced by R and D, firm size and export performance by efficiency generation on an organization. Apart from this technology capability can be seen as outcome of interaction at individual and firm in a geographically define space (Immarino, Padilla-Pérez and Tunzelmann 2008).

The customer requirements are important and for this various business process are integrated to meet the customer needs and effective utilization of resources across supply chain (Mentzer, Flint and Hult 2001). The customer relationship with organization benefits the organization in terms of feedback, integration with customer, open communication, long term commitment, etc. Electronic manufacturing organization are facing challenges due to raising customer expectation, globalization of markets, fast changing technology, wide diffusion of technology, etc. This customer force, puts the pressure on organizations to opt management practices like lean and better environmental performance (Hsu and Hu 2008). This approach leads to build the technology around customer service management (Doolen and Hacker 2005). The customer confidence is influenced by efficient process control, cost efficiency, operational efficiency by support of top management in an organization (Yeung, Ramasamy, Chen and Paliwoda 2013) and properly understands the customer sentiments.

Large organizations induce suppliers to adopt environment-conscious policy and in return offer those incentives (Nidumolu, Prahalad and Rangaswami 2009). The external macro environment factors impacting the reverse logistics implementation needs to be addressed in developing countries. In addition there is missing regulations and public awareness on recycling of electronics waste, which is significant to maintain the environment (Lau and Wang 2009). Government must device the mechanism to deal pollution problems or else impose heavy pollution tax. There is need of international recycling technologies and waste management to increase domestic and foreign investments in recycling field (Chi, Streicher-Porte, Wang and Reuter 2011). Indeed, the industry must focus to adopt global standards as, especially when environmental laws and regulations become more stringent with economic development (Dowell, Hart and Yeung 2000). In addition government policy on recycling is vital along with sharing adequate financial budget.

5. Implications of the study

The research implications are important for formulating the manufacturing policies for competitiveness and sustainability in emerging economies like India. The authors draws an insight that the electronics manufacturing industries have vast potential for the investors in view of huge demand and other conditions. The government policies needs to be framed for improving the competitiveness and sustainability. The paper has talks about the development of electronics manufacturing industries by using multi-criteria decision making and focusing on parameters of strength weakness, opportunities and strength. These parameters links the market initiative, institutional environment and external environment.

14

The development of the electronics manufacturing industries in India relies heavily on governmental interventions. Governments’ proactive measures like easy access to financial support, including general and specific programs. The manufacturing industries critical challenges are of technology transfer, infrastructure development, production enlarging and capability building. This study emphasises on formulating long term strategy in emerging economies. First, our observations indicate building close ties with government and domestic firms along with coordination between the industries are an important resources to minimize the dependence on exports.

In the initial stage, the strategic policies effective implementation and the influx of investment and expertise from overseas will be critical for production capacity development. Till present, the nation remained quite weak in improving the status of R and D. In 2012 electronics policy, new measures like building technological capability, such as direct subsidy, incentives for research institutes and indigenous firms to co-develop and adopt latest technologies. The resultant effect may leads to the capability-orientated institutional environment, which upgrades technological capability among domestic players at industrial level. However, building an institutionalized coordination mechanism for innovation policy implementation is still a big challenge for the emerging economies like India. The following elements seem to be common to these ‘new approaches’: Industrial policy should be designed to address long term horizon of an economy to improve income, social goals, ecological sustainability that drive competitiveness and growth (Aiginger, Bärenthaler-Sieber and Vogel 2013). Industrial policy should promote an environment of cooperation between governments, industries to generate positive spill over to other industrial segments. The industrial policies should not provide purely financial incentives and picking winners (Rodrik 2013). It should comprise target driven activities and broad sectors (Aghion, Boulanger and Cohen 2011). Industrial policy must not opt for conservative path-dependent approach. Industrial policy should be capable of creating novel comparative advantages. New industrial policy must create open environment for competition. Governments should ensure that industrial policy is well connected with societal needs. Industrial policy must be synchronous with innovation policy and supported by education policy. It must focus on ‘beyond-GDP’ goals (Aiginger 2012)

6. Conclusions

The sustainability is a crucial issue in manufacturing organization. The study identifies the position of electronics manufacturing industries in the perspective of its growth and investment through PEST and SWOT analysis followed by PAPRAIKA technique through which significant factors are obtained. Sustainability in EMI sector could be mainly addressed by improving government policies and coordination, FDI, better economic environment, product designed according to market demand, regulating working conditions and using advanced technological solutions for manufacturing.

Apart from these, the sector weakness can be removed by taking strong decision on land, labour, cordial relations between center and states governments. The gaps in policies and uncertainty in policies implementations are hindering the competitiveness of the EMI sector. Some of the initiatives have been taken through the ‘Make in India’ campaign for developing the better environment, joint ventures and strengthening the manufacturing industries. The decision on FDI and the timeline of the projects can

15

enhance the sustainability of the electronics industries associated with threats like WTO agreements and cheaper manufacturing offered from neighboring countries. The raising demand due to more money at consumer and incentives in the policies are the main strengths for the electronics industry.

The industrial policies are meant for long term strategy and should be oriented to forward-looking, create healthy environment for competition and develop economic value by focusing on societal needs. The nature of the policy must be integrated towards other sector policies rather than strand in conflict with other synchronous policies. Apart from this the policies objectives must be very clear and its implementation and outcome must be clearly monitored and measured.

In summary, the ‘new industrial policy’ should be forward-looking, favour competition, and support long-term societal needs (like e.g. ‘green industrial policy’). It should be an integrated or systemic policy, not an isolated policy strand in conflict with other policies. Policy measures should have a clearly communicated goal and the results of intervention should be carefully monitored. The concept of a systemic industrial and innovation policy. Industrial policy should enforce and accelerate manufacturing’s welfare orientation, should support also non-technical innovation, and it should be systemic and forward-looking. Finally, competitiveness should be based on capabilities like skills, innovation, institutions, an empowering social system, and ecological ambitions. Outcomes should be defined by the achievement of broad, socio-economic goals. The article proposes a framework to improve the competitiveness and sustainability by focusing on four core dimension namely external environment, government policies and initiatives, infrastructure development and user perspectives.

References

Aghion, P., Boulanger, J., and Cohen, E. 2011. Rethinking Industrial Policy. Bruegel Policy, Brief, Issue 2011/04, June 2011Aiginger, K. 2007. “Industrial Policy: A Dying Breed or a Re-emerging Phoenix”, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 7(3/4), 297–323.Aiginger, K. 2012. A Systemic Industrial Policy to Pave a New Growth Path for Europe, WIFO, Working Paper No. 421/2012.Aiginger, K. and Sieber, S. 2006. “The Matrix Approach to Industrial Policy”, International Review of Applied Economics 20(5), 573–603.Aiginger, K., Bärenthaler-Sieber, S., and Vogel, J. 2013. Competitiveness Under New Perspectives, WWWforEurope, Working Paper No. 44Arnold, J. M., Javorcik, B., Lipscomb, M., and Mattoo, A. 2016. “Services reform and manufacturing performance: Evidence from India”, The Economic Journal, 126(590), 1-39.Bhaduri, S., Ray, A.S., 2004. “Exporting through technological capability: econometric evidence from India's pharmaceutical and electrical/electronics firms”, Oxford Development Studies. 32 (1), 87–100.Cavaco, N. M., and Machado, V. C. 2015. “Sustainable competitiveness based on resilience and innovation–an alternative approach”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 10(2), 155-164.Chandra and Pankaj, T. S. 1998. Competitiveness of Indian Manufacturing, (July), 25–36.Chi, X., Streicher-Porte, M., Wang, M. Y., and Reuter, M. A. 2011. “Informal electronic waste recycling: a sector review with special focus on China”, Waste Management, 31(4), 731-742.Dangayach, G. S., and Deshmukh, S. G. 2003. “Evidence of manufacturing strategies in Indian industry: a survey”, International Journal of Production Economics, 83(3), 279-298.Doolen, T. L., and Hacker, M. E. 2005. “A review of lean assessment in organizations: an exploratory study of lean practices by electronics manufacturers”, Journal of Manufacturing systems, 24(1), 55.Dowell, G., Hart, S., and Yeung, B. 2000. “Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value?”, Management science, 46(8), 1059-1074.

16

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Sushil, and Singh, T. 2015. “Building theory of sustainable manufacturing using total interpretive structural modelling”, International Journal of Systems Science: Operations and Logistics, 2(4), 231-247.European Commission. 2010. An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, COM (2010), 614.Garetti, M., and Taisch, M. 2012. “Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges”, Production Planning and Control, 23(2-3), 83-104.

Gaulier, G., Lemoine,F., Ünal-Kesenci, D. 2007. “China’s integration in East Asia: production sharing, FDI and high-tech trade”, Economic Change 40, 27–63.Gou Chao Alex Peng and Miguel Baptista. Nunes. 2007. Using PEST Analysis as a Tool for Refining and Focusing Contexts for Information Systems Research. ECRM 2007. 6th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, 9th - 10th July 2007, Lisbon, Portugal. Academics Conference International, 229 - 236. Gupta, M. ., and Jana, D. 2003. “E-government evaluation: a framework and case study”, Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 365–387. Gupta, M. P., Prabhat Kumar, and Jaijit Bhattacharya. 2004. Government online: Opportunities and challenges. Tata McGraw-Hill.Ha, Huong, and Ken Coghill. 2006. “E-Government in Singapore—A SWOT and PEST Analysis”, Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 6.2 (2006): 103-130.Hansen, P., and Ombler, F. 2008. “A new method for scoring additive multi‐attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives”, Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 15(3‐4), 87-107.Hsu, C. W., and Hu, A. H. 2008. “Green supply chain management in the electronic industry”, International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 5(2), 205-216.Hung Lau, K., and Wang, Y. 2009. “Reverse logistics in the electronic industry of China: a case study”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(6), 447-465.Iammarino, S., Padilla-Pérez, R., & Von Tunzelmann, N. 2008. “Technological capabilities and global–local interactions: the electronics industry in two Mexican regions”, World Development, 36(10), 1980-2003.Katsunori Kume and Takao Fujiwara. 2016. “Production Flexibility of Real Options in Daily Supply Chain”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(3), 249–264.Kevin P. Kearns. 1992. “From Comparative Advantage to Damage Control: Clarifying Strategic Issues using SWOT Analysis”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 3, No. 1. Fall.Khan, M. H. 1995. ‘State Failure in Weak States: A Critique of New Institutionalist Explanations’, in J. Harriss, J. Hunter, and C. M. Lewis (eds), The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development, pp. 71–86. London: Routledge.Khan, M. H. 2010. Political Settlements and the Governance of Growth-Enhancing Institutions.Khan, M. U. 1998. “A comparison of the electronics industry of India and Korea”, Technovation, 18(2).Kirankumar S. Momaya, S. Bhat and L. Lalwani. 2017. “Institutional Growth and Industrial Competitiveness: Exploring the Role of Strategic Flexibility Taking the Case of Select Institutes in India”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(2), 111–122.Krugman, P. and Obstfeld, M. 2003. International Economics: Theory and Policy. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Kumar, H., Singh, M. K., and Gupta, M. P. 2016. “Smart Governance for Smart Cities: A Conceptual Framework from Social Media Practices”, In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 628-634). Springer International Publishing.Law, K. M., and Gunasekaran, A. 2012. “Sustainability development in high-tech manufacturing firms in Hong Kong: Motivators and readiness”, International Journal of Production Economics, 137(1), 116-125.Law, K.M.Y., Gunasekaran, A. 2009. “A comparative study of schedule nervousness among high-tech manufacturers—across the straits”, International Journal of Production Research, (1), 1–22.Lee, S.F., Lo, K.K., Leung, Ruth F., Ko, A. Sai. 2000. “Strategy formulation framework for vocational education: integrating SWOT analysis, balanced scorecard, QFD methodology and MBNQA education criteria”, Managerial Auditing Journal Vol. 15 (8), pp 407-423.Madaan, Jitendra, and S. Wadhwa. 2007. “Flexible process planning approaches for sustainable decisions in reverse logistics system”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management: 1-8.Marakanon, L., and Panjakajornsak, V. 2017. “Perceived quality, perceived risk and customer trust

17

affecting customer loyalty of environmentally friendly electronics products”, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences.Mathew, N. 2017. “Drivers of firm growth: micro-evidence from Indian manufacturing”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27(3), 585-611.Mentzer, J. T., Flint, D. J., and Hult, G. T. M. 2001. “Logistics service quality as a segment-customized process”, Journal of marketing, 65(4), 82-104.

Mohit Tyagi, Pradeep Kumar and Dinesh Kumar. 2015. “Assessment of Critical Enablers for Flexible Supply Chain Performance Measurement System Using Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(2), 115–132.

Narkhede, B. E. 2017. “Advance manufacturing strategy and firm performance: An empirical study in a developing environment of small-and medium-sized firms”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24(1), 62-101.Nathan, M., and Overman, H. 2013. “Agglomeration, clusters, and industrial policy”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29(2), 383-404.Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. 2009. “Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation”, Harvard business review, 87(9), 56-64.NITI Aayog, Government of India, May 2016, “Make in India Strategy for Electronic Products”.

Oral, M., and Özkan, A. O. 1986. “An empirical study on measuring industrial competitiveness”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 37(4, 345-356.

Piercy, N. and Giles, W. 1989. “Making SWOT Analysis Work”, Journal of Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 7: Issue 5/6, P 5-7.Pojasek, Robert 2013. Organizations and their Contexts: Where Risk Management quickmba.com/strategy/pest.Prakash, C., and Barua, M. K. 2016. “A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 7, 66-78.Research Paper Series on Governance for Growth. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London: London, <http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/9968/1/Political_Settlements_ internet.pdf>.

Rodrik, D. 2004. Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century. Paper prepared for UNIDO, <http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/drodrik/Research%20papers/UNIDOSep.pdf>.

Rodrik, D. 2013. Green Industrial Policy. Paper written for the Grantham Research Institute project on ‘Green Growth and the New Industrial Revolution’.

Ruigrok, W., and Wagner, H. 2003. “Internationalization and performance: An organizational learning perspective”, Management International Review, 63-83.

Ruigrok, W., Wagner, H., 2003. “Internationalization and performance: an organizational learning perspective”, Management International Review 43 (1), 63–83.Saaty, T. L., and Ergu, D. (2015). “When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods”, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 14(06), 1171-1187.Sanjay Dhir, and Sushil. 2017. “Flexibility in Modification and Termination of Cross-Border Joint Ventures”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(2), 139–151.

Shakun Preet Kaur, Jatinder Kumar, and Rakesh Kumar. 2017. “The Relationship Between Flexibility of Manufacturing System Components, Competitiveness of SMEs and Business Performance: A Study of Manufacturing SMEs in Northern India”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(2), 123–137.Shang, K. C., Lu, C. S., and Li, S. 2010. “A taxonomy of green supply chain management capability among electronics-related manufacturing firms in Taiwan”, Journal of environmental management, 91(5), 1218-1226.Silva, J.A., 2008. “International trade and the changing demand for skilled workers in high-tech manufacturing”, Growth and Change 39 (2), 225–251.

18

Singh, M. K., Kumar, H., Gupta, M. P., and Madaan, J. 2016. “The Social Media Cone: Towards Achieving the Manufacturing Competitiveness Goals”, In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 53-58). Springer International Publishing.

Singh, M. K., Kumar, H., Gupta, M. P., and Madaan, J. 2017. “Analyzing the Determinants Affecting the Industrial Competitiveness of Electronics Manufacturing in India by Using TISM and AHP”, Journal Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, (), 1-17, DOI: 10.1007/s40171-018-0182-z

Sushil, 2007. “Concept of systemic flexibility”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management. 1.1: 77-80.Thakur, B., Gupta, R., and Singh, R. 2012. “Changing Face of India’ s Industrial Policies : A Look”, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publication, 2(12), 1–7.Warwick, K. 2013. Beyond Industrial Policy: Emerging Issues and New Trends, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 2.Yeung, M. C., Ramasamy, B., Chen, J., and Paliwoda, S. 2013. “Customer satisfaction and consumer expenditure in selected European countries”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(4), 406-416.

Appendix 1

Experts Expert profile/designation Category Experience

Expert 1 Managing Director

(Manufacturing unit)

Manufacturing

industry, India

>20 Years

Expert 2 Senior officer (Import/Export) Government Official,

India

>13 Years

Expert 3 Professor, International

Business

Academician, Delhi,

India

>17 Years

Expert 4 Seniors Advisors (marketing

and sales)

Consulting to

government, India

>10 Years

Expert 5 General Manager (Supply and

distribution)

Industry, India >16 Years

Expert 6 Associate research director

(Manufacturing insights)

Industry (MNC), India

location

>10 Years

Expert 7 Deputy General (Infrastructure

and planning)

Industry, India >11 Years

Expert 8 Manager (Customer

relationship management)

Industry, India >12 Years

Expert 9 Policy maker (Industrial setting

and development, MSME)

Government Officials,

India

>12 Years

Expert 10 Head (Production and

Manufacturing)

Government Public

Sector, India

>16 Years

Expert 11 Professor, Competitive strategy Academician,

Government, India

>14 Years

Expert 12 Senior adviser to Government

(electronics manufacturing

Industry association >24 Years

19

firms association)

20