## 4 Result and Discussion
### Stage 3: Producing a Causal Diagram  
In addition, D, R values were calculated by using Equations (5) and (6), as shown in Table 7. The results of D and R confirm the degree of relational influence among each key barrier, respectively. Then, the authors formulated (D + R) and (D \(-\) R) values as shown in Table 8. For example, calculations of (D + R) and (D \(-\) R) are for B1; the D-value is  
\begin{table  
7.35 and R-value is 6.79, so adding them together is 14.14 (D + R) and subtracting them is 0.56 (D - R). As shown in Table 8, the barrier with a D-R value less than zero is identified as an effective group, while a barrier with more than the D-R value comes under the cause group. Based on the DEMATEL results as shown in Table 8 and Figure 2, the causal interactions and the degrees of influence among the CE adoption barriers in the textile sector are described as follows. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Barriers** & **D** & **R** & **D - R** & **D + R** \\ \hline B1 & 7.35 & 6.79 & 0.56 & 14.14 \\ \hline B2 & 6.82 & 7.52 & \(-\)0.69 & 14.34 \\ \hline B3 & 6.82 & 6.79 & 0.03 & 13.62 \\ \hline B4 & 6.30 & 6.56 & \(-\)0.26 & 12.86 \\ \hline B5 & 4.41 & 2.60 & 1.81 & 7.02 \\ \hline B6 & 6.68 & 7.56 & \(-\)0.87 & 14.25 \\ \hline B7 & 6.65 & 7.39 & \(-\)0.73 & 14.05 \\ \hline B8 & 6.95 & 5.25 & 1.69 & 12.21 \\ \hline B9 & 6.77 & 5.17 & 1.60 & 11.95 \\ \hline B10 & 6.22 & 6.11 & 0.10 & 12.33 \\ \hline B11 & 5.97 & 8.49 & \(-\)2.52 & 14.47 \\ \hline B12 & 5.38 & 6.10 & \(-\)0.72 & 11.49 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Average} & 0 & 12.73 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Prominence and relation results obtained by using the DEMATEL method. Figure 2: Cause-effect diagram. Strong relation, high prominence: Consumers' lack of knowledge and awareness about reused/recycle (B1), and lack of successful business models and frameworks to implement CE (B3). These two key barriers were the case group barriers and were core factors that strongly influenced other barriers. Thus, they were the driving barriers for CE implementation in the textile sector. Strong relation, low prominence: High purchasing cost of environmentally friendly materials (B2), lack of support supply and demand network (B4), design challenge to reuse and recovery products (B6), limited availability and quality of recycling material (B7), high short-term costs and low short-term economic benefits (B11). These five barriers slightly influence a few other barriers. It is indicated that these are relatively independent barriers. Weak relation, low prominence: Make the right decision to implement CE in the most efficient way (B12). This barrier was slightly influenced by the other barriers, confirming that B12 is a relatively independent factor. Weak relation, high prominence: Obstructive laws and regulations (B5), lack of an information exchange system between different stakeholders (B8), unclear vision in regards of CE (B9), and insufficient internalization of external costs (B10). These four barriers were the effect group barriers that were influenced by the remaining barriers. Despite requiring improvement, B5, B8, B9, and B10 could not be directly improved because they came under the effect group barriers. According to the analysis results, six cause group barriers are identified, namely, \"consumers lack knowledge and awareness about reused/recycle (B1)\", \"lack of successful business models and frameworks to implement CE (B3)\", \"obstructive laws and regulations (B5)\", \"lack of an information exchange system between different stakeholders (B8)\", \"unclear vision in regards of CE (B9)\", and \"insufficient internalization of external costs (B10)\" are found to be the causal factors.