1. Introduction
Approximately 97% of Malaysia’s raw water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial purposes is sourced from surface water resources, primarily rivers. Malaysia’s river system spans 189 river basins, with 89 in Peninsular Malaysia, 22 in Sarawak, and 78 in Sabah [1]. The locations of the river basin, water intake, and continuous water quality station are shown in Figure 1. Industrialization, urbanization [2], and sewage water from domestic use [3] are major contributors to river pollution in Malaysia, which not only compromises water resources but also threatens sustainable water supplies by introducing hazardous substances into rivers. Compliance with wastewater discharge standards from sewage and industrial effluent treatment systems is monitored by the Department of Environment (DOE) under the Environmental Quality (Sewage) Regulation 2009 and Environmental Quality (Industrial Effluent) Regulations 2009.
While industrial manufacturing is crucial to societal needs, it remains a significant source of environmental pollution [4], necessitating robust environmental governance. Effective governance, including policy coherence and stakeholder engagement, is vital in Southeast Asia [5].
The inadequate treatment of industrial effluent discharged into the environment globally has deteriorated water quality [6] and caused environmental stress on aquatic ecosystems, leading to issues like eutrophication in receiving waters and the proliferation of pathogenic toxins [7]. These effects not only raise serious health concerns but also underscore the need for more stringent regulations [8].
The pollution of water resources has particularly significant implications for public health, as communities reliant on these waters face increased exposure to harmful pollutants [9]. Understanding the barriers to industrial compliance is therefore essential for designing regulations that protect human health and environmental resilience [10].
Compliance with environmental regulations is the strongest predictor of environmental performance [11]. Backed by a solid legal framework with enforceable penalties, Malaysia’s Environmental Quality Act was amended in 2023, strengthening the legal response to non-compliance, with maximum fines for water pollution offenses raised to RM10 million [12]. Therefore, non-compliance shall be expressly and legally penalized. This change enhances enforcement credibility, compelling industries to comply with environmental standards [13].
Despite the known environmental and health risks associated with non-compliance, the literature insufficiently addresses the specific challenges faced by industries in adhering to environmental regulations [14]. Prior studies have focused on broader environmental governance issues, as exemplified by Padawangi’s work on urban environmental concerns [15]. Others have explored industry-specific challenges, such as the fisheries sector’s water-related issues [16] and the palm oil sector’s sustainability efforts [17]. However, no previous research has investigated the factors contributing to non-compliance with industrial effluent regulations among Malaysian industries that are known for their low compliance. This gap is critical because it overlooks the potential impact of regulatory non-compliance on both the health of local populations and the resilience of ecosystems that sustain biodiversity and human life [18].
Current solutions to river pollution remain insufficient. Involving stakeholders in water resource management could be a promising approach to address these challenges [19], yet effective stakeholder engagement requires specialized knowledge to prioritize actions, communicate scientific and policy information, and verify facts [20].
Although some studies (Étienne and Wendeln [21]; Markowitz and Gerardo [22]; Winter and May [23]) have examined environmental compliance broadly, few have considered the industry perspective from a Malaysian context. This study addresses this gap by investigating the specific factors contributing to non-compliance within the industry, offering a unique understanding of the primary causes and proposing adaptive measures to enhance regulatory adherence [24].
This study uniquely focuses on eight industries known for low environmental compliance over a seven-year period. Interviews were conducted with 13 stakeholders who collectively possess over 200 years of operational experience. These insights provide fresh practical recommendations that could inform future policy and regulatory frameworks, filling a significant void in the existing literature.
With a particular focus on safeguarding human and ecological health, this study aims to strengthen water pollution governance by highlighting industry-led improvements that benefit environmental quality, public health, and the resilience of local communities
Consequently, this study aims to understand industry perspectives on compliance with environmental legislation, posing the research question: what are the challenges in complying with environmental legislation from the industry’s viewpoint? Insights from interviews with stakeholders across industries that are known for low compliance offer an understanding of the relative factors— experience, knowledge, and perceived needs—that influence compliance behavior in Malaysia. This study also explores pathways to self-compliance and sustainable practices that mitigate industrial impacts on rivers, prioritizing human and ecosystem health.
By involving industry stakeholders in this critical discussion, this study seeks to foster environmental sustainability and minimize industrial pollution’s adverse effects on public health. Through collaborative management and environmental assessment, industries can support continuous environmental improvement, aligning economic goals with the preservation of essential natural resources [25]. Ultimately, this study provides valuable insights into the practical aspects of enforcement, policy implications, and the need for a collective shift towards sustainable, compliance-driven industry practices.
Regulating industrial effluent is crucial for protecting local water systems and the broader concept of planetary health. Planetary health highlights the link between human health, environmental sustainability, and societal well-being, noting that environmental degradation has direct consequences on public health and global ecosystems. This study adds to the discussion on planetary health by examining the environmental and health hazards of industrial non-compliance. Concentrating on sustainable regulatory frameworks and solutions driven by the industry, this research outlines approaches that improve environmental quality and reduce public health dangers from contaminated waterways. Reinforcing industrial compliance is vital for meeting sustainable development objectives and preserving the resilience of ecosystems that are fundamental to human and planetary health.
2. Materials and Methods
The gathering of non-numerical data was conducted using qualitative research techniques. Interviews were conducted with participants to explore their underlying motivations, opinions, and interpretations. In qualitative research, empirical studies explore the traditional concepts of validity and truth, while empirically maintaining the essential principles of acknowledging participants [26].
In engaging with stakeholders, this study identified and targeted the industry type with the lowest compliance with the Industrial Effluent Regulation 2009 over a period of time. Mokhtar published eight types of industries with the lowest compliance rate from 2016 to 2022 [14], which were metal manufacturing except for the machinery type of industry, the manufacture of base metal, the manufacture of rubber and plastic, the manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products, the manufacture of paper and paper products, food products manufacturing, the manufacture of chemicals and chemical products, and lastly, the manufacture of coke and refine petroleum products. An analysis of the eight industries with the lowest compliance rates over the past seven years provided a comprehensive view of the challenges these sectors face in meeting environmental regulations. According to Mallterud et al., the more relevant the information contained, the smaller the sample size required in qualitative studies [27]. The participant from each industry was then contacted, and some industries sent more than one representative.
The identities of the participants were undisclosed, and they were invited to participate in the semi-structured interview. Interview guides were developed, which include open-ended questions subject to the main theme of the study [28], namely understanding the challenges they face in managing river pollution. Interviews are a useful methodology for research because of their ability to facilitate probing discussions with individuals that would allow researchers access to relevant, practical, and honest information that is generally unavailable in published sources [29]. The protocol refinement for the interview is further detailed and explained in Figure 2. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the interviews were recorded with prior consent from the participants to facilitate transcription for analysis.
The interviews took place from 25 August 2023 to 6 December 2023. Conducted face-to-face, these interviews allowed for a thorough examination of the participants’ viewpoints and experiences. This method was chosen to foster a rapport and promote open discussions, which enhanced the richness of the data gathered.
The research objectives were achieved by adopting a reflexive thematic analysis approach to examine qualitative data collected from interviews across eight industry types. Reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) is an interpretive qualitative data analysis method that offers theoretical flexibility and ease of access [30]. RTA was selected for its adaptability and its proficiency in capturing the intricacies of participants’ views on industrial effluent compliance. Using this approach, we can facilitate the identification of specific themes within each dataset and the detection and analysis of patterns.
This method enabled the structured identification of themes while permitting new insights to augment the results. The analysis was steered by a deductive approach, in line with the study’s goals to investigate specific obstacles and requirements. Reflexivity within this method guaranteed that the analysis was receptive to unexpected themes, offering a balance between structure and flexibility. Nonetheless, RTA possesses inherent drawbacks, such as the dependence on the researcher’s interpretive perspective, which may shape the outcomes, and the potential prioritization of established themes over new discoveries.
Interview data were analyzed using a mixed method approach by combining coding, thematic analysis, and deductive analysis using the NVivo 12 Plus software as a logical approach to progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. This was performed by identifying patterns, categories, and recurring themes in the interview data [31] to identify the primary causes of industry-related non-compliance. The major themes were identified by conducting a thematic analysis of the coded information. Subsequently, a deductive analysis was carried out on predefined hypotheses or theories related to the management of industrial river pollution. Finally, based on the insights gained from the interviews and analysis, the findings were synthesized. An outline of the challenges associated with river pollution management from industry sources and recommendations for addressing these challenges were prepared.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Participants’ Insights
In this study, participants with extensive industry experience provided critical insights into compliance challenges, particularly those impacting public and environmental health. The participant selection was meticulously planned to align with the relevance of industrial effluent regulations and compliance. Stakeholders were selected for their hands-on experience in managing wastewater treatment plants, directly connecting their operational duties to the pivotal regulatory challenges being examined. Table 1 illustrates that the represented industries have a cumulative operational history of 203 years, with an average of over 15 years of experience per participant in meeting industrial effluent regulation compliance (while maintaining their anonymity).
Their contributions were especially valuable due to their roles in executing and interpreting regulatory mandates, providing an intimate knowledge of the obstacles to compliance. This method ensured that the study’s conclusions were rooted in practical, experiential insights, mirroring the intricate, actual challenges faced in adhering to regulations. Moreover, the analysis emphasized recurring themes among different roles to identify shared compliance difficulties and develop practical strategies for enhancement.
According to Table 1, most industries have been operational for a minimum of 20 years, with the exception of paper manufacturing with 10 years and non-metallic mineral manufacturing with 9 years. The combined operational duration of these industries totals 203 years, which is a significant factor in this study. Considering the perspectives and experiences of participants is crucial in research design to effectively address ethical concerns regarding role, trust, and transparency. The focused input from these participants is vital for the selected study because, in qualitative research, considering the participants’ perspectives and experiences is essential to ensure that the research reflects their views [32]. Their insights and experiences offer crucial feedback and help refine the results.
The participants were selected based on their capacity to offer insights derived from hands-on experience, averaging over 15 years in operational positions. This method is consistent with the tenets of qualitative research, which stress the need to gather a broad range of perspectives to effectively tackle compliance issues. The roles of these participants formed an essential bridge between the practical aspects of operations and the regulatory standards, ensuring that the collected data represented direct, detailed experiences.
To mitigate any concerns regarding comparability, the analysis focused on identifying common themes and experiences, confirming that the diversity of roles contributed to, rather than detracted from, the robustness of the study’s conclusions.
3.2. Factors Contributing to Non-Compliance
Challenges Identified by Participants
The responses to the challenges indicated that the industry participants had several opinions. The prevalent opinion themes that participants from various industries frequently mentioned include cost, employees’ attitudes, treatment technology, top management support, public complaints, and the distinction between federal and state jurisdictions. An illustration of this can be found in Figure 3.
Cost was cited as a major barrier to compliance, particularly regarding the installation and maintenance of treatment technologies. Participants noted that when companies forego adequate treatment to reduce expenses, untreated effluent is often released into nearby waterways. This directly threatens water quality, with potential consequences for both human health and the environment. Untreated or insufficiently treated effluent introduces pollutants that affect aquatic ecosystems and pose risks to communities depending on these water sources for daily use. Cost is a crucial source of financing for controlling pollution [33], and it demonstrates the economic feasibility of addressing river pollution [34].
A recurrent theme was the lack of awareness or commitment among employees, especially at the operational level. Participants mentioned that many employees are unaware of the long-term environmental implications of industrial discharge, which can lead to non-compliant practices. This gap in awareness risks undermines health and environmental standards [35], as polluted waterways impact ecosystems and can result in a range of health hazards for local populations [36]. Cultivating environmental awareness among employees is thus essential for both compliance and safeguarding human health and well-being [37].
The third most common issue raised was the use of treatment technology. Developing the most appropriate treatment technology for each industry’s specific wastewater characteristics has proven challenging. A variety of treatment technologies, such as advanced oxidation processes, biological methods, and continuous monitoring, have been found to reduce industrial pollutants in rivers [38,39,40,41]. To address this challenge, the best environmentally friendly technologies should be utilized to treat industrial effluent discharges. The interviews also revealed significant challenges related to treatment technology in the industry. Compliance with regulations often necessitates further treatment, particularly for parameters like ammoniacal nitrogen, which increases complexity. In addition, ensuring proper and efficient treatment of raw wastewater remains a significant challenge. Many facilities are hindered by outdated designs that follow standards from 20 years ago, creating resistance to new methods by experienced staff. Technical issues such as inconsistent fuel feeding, equipment breakdowns, and quality control problems can lead to emission spikes, requiring operators to take immediate corrective actions to mitigate these effects.
While interview respondents cited cost as their greatest challenge, they also pointed out that top management support is sometimes lacking. Participants emphasized that management’s approach often dictates the priority given to regulatory compliance. When top management fails to support compliance initiatives, it becomes challenging to maintain environmental standards, compromising natural water sources. Strengthening top management’s role in compliance is essential, as it drives a culture of accountability and protection for human health and environmental resilience. Nonetheless, top management can support such efforts in several ways, including improving industrial effluent treatment infrastructure, increasing waste management budgets [35], and developing environmentally friendly key strategies [42].
There was general agreement among interview respondents that public complaints are also a prevalent challenge for industries. Handling public complaints effectively is crucial, as miscommunications and the lack of feedback can escalate frustration and lead to more serious issues. Nevertheless, studies have shown that public complaints can help reduce river pollution from industry by raising awareness of health and environmental threats [35], advocating cost-effective management practices [43], promoting sustainable business planning [44], enhancing cooperation in pollution treatment projects [45], and prompting government action [46].
The interviews highlighted the distinction between federal and state jurisdictions as one of the challenges, mainly due to the state government of Sarawak passing its laws pursuant to Article 77 of the Federal Constitution. Differences in regulations and priorities between federal and state authorities create inconsistencies, complicating compliance efforts. Engaging with authorities can be frustrating because industries often feel that they are being passed between different jurisdictions. These complexities are particularly challenging for consultants working across multiple states, where differing rules and overlapping responsibilities create additional hurdles. Most respondents agreed that they see no overlapping jurisdictions between the authorities; however, they noted that water governance in Malaysia is a complex system. In river water management, Malaysia has federal, state, and concurrent lists. According to Hasan et al., too many authorities with their own water-based legislation are involved in water pollution governance [47]. Abdul Rahman mentioned that these authorities have conflicting and competing objectives [48]. However, effective regulatory frameworks for water pollution must have strong legal principles, stringent regulatory requirements, and an appropriate institutional framework [49].
This study reveals significant obstacles to compliance, including costs, technological limitations, management support, and jurisdictional issues, as reported by participants with substantial experience in managing industrial effluent regulations. With an average tenure of over 15 years, these participants offered valuable insights into the strategic and operational aspects of compliance. For example, those in leadership roles highlighted broader organizational challenges like budget limitations and the complexities of jurisdictional regulations. In contrast, those at the operational level shared direct experiences with challenges such as ensuring the efficiency of treatment plants and fulfilling regulatory reporting obligations. This amalgamation of viewpoints emphasizes the critical role of practical experience in identifying barriers to compliance.
Furthermore, the participants’ in-depth experience shaped their views on the requirements for achieving compliance. Regardless of their roles, there was a unanimous agreement on the need for more robust regulatory guidance, financial incentives, and the public disclosure of emissions data to promote transparency. These identified needs suggest a collective understanding that compliance is contingent upon both behavioral and structural shifts within industries, which are underpinned by unambiguous regulatory structures. This study synthesizes the insights of those with strategic and operational expertise, offering a holistic view of the compliance framework and providing practical recommendations to improve policy measures and industrial practices.
The opinions on challenges often focus on the need for behavioral changes. Educating and informing employees can improve their attitudes towards progress, motivate them, and ensure they receive support from top management. Precise communication is also essential for effectively addressing public complaints. Furthermore, the technology must be managed properly to guarantee its effectiveness, which requires adherence to certain behavioral standards.
3.3. Difficulties in Complying with the Industrial Effluent Regulation
Participants pointed out that inconsistencies in treatment standards and the high costs associated with accurate effluent characterization led to compliance gaps. It is difficult to treat industrial effluents sustainably because of ineffective treatment solutions and a lack of technical expertise [50]. These gaps may result in the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated effluent, which has a cascading effect on public and environmental health. Reliable effluent treatment processes protect the integrity of water sources, essential for both human consumption and ecosystem health. This may result in effluent discharges that do not comply with the concentration limits set out in the Industrial Effluent Regulation 2009.
3.4. Suggestions for Increasing Compliance
3.4.1. Improvement and Adaptation of the Industrial Effluent Regulation 2009
Some interviewees recommended a few amendments to the Industrial Effluent Regulations 2009 to increase compliance, as represented in Figure 4. Most respondents believed that centralized treatment systems for certain homogeneous industries could reduce river pollution. However, they also pointed out that this adaptation is only feasible in new industrial development areas because of the infrastructure and facilities that must be considered.
Due to the high disposal costs for scheduled waste sludge generated by industrial effluent treatment systems, some participants suggested that the Department of Environment should increase the number of licensed facilities to provide a competitive price for the disposal of scheduled waste sludge. The participants may not be aware that following Section 19 of the Environmental Quality Act 1974, the intention to the construct must be submitted by the company itself, not by the Department of the Environment.
The respondents noted that Regulation 12 of the Industrial Effluent Regulations 2009 stipulated the chemical oxidation demand (COD) discharge limit standard. According to the regulation, three types of industries have designated more lenient discharge limits than others, such as pulp and paper, textiles, and refineries. Hence, some respondents indicated that their specific type of industry required a dedicated discharge standard for COD and a more lenient discharge standard for ammoniacal nitrogen (AN).
According to several interviewees, the Industrial Effluent Regulation 2009 should be amended to adapt sustainability approaches. This includes the adaptation of net carbon-zero and zero discharges scenarios. Other than that, some respondents wanted a more lenient standard, particularly for the ammoniacal nitrogen parameter. The most reasonable reason for this is because the neighboring country, Singapore, has a more lenient standard for ammoniacal nitrogen (20 mg/L for controlled watercourse and 50 mg/L for water course), while Malaysia’s standard is 10 mg/L for standard A and 20 mg/L for standard B.
However, none of the respondents mentioned that Singapore has a more stringent standard for the suspended solid parameter (30 mg/L for controlled watercourses and 50 mg/L for watercourses) than Malaysia (50 mg/L for standard A and 100 mg/L for standard B). A greater variety of treatment technologies are available in the market for suspended solids than for ammoniacal nitrogen.
Respondents provided suggestions for improving the regulations, including the automation provision. By automating the treatment process, time can be saved, and human error can be reduced. Automating the process can help to increase compliance by eliminating organic contaminants and heavy metals from effluents as soon as they are generated [51].
3.4.2. Industry-Specific Sustainable Strategies for Promoting Self-Regulation and Increasing Compliance
This section discusses recommendations from interviews on sustainable solutions and strategies to cultivate self-compliance among industries as illustrated in Figure 5. Eleven respondents with sources of content coded on awareness (30.2%) highlighted the critical importance of awareness in achieving environmental compliance. To promote a compliance culture, it is recommended that companies invest in ongoing environmental education and training for employees at all levels. Such initiatives ensure that employees understand the long-term implications of industrial discharge on human health and the environment. Increased awareness leads to more sustainable practices and better protection for communities that depend on these water systems [52,53].
The interviews also highlighted the importance of government incentives in encouraging environmental compliance with source contents coded at 19.3%. Providing incentives for compliance, such as carbon credit or tax breaks, can make a significant impact. Incentives encourage industries to adopt sustainable practices, aligning corporate interests with health and environmental goals. By adopting incentives, regulatory bodies can promote practices that protect both the environment and public health, creating a more sustainable compliance framework [54].
Figure 5Funnel chart of industry-specific sustainable strategies for promoting self-regulation. The chart illustrates recommendations for fostering self-compliance within industries, as identified by interviewees. It displays the percentage of coded responses corresponding to each recommendation, emphasizing the most significant strategies for attaining sustainable compliance.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
Although the respondents acknowledged that enforcement visits from regulatory agencies could lead to penalties if they were unable to comply with the regulations, six respondents agreed that frequent visits from enforcement agencies (17.3%) would result in greater compliance. Respondents believed that scheduled visits and spot checks by enforcement agencies are essential to promote compliance with environmental regulations. While some suggested that self-regulation is ideal, they acknowledged that enforcement remains crucial, particularly for industries that are still developing a culture of compliance. By enforcing environmental regulations, regulators can improve compliance rates by enticing regulated entities to comply [55]. Moreover, regular visits by enforcement agencies will help identify areas that require improvement and provide guidance regarding compliance with regulations.
In addition to formal enforcement visits, interview respondents noted that industries also required guidance from regulators (12.2%). Respondents appreciated the continuous support and advice from enforcement agencies. These authorities provide valuable input, engage regularly with companies, and offer suggestions for improvement. Maintaining good relationships with regulatory bodies allows for effective problem solving and ensures compliance with regulations, contributing positively to environmental management. A sense of partnership and mutual trust is fostered through the exchange of ideas, concerns, and expertise [53]. By taking this proactive approach, more effective regulations and strategies can be developed, ultimately enhancing compliance and achieving sustainable results [53].
According to four respondents, top management involvement (10.4%) is critical in ensuring environmental compliance. This is essential because their support for an awareness of pollution impacts can influence every layer of the company. It was suggested that regulatory requirements should mandate competency training for premise owners to enhance their understanding of the importance of compliance. Effective support from top management, coupled with their active involvement in environmental processes, is crucial for fostering a culture of compliance and sustainability within organization which could lead to more effective waste management, improved water quality, and reduced water pollution [56].
Three respondents raised the issue of industry rating (6.3%) in promoting self-regulation and compliance. Public ratings, such as those related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and practical tools in managing their environmental responsibilities, encourage industries to adhere to environmental standards. These certifications involve regular internal and external audits, ensuring thorough checks of compliance records and processes. Programs focusing on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria were also planned to further support these efforts.
The interviews underscore the potential benefits of public declarations (4.3%) in promoting self-compliance among industries. Allowing public access to emission and effluent discharge data from industries can drive industries to enhance their compliance efforts. Shifting towards a model in which environmental monitoring reports are publicly accessible would encourage industries to invest more in self-compliance and foster greater transparency and accountability [57].
Malaysia’s industrial effluent compliance challenges, while unique, can benefit from insights gained from successful global watershed management programs [56]. For example, the Rhine River basin has seen significant improvements in industrial compliance due to its transboundary governance and data transparency initiatives [58]. Likewise, the Chesapeake Bay Program highlights the effectiveness of stakeholder-driven strategies and financial incentives, echoing our findings on the importance of awareness and guidance [59]. Adopting similar adaptive management practices could help Malaysia overcome jurisdictional and technological hurdles.
Significantly, circular economy strategies were not mentioned by any respondents as part of their sustainability methods. This could be due to a range of reasons, such as a lack of familiarity with circular economy concepts or the belief that these strategies do not fit within their current operational frameworks. Research indicates that industries face several obstacles when adopting circular economy principles, including inadequate technical expertise, substantial upfront costs, and an absence of policy-driven incentives for implementation [60,61]. These challenges are especially acute in sectors where meeting regulatory standards is already demanding in terms of resources, as this study has shown.
The disregard for circular economy practices among the participants highlights the necessity for deliberate actions from regulatory authorities and policy designers [62]. Encouraging circular economy practices through educational campaigns, skill development programs, and economic incentives can promote the integration of sustainable methods in industries. By narrowing the divide between regulatory adherence and innovative sustainability, stakeholders can support the shift towards circular economy frameworks that are advantageous for both industry and environmental preservation.
This study’s findings are of significant international relevance, addressing challenges that extend beyond the confines of Malaysia. In many developing and emerging economies, industrial compliance with environmental regulations is a pressing issue as swift industrialization can surpass the pace of regulatory frameworks. The obstacles highlighted in this research, including the high costs of compliance, technological constraints, and the lack of robust enforcement, reflect broader global issues. Strategies such as the implementation of centralized industrial effluent treatment systems (IETSs), increased awareness campaigns, and initiatives led by the industry itself provide a model that other nations can adopt to foster sustainable industrial practices. Furthermore, the consequences of non-compliance, which encompass public health risks and environmental harm, are in line with the worldwide movement towards planetary health. This is particularly relevant in protecting freshwater ecosystems and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Therefore, the recommendations made herein not only aim to enhance national policies but also contribute to the international dialog on environmental governance and the pursuit of sustainability.
This study also emphasizes the crucial role of industrial compliance in safeguarding environmental and public health, which is in line with planetary health principles. It highlights the negative effects of industrial pollution on water quality, ecosystems, and dependent communities. These issues, intensified by lax enforcement and limited resources, jeopardize the resilience of vital natural systems for human and environmental health. This study provides practical insights for promoting sustainable industry practices, mitigating environmental harm, and enhancing population health. It stresses the importance of collaborative action among industries, regulatory bodies, and communities to develop comprehensive strategies that support environmental sustainability and global health.
4. Limitations
This research offers valuable perspectives on the obstacles to achieving industrial effluent compliance from within the industry, and it is important to recognize its limitations. The employment of reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) is beneficial for delving into subtle themes but depends on the researcher’s interpretation, which may introduce bias. Additionally, the deductive method, despite being in line with the study’s goals, could have limited the discovery of new themes. The findings’ generalizability is also restricted by the small sample size, which is sourced from sectors known for low compliance rates. While the participants’ substantial industry experience provides depth to the insights, it may not accurately reflect the diversity of all sectors or regions. Enlarging the sample size and integrating additional qualitative methods, such as grounded theory or mixed methodologies, might mitigate these limitations.
Moreover, concentrating solely on industry stakeholders narrows the perspective to that of the industry, omitting viewpoints from regulators, communities, and environmental advocates, which could yield a more comprehensive understanding. The dependence on self-reported data may lead to response biases, and the study’s specific seven-year timeframe might miss more recent changes in regulatory policies or technological advancements. Furthermore, although this study pinpoints obstacles, it does not quantitatively assess compliance strategies or directly measure environmental impacts. Future studies that include a wider range of stakeholders, employ longitudinal analysis, and utilize mixed methods could enhance the depth of understanding and the practical application of the results.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
This study examined eight industries recognized for their low environmental compliance over a seven-year period, aiming to identify the root causes of compliance challenges across diverse settings. Interviews with 13 stakeholders, collectively holding over 200 years of operational experience, revealed a range of factors that contribute to non-compliance, including costs, employee attitudes, treatment technology, support from top management, public complaints, and jurisdictional conflicts across federal and state authorities. Additionally, challenges specific to industrial effluent regulations, such as effluent characterization and treatment expenses, as well as the disposal costs of scheduled waste sludge from effluent systems, further exacerbate compliance costs.
Industries suggested multiple regulatory enhancements that could have global applications, including establishing centralized treatment facilities, expanding licensed waste treatment options, tailoring discharge standards to different industries, integrating sustainability into regulatory frameworks, and incorporating automation capabilities. Industry-driven proposals to enhance self-regulation and improve compliance also emerged, emphasizing awareness (30.2%), government incentives (19.3%), enforcement (17.3%), guidance (12.2%), top management commitment (10.4%), industry ratings (6.3%), and public disclosure (4.3%).
Governments worldwide could improve enforcement and compliance rates by adopting these recommendations, allowing for a concentrated focus on significant violations with strict penalties, leading to better resource allocation for environmental protection. These findings offer practical implications for policymakers, researchers, and industry practitioners, encouraging the development of efficient regulatory frameworks adaptable to different industrial contexts.
Continued challenges remain across the industry spectrum, underscoring the need for governments to support the development of cost-effective treatment technologies and incentivize industries to heighten compliance efforts. Concurrently, industry players should invest in research for innovative treatment solutions and advance compliance awareness across all operational levels. Policymakers may consider integrating these insights when developing new industrial regulations and policies, emphasizing incentives for technology development and self-regulation to promote sustainable practices and improve environmental quality across sectors.
The lack of mention of circular economy strategies by respondents underscores a significant deficiency in present industrial sustainability methods. This oversight underscores the necessity of incorporating circular economy concepts into both regulatory frameworks and industrial training initiatives. Overcoming obstacles to implementation, including financial limitations and the lack of knowledge, is crucial for industries to synchronize their compliance activities with wider sustainability objectives.
Additionally, this study uniquely highlights industry perspectives, bridging a gap in global water pollution governance research. By identifying compliance barriers specific to industry operations, it provides crucial insights for regions with similar regulatory and industrial structures, fostering synergies, reducing complexity, and encouraging effective enforcement strategies.
Ultimately, adaptive regulatory frameworks are necessary to accommodate industry-specific needs and facilitate innovative solutions for effluent treatment and sludge management. Such approaches drive sector-wide collaboration and improve environmental stewardship in industrial practices. Future research may delve into the economic impacts of environmental regulations to provide a holistic understanding of their broader implications.
This study adds to the vital conversation on planetary health by highlighting the urgent necessity for strong industrial compliance strategies that tackle both environmental and public health issues. Improved compliance safeguards local ecosystems and supports the overarching aim of preserving the natural systems that human and planetary health rely on. Proposals for centralized treatment facilities, regulatory rewards, and public education initiatives chart a course for promoting sustainable industrial methods. Such actions can markedly decrease pollution, improve water quality, and lessen threats to both public and planetary health, aiding in the pursuit of a more sustainable and robust future.
Conceptualization, Z.M.; methodology Z.M. and I.M.N.; software, Z.M.; validation, Z.M., S.K. and I.M.N.; formal analysis, Z.M.; investigation, Z.M.; resources, Z.M.; data curation, Z.M. and I.M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.M.; writing—review and editing, Z.M., S.K. and I.M.N.; visualization, Z.M.; supervision, S.K. and I.M.N.; project administration, Z.M. and S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics and Integrity Committee of The University of Queensland under the National Statement of Ethical Conduct in Human Research and relevant University of Queensland policy (PPL 4.20.07) on 25 November 2022 for studies involving humans.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study.
The data presented in this study are openly available at
The authors want to express their gratitude to the Almighty and to those individuals and organizations contributing their expertise and time to this project. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Locations of river basins, water intake, and continuous water quality stations in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak, obtained from the Department of Environment’s annual quality report.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. An overview of the challenges that are faced by the industries associated with industrial effluent compliance, and a summary of the challenges raised by the participants according to the type of industry.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Improvement suggestions for the Industrial Effluent Regulation 2009 as identified by industry stakeholders. Each circle represents the frequency with which a theme was discussed during the interviews. Circles that intersect highlight themes that are relevant or are related.
Overview of the length of time industries have been in operation and the positions of their participants.
| Type of Industry | Participants | Years of Operation |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacture of coke and refine petroleum product | P1 (Senior engineer) | 25 |
| Food products manufacturing | P2 (Chief production manager) | 40 |
| Manufacture of base metal | P5 (General manager of operation) | 32 |
| Manufacture of chemicals and chemical product | P7 (General manager) | 20 |
| Manufacture of paper and paper products | P8 (Manager) | 10 |
| Manufacture of rubber and plastic | P9 (Senior manager) | 32 |
| Manufacturing of other non-metallic mineral products | P12 (Group industry ecology manager) | 9 |
| Metal manufacturing except machinery | P13 (Senior engineer for the plant and facilities department) | 35 |
References
1. Ghani, A. FRESHWATER|WWF Malaysia. Available online: https://www.wwf.org.my/our_work/freshwater/ (accessed on 23 May 2023).
2. Adnan, M.S.; Roslen, H.; Samsuri, S. The Application of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Approach in Water Quality Assessment for the Batu Pahat River. Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; Online, 15–16 November 2021; Institute of Physics: London, UK, 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1022/1/012074]
3. Fitri, A.; Maulud, K.N.A.; Pratiwi, D.; Phelia, A.; Rossi, F.; Zuhairi, N.Z. Trend of Water Quality Status in Kelantan River Downstream, Peninsular Malaysia. J. Rekayasa Sipil; 2020; 16, 178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25077/jrs.16.3.178-184.2020]
4. Mahmoud, M.; Yasseen, A.; El Morsi, M.; El Haggar, S. Sustainable Industrial Neighborhoods. J. Environ. Sci.; 2020; 49, pp. 29-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21608/jes.2020.166261]
5. Asian Water Development Outlook 2020; Asean Development Bank: Manila, Philippines, 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22617/SGP200412-2]
6. Ilyas, M.; Ahmad, W.; Khan, H.; Yousaf, S.; Yasir, M.; Khan, A. Environmental and health impacts of industrial wastewater effluents in Pakistan: A review. Rev. Environ. Health; 2019; 34, pp. 171-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2018-0078]
7. Saravanakumar, K.; De Silva, S.; Santosh, S.S.; Sathiyaseelan, A.; Ganeshalingam, A.; Jamla, M.; Sankaranarayanan, A.; Veeraraghavan, V.P.; MubarakAli, D.; Lee, J. et al. Impact of industrial effluents on the environment and human health and their remediation using MOFs-based hybrid membrane filtration techniques. Chemosphere; 2022; 307, 135593. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135593]
8. Mahmud, A.R. The Need for Improvement on Environmental Law in Malaysia. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Law; 2021; 30, Available online: https://ijbel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/IJBEL24-041.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2023).
9. Hou, M.; Jin, Q.; Na, G.; Cai, Y.; Emissions, Y.S.; Behavior, I.-S.E. Transformation of OBS from One Major Fluorochemical Manufacturing Facility in China. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2022; 56, pp. 8103-8113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01287]
10. Nguyen-Van, P.; Stenger, A.; Tiet, T. Social incentive factors in interventions promoting sustainable behaviors: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE; 2021; 16, e0260932. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260932]
11. Fernando, Y.; Wah, W.X. The impact of eco-innovation drivers on environmental performance: Empirical results from the green technology sector in Malaysia. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2017; 12, pp. 27-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.05.002]
12. Dewan Rakyat passes Environmental Quality (Amendment) Bill 2025|The Star. Available online: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2024/03/25/dewan-rakyat-passes-environmental-quality-amendment-bill-2025 (accessed on 15 May 2024).
13. Ma, Y.; Wang, J.; Bai, Y. Macro-Institutional Pressures and Firms’ Environmental Management Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Micro-Institutional Pressures. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 3662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15043662]
14. Mokhtar, Z. Review of Malaysia’s Environmental Waterway Compliances with Industrial Effluent Discharge. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Law; 2023; 30, 1.Available online: https://ijbel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IJBEL30.ISU1_326.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2024).
15. Routledge Handbook of Urbanization in Southeast Asia|Rita Padawangi. Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/pdfviewer/ (accessed on 10 May 2023).
16. Kurniawan, S.B.; Ahmad, A.; Rahim, N.F.M.; Said, N.S.M.; Alnawajha, M.M.; Imron, M.F.; Abdullah, S.R.S.; Othman, A.R.; Ismail, N.I.; Hasan, H.A. Aquaculture in Malaysia: Water-related environmental challenges and opportunities for cleaner production. Environ. Technol. Innov.; 2021; 24, 101913. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101913]
17. Abdul-Hamid, A.Q.; Ali, M.H.; Tseng, M.L.; Lan, S.; Kumar, M. Impeding challenges on industry 4.0 in circular economy: Palm oil industry in Malaysia. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2020; 123, 105052. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2020.105052]
18. Thorslund, J.; Jarsjo, J.; Jaramillo, F.; Jawitz, J.W.; Manzoni, S.; Basu, N.B.; Chalov, S.R.; Cohen, M.J.; Creed, I.F.; Goldenberg, R. et al. Wetlands as large-scale nature-based solutions: Status and challenges for research, engineering and management. Ecol. Eng.; 2017; 108, pp. 489-497. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.07.012]
19. Syafiuddin, A.; Boopathy, R.; Hadibarata, T. Challenges and Solutions for Sustainable Groundwater Usage: Pollution Control and Integrated Management. Curr. Pollut. Rep.; 2020; 6, pp. 310-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40726-020-00167-z]
20. Hall, D.M.; Gilbertz, S.J.; Anderson, M.B.; Ward, L.C. Beyond ‘buy-in’: Designing citizen participation in water planning as research. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 133, pp. 725-734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.170]
21. Étienne, J.; Wendeln, M. Compliance theories. Rev. Française De Sci. Polit.; 2010; 60, 139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rfspe.602.0139]
22. Markowitz, K.J.; Gerardu, J.J.A. The Importance of the Judiciary in Environmental Compliance the Importance of the Judiciary in Environmental Compliance and Enforcement and Enforcement Recommended Citation Recommended Citation the Importance of the Judiciary in Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. 2012; Available online: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr (accessed on 13 January 2023).
23. Winter, S.C.; May, P.J. Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations. J. Policy Anal. Manag.; 2001; 20, pp. 675-698. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pam.1023]
24. Mokhtar, Z.; Idris, S.H.; Kenway, S.; Pikaar, I. Analysing the Regulatory Mechanisms of River Pollution in Malaysia. Int. J.Bus. Econ. Law; 2024; 31, 1.Available online: https://ijbel.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IJBEL31.ISU-1_214.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2024).
25. Tirabeni, L.; De Bernardi, P.; Forliano, C.; Franco, M. How can organisations and business models lead to a more sustainable society? A framework from a systematic review of the industry 4.0. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 6363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11226363]
26. Arslan, E. Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Research. Pamukkale Univ. J. Social. Sci. Inst.; 2022; 12, pp. 1178-1195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1116878]
27. Malterud, K.; Siersma, V.D.; Guassora, A.D. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual. Health Res.; 2016; 26, pp. 1753-1760. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613970]
28. Coates, W.C.; Jordan, J.; Clarke, S.O. A practical guide for conducting qualitative research in medical education: Part 2—Coding and thematic analysis. AEM Educ. Train.; 2021; 5, e10645. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10645]
29. Zittoun, P. Interviewing in Public Administration. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1445]
30. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Conceptual and Design Thinking for Thematic Analysis. Qual. Psychol.; 2021; 9, pp. 3-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196]
31. Lochmiller, C.R. Conducting thematic analysis with qualitative data. Qual. Report.; 2021; 26, pp. 2029-2044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008]
32. Anderson, C.; Henry, M. ‘Listen and let it flow’: A researcher and participant reflect on the qualitative research experience. Qual. Report.; 2020; 24, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.3673]
33. Zhang, D.; Tong, Z.; Li, Y. The role of cash holding towards cleaner production in China’s manufacturing sectors: A financial constraint perspective. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 245, 118875. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118875]
34. Mumbi, A.W.; Watanabe, T. Cost Estimations of Water Pollution for the Adoption of Suitable Water Treatment Technology. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 649. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14020649]
35. Wilkinson, J.L.; Boxall, A.B.; Kolpin, D.W.; Leung, K.M.; Lai, R.W.; Galbán-Malagón, C.; Adell, A.D.; Mondon, J.; Metian, M.; Marchant, R.A. et al. Pharmaceutical pollution of the world’s rivers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2022; 119, e2113947119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113947119]
36. Wang, Q.; Hao, D.; Li, F.; Guan, X.; Chen, P. Development of a new framework to identify pathways from socioeconomic development to environmental pollution. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 253, 119962. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119962]
37. Khan, W.A.; Ali, S.; Shah, S.A. Water Pollution: Sources and Its Impact on Human Health, Control and Managing. J. Int. Coop. Dev.; 2022; 5, 69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36941/jicd-2022-0005]
38. Wang, H.; Wang, J.; Bo, G.; Wu, S.; Luo, L. Degradation of pollutants in polluted river water using Ti/IrO2–Ta2O5 coating electrode and evaluation of electrode characteristics. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 273, 123019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123019]
39. Singh, A.; Pal, D.B.; Mohammad, A.; Alhazmi, A.; Haque, S.; Yoon, T.; Srivastava, N.; Gupta, V.K. Biological remediation technologies for dyes and heavy metals in wastewater treatment: New insight. Bioresour. Technol.; 2022; 343, 126154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126154] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34673196]
40. Barceló, D.; Žonja, B.; Ginebreda, A. Toxicity tests in wastewater and drinking water treatment processes: A complementary assessment tool to be on your radar. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.; 2020; 8, 104262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104262]
41. Iloms, E.; Ololade, O.O.; Ogola, H.J.O.; Selvarajan, R. Investigating Industrial Effluent Impact on Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant in Vaal, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 1096. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17031096] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32050467]
42. Lu, Q.; Bai, J.; Zhang, G.; Wu, J. Effects of coastal reclamation history on heavy metals in different types of wetland soils in the Pearl River Delta: Levels, sources and ecological risks. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 272, 122668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122668]
43. Strokal, M.; Kahil, T.; Wada, Y.; Albiac, J.; Bai, Z.; Ermolieva, T.; Langan, S.; Ma, L.; Oenema, O.; Wagner, F. et al. Cost-effective management of coastal eutrophication: A case study for the yangtze river basin. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2020; 154, 104635. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104635]
44. Mukherjee, M.; Chatterjee, R.; Khanna, B.K.; Dhillon, P.P.S.; Kumar, A.; Bajwa, S.; Prakash, A.; Shaw, R. Ecosystem-centric business continuity planning (eco-centric BCP): A post COVID19 new normal. Progress. Disaster Sci.; 2020; 7, 100117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100117]
45. Xue, Y.; Wang, G. Analyzing the evolution of cooperation among different parties in river water environment comprehensive treatment public-private partnership projects of China. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 270, 121118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121118]
46. Wang, Y.; Wei, H.; Wang, Y.; Peng, C.; Dai, J. Chinese industrial water pollution and the prevention trends: An assessment based on environmental complaint reporting system (ECRS). Alex. Eng. J.; 2021; 60, pp. 5803-5812. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.04.015]
47. Hasan, H.; Parker, A.; Whither regulation, S.J.T. Whither regulation, risk and water safety plans? Case studies from Malaysia and from England and Wales. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 755, 142868. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142868] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33348485]
48. Rahman, H.A. Water Issues in Malaysia. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci.; 2021; 11, pp. 860-875. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v11-i8/10783]
49. Gani, A.; Scrimgeour, F. Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework. Econ. Model.; 2014; 42, pp. 363-372. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.011]
50. Malik, S.; Kishore, S.; Prasad, S.; Shah, M.P. A comprehensive review on emerging trends in industrial wastewater research. J. Basic Microbiol.; 2022; 62, pp. 296-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jobm.202100554]
51. Ajiboye, T.O.; Oyewo, O.A.; Onwudiwe, D.C. Simultaneous removal of organics and heavy metals from industrial wastewater: A review. Chemosphere; 2021; 262, 128379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128379]
52. Ketlhoilwe, M.J. Building Community Resilience Through Environmental Education: A Local Response to Climate Change. Research Anthology on Environmental and Societal Impacts of Climate Change; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; Volume 1, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3686-8.ch001]
53. Yue, L.; Ye, M.; Chen, Q. The Impact of Partnerships and Information Sharing on Corporate Sustainable Performance: A Mediation Model Moderated by Government Support. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 942279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942279]
54. Hill, D.T.; Petroni, M.; Collins, M.B. United States federal contracting and pollution prevention: How award type and facility characteristics affect adoption of source reduction techniques in four manufacturing sectors. Environ. Res. Infrastruct. Sustain.; 2021; 1, 025006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ac1161]
55. GRAY, W.; Shadbegian, R. Economics of Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.444]
56. Nawawi, M.N.B.; Samsudin, H.B.; Saputra, J.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Kot, S. The Effect of Formal and Informal Regulations on Industrial Effluents and Firm Compliance Behavior in Malaysia. Prod. Eng. Arch.; 2022; 28, pp. 193-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30657/pea.2022.28.23]
57. Zhang, M.; Sun, R.; Wang, W. Study on the effect of public participation on air pollution control based on China’s Provincial level data. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2021; 23, pp. 12814-12827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01186-y]
58. Shi, W.; Wu, Y.; Sun, X.; Gu, X.; Ji, R.; Li, M. Environmental Governance of Western Europe and Its Enlightenment to China: In Context to Rhine Basin and the Yangtze River Basin. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.; 2021; 106, pp. 819-824. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00128-021-03198-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33779774]
59. Kaufman, D.E.; Shenk, G.W.; Bhatt, G.; Asplen, K.W.; Devereux, O.H.; Rigelman, J.R.; Ellis, J.H.; Hobbs, B.F.; Bosch, D.J. Supporting cost-effective watershed management strategies for Chesapeake Bay using a modeling and optimization framework. Environ. Model. Softw.; 2021; 144, 105141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105141]
60. Jaeger, B.; Upadhyay, A. Understanding barriers to circular economy: Cases from the manufacturing industry. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag.; 2020; 33, pp. 729-745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2019-0047]
61. Singh, S.; Sukla, L.B.; Goyal, S.K. Mine waste & circular economy. Mater. Today Proc.; 2020; 30, pp. 332-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.01.616]
62. Guerra-Rodríguez, S.; Oulego, P.; Rodríguez, E.; Singh, D.N.; Rodríguez-Chueca, J. Towards the implementation of circular economy in the wastewater sector: Challenges and opportunities. Water; 2020; 12, 1431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w12051431]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Kenway, Steven 2 ; Irdayanti Mat Nashir 3 1 School of Chemical Engineering, Australian Centre for Water and Environmental Biotechnology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
2 School of Chemical Engineering, Australian Centre for Water and Environmental Biotechnology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
3 Department of Engineering Technology, Faculty of Technical and Vocational, Research Management Information Centre, Sultan Idris Education University (UPSI), Tanjung Malim 35900, Malaysia;