Identifying and Prioritizing the Components of Circular Accounting: A Qualitative Study Based on Systematic Content Analysis

The expansion of the circular economy has increased the need to transform accounting systems and identify the components required to support decision-making and reporting related to efficient resource utilization, waste reduction, and environmental performance. Despite the growing body of research on circular accounting, its constituent components and dimensions have been addressed in a fragmented manner across different studies, highlighting the need to identify and integrate these components. The present study aimed to identify, categorize, and prioritize the components of circular accounting. In terms of purpose, the study was applied, and in terms of methodology, it employed a qualitative, descriptive–analytical approach. To collect the data, scientific publications and texts related to circular accounting, the circular economy, sustainability, environmental accounting, and material flow management were systematically reviewed. During the analytical stage, conventional qualitative content analysis was used to extract relevant concepts from the texts, code them, and organize them into categories and subcomponents based on conceptual similarity. Through the process of analyzing and integrating the codes, three main categories were identified: dynamic capabilities of circular accounting, material flows in the circular economy, and institutional–environmental drivers and barriers. Subsequently, 12 subcomponents were extracted and classified: flexibility and reconfiguration; innovation and technology; learning and knowledge development; interaction and accountability; efficient material management and consumption; life cycle and environmental traceability; supply chain and resource optimization; policymakers and regulations; infrastructure and information technology; culture, education, and media; economic incentives and market pressure; and organizational and coordination barriers. To prioritize the main categories, the frequency of the extracted codes was used as the prioritization criterion. The results showed that institutional–environmental drivers and barriers, with 29 codes accounting for 45.2% of the total, had the highest frequency, followed by the dynamic capabilities of circular accounting, with 22 codes and a 34.3% share, and material flows in the circular economy, with 13 codes and a 20.3% share. The findings indicate that the formation and development of circular accounting depend not only on internal accounting capabilities but also on institutional and environmental factors, technological infrastructure, policies and regulations, culture, and coordination among stakeholders. The findings of this study can provide a basis for developing a conceptual framework and designing measurement instruments for circular accounting in future studies.