ABSTRACT
This paper aims to provide a model to measure the circular economy in businesses from an environmental accounting approach. The range of circular activities and the intensity with which companies implement them are analysed to increase the understanding of the relationship between the implementation of circular economy in firms and their different environmental management accounting and reporting practices.
The study is developed through an empirical analysis based on a survey addressed to a sample of Spanish companies and designed to analyse different environmental accounting practices and measure the circular economy-related activities introduced by companies to close the material loops in processes. Main results indicate that circular economy activities are generally introduced by companies progressively, without clearly responding to common patterns for the introduction of the different circular principles and activities. A moderate correlation is observed between companies' level of circular economy and their environmental management accounting practices, with a more significant correlation for a higher number of circular activities, particularly for firms that implement environmental management systems and have higher levels of transparency and sustainability information policies.
Although companies are progressively adopting circular activities, the lack of specific indicators limits their internal measurement. Consequently, the information provided by organisations about the closing of material loops remains sporadic. The results highlight the need for built-in specific metrics to deploy environmental accounting practices in circular economy models.
©2023 ASEPUC. Published by EDITUM - Universidad de Murcia. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords: Circular economy Environmental Accounting Sustainability report Reporting
RESUMEN
Este trabajo presenta un modelo para medir la economía circular en las empresas desde un enfoque de contabilidad medioambiental. Se analizan tanto el rango de actividades circulares como la intensidad con la que son implementadas para contribuir al conocimiento de la relación entre la introducción de la economía circular en las empresas y sus prácticas de contabilidad e información de gestión medioambiental.
El estudio se desarrolla a través de un análisis empírico llevado a cabo a través de una encuesta dirigida a una muestra de empresas españolas diseñada para analizar las prácticas de contabilidad e información medioambiental y de medición de las actividades relacionadas con la economía circular introducidas por las empresas en sus procesos de cierre de círculos de materiales. Los principales resultados obtenidos indican que las actividades de economía circular son generalmente introducidas por las empresas progesivamente, sin responder de forma clara a paulas relacionadas con los distintos principios y actividades circulares. Se observa una correlación moderada entre el nivel de circularidad de las empresas y sus prácticas de contabilidad de gestión medioambiental, siendo la correlación mayor a mayor número de actividades, especialmente en lo que concierne a la implementación de sistemas de gestión ambiental o el desarrollo de políticas de transparencia y de información de sostenibilidad.
A pesar de que las empresas estén adoptando progresivamente actividades circulares, la falta de indicadores específicos limita la medición interna de la economía circular por parte de las empresas. Por consiguiente, la información proporcionada por las organizaciones acerca del cierre de círculos sigue siendo esporádica. Los resultados ponen de manifiesto la necesidad de métricas integradas específicas para el despliegue de prácticas de contabildiad medioambiental para modelos de economía circular.
©2023 ASEPUC. Publicado por EDITUM - Universidad de Murcia. Este es un artículo Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Palabras clave: Economía circular Contabilidad medioambiental Memoria de sostenibilidad Elaboración de informes
(ProQuest: ... denotes formula omitted.)
1. Introduction
There is an urgent need to reduce the climate and environmental impact of both production and consumption, with the ultimate aim of reaching carbon neutrality and a fully circular economy (CE). Businesses introduce climate-friendly and sustainable products and processes in various sectors, including different activities related to the CE. In this scenario, different perspectives recognise the value of the CE as an alternative model to the linear one and as a path towards a low-carbon emission and zero-waste economy based on the convergence of economic and environmental principles (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015a, 2015b; European Commission, 2015, 2020).
In summary, the CE seeks an efficient flow of resources - materials, energy, water, information- that conserves them in the productive cycle for as long as possible, creating circular loops in which resources are used repeatedly (Aranda-Usón et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2006). A CE model applies principles like reduce, reuse, recycle (3R), allowing for added value and utility of products and materials to be maintained as long as possible, favouring waste minimisation (Aranda-Usón et al., 2018; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015a; Scarpellini et al., 2019).
From a micro-level perspective, the adoption of the CE involves changes in environmental management and that it needs the progressive introduction of specific indicators and measurement practices that reflect circularity for reporting and corporate social responsibility (CSR). In a circular model, commercial links with local companies become closer, stable relationships with suppliers and customers are encouraged, and by-products and waste that turn into resources for other firms (in a sort of symbiotic relationship) need to be priced (Daddi et al., 2017).
In this context, the interest of scholars in the CE models at a micro-level has increased in recent years (Katz Gerro & López Sintas, 2019; Khan et al., 2020; Lieder & Rashid, 2016; Stewart & Niero, 2018). Some authors have analysed the adoption of CE-related activities by firms (Aranda-Usón et al., 2019; Aranda-Usón et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2020; Pauliuk, 2018), the introduction of circular business models (Bocken et al., 2017; Linder & Williander, 2017; Witjes & Lozano, 2016) and the measurement of the CE in specific products and processes (Elia et al., 2017; Niero & Kalbar, 2019; Ormazabal et al., 2016). However, the study of the CE's accounting implications for businesses is still in an incipient stage of development, and the measurement of the scope of the CE from an environmental accounting perspective is understudied (Rossi et al., 2020; Scarpellini et al., 2020).
Among the studies carried out from an accounting perspective in this field, Aranda-Usón et al. (2020) identify a set of activities that companies are implementing to close the materials loops, to increase the use of recycled materials avoiding the consumption of raw materials, or decrease the consumption of carbon-based energy by using renewable energy. Impacts of a business's CE from an environmental management accounting and reporting (EMAR) perspective have been analysed by Scarpellini et al. (2019), who define and measure the internal capabilities of firms related to the introduction of the CE in organisations. However, despite the interesting contribution of these authors, previous studies do not address how firms' accounting practices are related to introducing a circular model.
Other studies have approached this issue from another nearby related field, such as the eco-innovation (Ferreira et al., 2010; Lopez-Valeiras et al., 2015; Marco et al., 2019; Scarpellini et al., 2020); the cleaner production (Schaltegger et al., 2008); or from the climate change perspective or the carbon accounting (Marco-Fondevila et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2018; Schaltegger et al., 2016). However, to the best of our knowledge, previous studies are not focused on EMAR applied by firms to introduce the CE's principles, and this study attempts to fill this gap in the literature.
Therefore, the main goal of this study is to know the level of implementation of CE in businesses and analyse the influence of the related EMAR practices. To this end, we define and measure CE-related activities' adoption to deepen the analysis of the relationship between the introduction of CE in firms and their primary environmental accounting practices. To achieve the objectives of our study, we explore CE-related activities and their EMAR practices in a sample of Spanish companies from a double theoretical perspective: the Institutional theory and the resource-based view framework.
In summary, this manuscript is organised as follows: after this introduction and the background of the study, the third section describes the sample and the methodology; the fourth section shows and discusses results, and the final section summarises the main conclusions.
2. Background
2.1. The CE in businesses and the internal measurement
The internal measurement of sustainability from a CE perspective is an underdeveloped field of study. Therefore, at the first stage, this section analyses the previous literature focused on the internal management of the CE-related activities adopted by firms within the environmental accounting framework to contribute to an understudied topic at a microlevel.
In recent years, some authors have analysed and classified different CE measurement systems and indicators in organisations. Urbinati et al. (2017) use the adoption of CE principles by business models as a unit of analysis and propose a systematic approach to measuring since the number of contributions to the field is still small. Linder et al. (2017) analyse the incentives that can lead organisations to strive for high circularity values. Rigamonti et al. (2017) argue for applying LCA methodology, which must be interpreted from a CE perspective to guarantee the consistency and robustness of results; other authors use this methodology to measure circular and symbiotic processes (Daddi et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, a CE is a complex model related to economic, environmental and social development issues (Geng et al., 2012), and its complexity implies using multidimensional indicators that can express the principles of CE and sustainability (Rossi et al., 2020). It has been argued that the relationship between an organisation's field of activity and the measurement of CE plays a crucial role in this issue because CE is a precondition for good performance (Aranda-Usón et al., 2018, 2019, 2020; Franco, 2017; Lieder & Rashid, 2016). In this sense, each organisation needs to adapt CE indicators to its specifications and standards, making it challenging to compare CE measurements from different organisations, processes and sectors (Su et al., 2013).
Su et al. (2013) and Huysman et al. (2017) apply a circular performance indicator to different approaches to waste management, and Franklin-Johnson et al. (2016) apply a 'longevity indicator' to measure the length of time during which a material or production system is retained. Lieder & Rashid (2016) present a general framework for CE from a threefold perspective – environmental impact, economic profit and social benefit – in combination with the organisations' business models. Linder & Williander (2017) assess empirically the influence of a series of factors that hamper the implementation of CE business models and establish a typology of customers and customer needs; Ormazabal et al. (2018) evaluate the introduction of EC in Spanish SMEs.
In this framework, Elia et al. (2017) also present a taxonomy of existing indicators to measure CE at the micro-level in the industrial and service sectors. Based on the idea of adapting existing indicators and characterising loop-closing activities, Aranda-Usón et al. (2020) propose the integrated measurement of CE from different perspectives, suggesting that this will contribute to a better understanding of the progressive adoption of CE at the micro-level. These authors define specific interdependent CE actions according to how difficult they are to implement, thus increasing the likelihood that they will adopt SMEs (Katz Gerro & López Sintas, 2019). They also analyse the conceptualisation of CE activities as in line with other authors (Lerner et al., 2013; Zamfir et al., 2017).
However, the literature review reveals that internal processes leading to adopting the CE principles are underexplored. The indicators proposed to date are not providing specific information for the environmental accounting or the actual cost of the material loop-closing, especially if we consider that some CE principles are not exclusively related to profitability criteria, as Azevedo et al. (2017) argued. Thus, it seems relevant to introduce CE-specific accounting criteria based on these arguments, as an under-explored research topic, following an approach that has already been applied to material flow and efficiency (Haupt et al., 2017). In fact, material flow cost accounting (MFCA) methodologies have been adapted to the CE (Zhou et al., 2017), and the integrated systems are applied to evaluate CE based on material flow or to assess life-cycles in sectorial studies (Pauliuk, 2018).
Kristensen & Mosgaard (2020) propose different indicators to measure recycling, remanufacture, disassembly, the extension of life-cycle, or integral waste management and process efficiency. Rossi et al. (2020) analyse accountingrelated practices connected with their proposed indicators to measure the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic and social) concerning CE business models. The social value of the CE is another impact analysed through employment (Scarpellini, 2021; Zhao et al., 2017), with an emphasis on the introduction of CE principles and internal accounting. In addition, the measurement of the CE has to include the social dimension because to achieve an environment free of pollution, and the whole community has to be involved in the circular values (Kornberger & Carter, 2010).
Seminal contributions in this area include the approach proposed by Stewart and Niero (2018) to the CE accounting practices by analysing CSR reports qualitatively and addressing a wide range of circular activities undertaken by firms. However, their study does not present activity-specific indicators to measure the scope of CE adopted by businesses. In contrast, Scarpellini et al. (2019) propose an advanced accounting capabilities-measuring model for introducing the CE principles. In summary, these authors analyse the different environmental capabilities that organisations apply to resources to introduce CE, including environmental management systems, corporate social responsibility, sustainability reports, and accountability and other environmental accounting practices. Despite these interesting contributions, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has addressed the relationship between environmental accounting practices and the CE practices adopted by organisations.
Based on the literature review and these considerations, this study aims to increase our understanding of CE's introduction and examine its relationship with environmental accounting practices introduced in the following subsection.
2.2. Environmental accounting and the CE
In the last decades, the EMAR has become an essential instrument for correctly implementing environmental management policies and has ultimately led to more socially responsible behaviours, and several authors have been paid substantial research attention to CSR (Deegan, 2017; Gray et al., 2018; Gray et al., 2009; Schaltegger & Burritt, 2017). The literature has pointed out existing EMAR practices as a critical factor for firm sustainability (Deegan, 2014; Patten & Shin, 2019; Unerman et al., 2010), and, recently, some authors have approached this topic from a CE perspective (ArandaUsón et al., 2020).
In recent years, increasing environmental awareness has led organisations to adopt EMAR demonstrating that it is a valuable tool to help implement CE changes. Implementing a CE in firms requires significant managerial and operational changes, leading to new expenses and investments. Thus, activities should be adequately accounted for redesigning products and processes that make more efficient use of resources, recycling or reusing materials and products. Notably, the EMAR allows firms to identify, classify and assign environmental-related costs, which turns it into an important decision-making tool (Adams, 2002; Burritt & Saka, 2006; Contrafatto & Burns, 2013; Cullen & Whelan, 2006; Ferreira et al., 2010; Schaltegger & Csutora, 2012). These practices improve both firms and products (Gibson & Martin, 2004). In contrast to EMAR, conventional management accounting and management control methods incorporate environmental costs to indirect manufacturing costs (Burritt, Hahn, & Schaltegger, 2002), which blurs the firms' environmental practices decision-makers (Burritt, 2004).
The analysis of the EMAR in a CE context is of great interest to introduce new topics of research related to the identification and quantification of costs (Birkin, 2001); life-cycle management and its costs (Bennett & James, 1998; Bierer et al., 2015; Qian & Burritt, 2011; Schaltegger & Burritt, 2010), and the adoption of environmental accounting processes in a circular business model (Marco-Fondevila et al., 2020; Scarpellini et al., 2020).
Similarly, reporting the CE-related activities is essential to maintain the necessary transparency for all policies that purport to be sustainable and socially responsible. Thus, it can b expected that environmental accounting techniques, including management-related ones, will play a relevant role in implementing CE practices in organisations in the short term. Previous studies related to sustainability performance and financial performance indicators (Moneva & Ortas, 2010; Orlitzky et al., 2003) demonstrated the link between environmental reporting techniques and the implementation of sustainable management systems (Adams, 2004; Clarkson et al., 2008). A study developed before the CE was widely introduced. Christ & Burritt (2015) analysed the value of MFCA in terms of flows and costs and concluded that there is no theoretical basis for using this tool, and they argue that its value is limited to large manufacturing firms.
Our research is not specifically theory-driven. However, we approach the relationship between the businesses' circular scope and their EMAR practices as a first theoretical attempt at this topic that is still under development.
Recent studies analyse aspects of accounting in the introduction of CE in organisations from perspectives inspired by resource-based view theory (RBV) and by the evolution of dynamic capabilities (Latan et al., 2018; Scarpellini et al., 2020). Based on this theoretical framework, Aranda-Usón et al. (2019) define and measure different financial resources applied to circular activities and study how they can help firms achieve higher circularity levels. These authors analyse a sample of Spanish companies and find that the availability of funds, the quality of the firms' financial resources and public subsidies encourage CE practices. Portillo-Tarragona et al. (2018) and Scarpellini et al. (2020) analyse environmental management systems, including some variables of EMAR used in eco-innovation and CE, applying the dynamic capabilities theoretical framework. Based on this analysis, they define and measure environmental management systems (EMS) and other management and accounting techniques to implement CE in businesses.
The theoretical approach proposed by the RBV can be considered the most appropriate for the internal measurement of resources and capabilities applied by companies to the adoption of different CE-related activities. Using this theoretical approach, Aranda-Usón et al. (2020) divide the main CE activities into four levels and argue that circular economyrelated activities are being introduced progressively. However, few studies have analysed the introduction of CE from the point of view of internal accounting and reporting using the RBV theoretical framework, and this study aims to close this gap.
From another perspective, the institutional theory could explain the organisations' behaviour in a CE context and the related application of different environmental accounting tools (Acerete et al., 2019; Campbell, 2007). In this theoretical framework, DiMaggio & Powell (1983) and Acerete et al. (2019) claim that coercive and normative mechanisms cannot be avoided due to the organisation's authority that promotes them. These mechanisms include legal regulations, technical requirements and behaviour codes promoted by educational bodies (universities), professional bodies, or society (Scott, 1995, 2014). Similarly, cultural-mimetic mechanisms can be argued to shape the behaviour of an organisation through common beliefs, isomorphism, a shared operational logic, and national or sector-specific cultures (Scott, 2014).
Notably, some authors, such as Acerete et al. (2019, 2011), argue that EMAR is determined by institutional mechanisms, such as environmental regulation or pro-environmental policies can lead to different behaviours towards environmental disclosure (Acerete et al., 2011, 2019; Archel, 2003; Criado-Jiménez et al., 2008; Llena et al., 2007). Thus, if we consider that these mechanisms could apply to the recent proposals, regulations and operations developed in a circular model, the institutional theory could partially explain the implementation of EMAR practices to measure the environmental performance (Christ & Burritt, 2013; Ferreira et al., 2010; Latan et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2017) and the reporting in a circular scenario (Marco-Fondevila et al., 2020). An excellent environmental performance achieved through the implementation of environmental management systems favours applying the principles of circularity in business activities (Kristensen & Mosgaard, 2020; Marrucci, 2019; Scarpellini et al., 2020). In addition, the indicators presented emphasise the role to be played by environmental management accounting in terms of both management and reporting to stakeholders.
Considering these premises, we study in detail the implementation of EMAR practices from the Institutional theory perspective and the progressive introduction of circular activities in firms using the RBV. Figure 1 explains the model that is developed in the following sections.
In summary, our research question is aimed at covering the existing gap regarding the interrelation between EMAR practices and the implementation of CE in company operations:
RQ- To what extent is there a relationship between the scope of a firm's CE practices and its environmental accounting and reporting?
The following section addresses the empirical methodology proposed to answer the main research question.
3. Methodology
The empirical analysis is based on a survey undertaken with a sample of firms interested in eco-innovation, ecodesign and the CE, which took part in a collaborative research project in northeast Spain. The underlying idea was that disseminating environmental information among agents can help promote products, processes, and new management practices and the use of more environmentally-friendly resources and energy (Scarpellini & Romeo, 1999).
Firms that integrate the sample were selected using the SABI database1 with 50 employees or more, considering that size increases the likelihood of adopting cleaner production technologies (Rehfeld et al., 2007; Triguero et al., 2014; Wagner, 2007). These firms were selected because they operate in the sectors defined in the so-called 'BREFs' ("Best Available Techniques")2 . Specifically, selected sectors include the industrial, transport and logistics, and waste sectors, whose NACE 09 codes correspond to those of the extractive industry (05-09), the manufacturing industry (10-33), electricity, gas, steam, and air-conditioning supply (35), water supply, sewerage, waste management, and remediation activities (36-39), and transportation and storage (49-53). Although some companies potentially interested in CE-related activities could be excluded from this selection, the sample is considered as representative in line with previous studies (Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2016; Rivera-Torres et al., 2015; Scarpellini et al., 2017). Firms that operate in these sectors are under more significant pressure than others to act proenvironmentally and are therefore especially keen to improve their environmental performance and introduce eco-design and CE practices (Ogunmakinde, 2019).
Approximately 1,000 firms met the criteria. They were contacted by email to be informed of the purpose of the study, and they received a survey. A total of 110 responses were forthcoming, 89 of which were regarded as valid for the study. The distribution of these firms by sector is presented in Table 1.
Although the number of observations is limited, it is worth noting that the survey was not anonymous, and its Tax Code identified each firm. This data was intended to ensure the firms' commitment to the quality of the answers and make it possible to cross the survey results with the firms' characteristics and economic and financial information. The survey was divided into three sections, and the main one dealt with activities directly or indirectly related to closing material loops from a CE perspective. The questions were designed to gather information about implementing specific actions related to the CE (Table 2).
Three constructs have been designed to measure both the level of circularity (CEI and CEInt) and the EMAR practices (EMAcc) and their relationship (Figure 1) to answer the research question,
The eleven CE-related activities selected to address the RQ are used to calculate the 'Index of CE-related activities' (CEI), which specifies the activities introduced by each firm in terms of CE. In addition, the percentage is used to measure the activities' intensity (Table 2) to build the 'Index of CE-related activities intensity' (CEInt), transforming the percentage intervals into a Likert scale as follows:
Index of CE-related activities": ...
Xi is activity i of CE; values (0,1)
Index of CE-related activities intensity:
...
pi is the weight of each activity measured by the intensity scale.
For EMAR practices, previous studies have shown that the level of environmental or sustainability practices and environmental and sustainability accounting are often related (Llena Macarulla, 2008; Maas et al., 2016; Yakhou & Dorweiler, 2004). Thus, in this study, transparency practices and environmental management, accounting and reporting are measured using the EMAR-related variables listed in Table 3 and based on the literature (Acerete et al., 2011, 2019; Llena et al., 2007; Schaltegger et al., 2008). The variables defined in Table 3 integrate the construct 'EMAcc' to measuring the level of implementation of EMAR practices in companies as follows:
...
EMARi Environmental Management Accounting and Reporting activity i; values (0,1)
The measurement, evaluation, analysis and relationship between the constructs are evaluated in the following section. The data was subject to qualitative statistic-descriptive analysis. First, a descriptive analysis of the constructs is carried out independently, and then the statistical and graphic test is carried out to analyse their possible relationships.
The SPSS statistical package has been used to perform the different quantitative analyses. In addition, we use the tools of spreadsheet of Microsoft Excel to elaborate the different figures and descriptive analyses.
4. Main results and discussion
The preliminary descriptive results indicate that all firms, except seven, have undertaken at least one of the eleven CErelated activities (Table 5), albeit without following a precise pattern to adopt CE principles. More than half the firms in the sample have undertaken some of the activities, such as energy efficiency (77.5 %) and eco-innovation (60.7 %). In contrast, the energy valorisation of waste, internal recycling, the exploitation of renewable energy sources or the industrial symbiosis has been undertaken by less than 25 % of the sample (Table 4).
Eco-design-related actions (activities 4-8) have been implemented by between 40 and 50% of the sample, over 60% of firms undertake four or more activities, and nearly 50% five or more (Table 5). In contrast, 25% of the firms in the sample implement three or fewer CE activities. In addition, although none of the firms in the sample undertakes all listed actions, around 30% undertake seven or more.
The results indicate that firms adopt a fair number of activities without a typical pattern, in line with previous outcomes achieved by Aranda-Usón et al. (2020). This result confirms that the adoption of CE-related principles is still in an incipient stage in businesses, despite Spanish and European authorities' initiatives (European Commission, 2018a; European Parliament, 2015; Government, 2020). In the current situation, firms that have already taken measures to protect the environment must take another step to adopt the broader concept of CE.
The CEInt construct was used to assess the level of intensity with which CE activities were being implemented. Table 4 shows the average intensity values (on a scale from 0 to 5). The intensity values yielded by the sample are, as a rule, fairly low (<1); energy efficiency yields the highest value with 1.59, followed by eco-design multifunction (0.99), dematerialisation (0.96) and eco-design durability (0.91); energy valorisation of waste and exploitation of renewable energy yield the lowest intensity values (<0.3), probably as a result of the legal framework currently in force in Spain (Aranda-Usón et al., 2018; Gimeno et al., 2018).
The construct related to the accounting practices (Table 6) illustrates that the level of EMAR is generally low in the sample, with an average value of the number of items presented of 3.39 (48.47%).
Specifically, EMAR-related items are observed in less than 60% of the sample (Figure 2). Implementation of environmental management systems (EMS) yields the highest value with 64.04%, followed by the preparation of sustainability reports (MEM), with 55.06%, and public transparency and accountability policies (TRANSP) with 50.56%. Concerning financial-accounting issues, such as the itemisations of environmental costs, provisions and investments are observed in 52 firms (58.43%).
In response to the RQ, possible relationships between the CE-related activities and the EMAR practices and the intensity of this relationship were calculated using Student's t (Table 7).
The results of the t-test3 suggest that firms that implement more developed EMAR practices also show a higher range of CE-activities (CEI). The only significant difference observed in the EMAR construct concerns the implementation of circularity practices among firms that publish a transparency policy and CSR report and those that do not (Table 7).
Table 8 presents the Student's t-test for variable CEInt, which reveals the weight of CE practices. These results are similar to those yielded by CEI variables, although in this case, the implementation of EMS seems to have a significant effect on CEInt (Table 8). Therefore, the performance of EMS could favour the development of more CE activities and help the closing of circles. In addition, the obtained results are line with the results obtained by other studies such as those of Portillo-Tarragona et al. (2018) for the interrelation between EMS and eco-innovation; or the analysis developed by Shih et al. (2018) focused on the between EMS with ecoinnovation in circular agri-business.
Figure 3 shows the correlation between CEI and EMAcc. The size of the bubbles reflects the average size of firms in terms of the workforce for each of EMAcc's seven levels, which suggests that larger firms tend to have more developed EMAcc and CEI. These results are similar to previous studies, meaning that size is a significant variable in sustainability practices (Llena et al., 2007; Marco-Fondevila et al., 2018).
It can be argued that the EMAcc and CE index are moderately correlated, which means that companies with a higher EMAcc index tend to undertake more CE-related activities in the application of the RBV framework. Different firms' resources and capabilities favour more circular behaviours, as demonstrated by other authors (Aranda-Usón et al., 2019; Scarpellini et al., 2020). Thus, the firms' size also seems to be a significant variable in circularity. The larger the firm, the greater degree of the CE, although statistical correlation tests in our study do not corroborate this result. Based on these results, we can emphasise the need to continue investigating the relationship between the scope of circularity and the intensity of CE practices, which must be analysed jointly.
As general considerations, the recent enactment of UE directives (European Commission, 2015, 2018b; European Parliament, 2015; Government, 2020), and the adoption by member states of the European Green Deal (European Comission, 2019) could contribute to implementing policies conducive to closing material loops at the micro-level. The progressive implementation of CE practices suggests that regulations could also play an essential role in triggering imitative behaviours among firms operating in similar geographical or economic environments, in line with an Institutional theory framework (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Higgins & LarrinagaGonzález, 2014; Scott, 2014). In addition, the role of specific mediating instruments could be explored to link technical processes for the material loops closing to the CE mobilising capital budgeting decisions (Miller & O'Leary, 2007).
5. Main conclusions
This study increases our understanding of the internal measurement of CE-related activities in firms from an environmental accounting perspective for the use of EMAR practices as tools in a circular model.
Our results present a novel perspective of environmental accounting practices in a CE context based on a double theoretical perspective. This study reveals that incorporating increasingly intensive CE practices is supported by implementing a more significant number of EMAR practices, such as EMS, transparency policies, CSR report disclosure. However, the results indicate that the level of implementation of EMAR practices is still low and is mainly related to financial, environmental accounting and, to a lesser extent, to other environmental management tools from a circular perspective. Therefore, the application of the Institutional theory to this topic needs to be investigated in future studies. Even though some EMAR practices are applied, they are not implemented to meet the targets on non-financial reporting and the CE implementation promoted by the EU and other national and international institutions.
Although this study is not specifically theory-driven, for academics, the institutional mechanisms such as new regulations and norms or mimetic isomorphism seem to explain some accounting practices adopted by firms in a CE model. These considerations also represent an input for policymakers to define specific plans for introducing particular rules for reporting in a CE context at the micro-level.
From another perspective, RBV allows analysing more circular behaviours of companies since resources and capabilities could increase the CE-related activities adoption significantly. Greater levels of implementation of CE and related practices (e.g. EMAR, LCC, MFCA and other tools to measure material flows) at the micro-level is likely to increase the scope of circularity-related accounting, as one of the main contributions of this research.
This paper presents a broader perspective for practitioners than previous studies on CE measurement and its relationship with environmental accounting and reporting. By creating three measuring indices, the relationships between the CE practices and environmental accounting and management can be measured and dimensioned to fill a gap in the literature related to the lack of specific indicators to specifically account for the closing of material loops at a micro-level. In addition, it can be stated that firms should focus on the accounting of internal CE-related activities and then move to adopt environmental accounting practices based on a circular approach.
Future studies would have to consider financial-economic and social variables concerning CE adoption by businesses and their implications in terms of environmental accounting because the introduction in businesses of concepts related to the CE and decoupling will foster the debate about the measurement of monetary value vs physical economy value in the framework of sustainability
Funding
This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under the project PID2019107822RBI00 CIRCULARTAX; and the Regional Government of Aragón under the project LMP159_21 CIRCLEMAPELECBATAR and "Socioeconomy and SustainabilityS3320R" research group.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
aCorresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 9 February 2021
Accepted 9 August 2021
Available online 1 July 2023
JEL classification:
M41
M14
Q56
Códigos JEL:
M41
M14
Q56
https://www.doi.org/10.6018/rcsar.467751 ©2023 ASEPUC. Published by EDITUM - Universidad de Murcia. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0/).
1The sample was designed on the basis of the data displayed in the online database 'Sistema de Análisis de Balances Ibéricos (SABI)'. Madrid, 2014.
2See http://www.prtr-es.es/documentos/documentos-mejorestecnicas-disponibles. (consulted in November 2019).
3 Levene's test for equality of variances validates the t-test.
References
Acerete, B., Gasca, M., & Llena, F. (2019). Analysis of environmental financial reporting in the Spanish toll roads sector. Revista Espanola de Financiacion y Contabilidad, 48(4), 430-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02102412.2019.1591880
Acerete, B., Llena, F., & Moneva, J. M. (2011). Environmental disclosure in financial statements: An analysis of Spanish toll motorway concessionaires. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(7), 377383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.02.005
Adams, C. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(2), 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09513570210418905
Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (Vol. 17). https://doi.org/10. 1108/09513570410567791
Aranda-Usón, A., M. Moneva, J., Portillo-Tarragona, P., & Llena-Macarulla, F. (2018). Measurement of the circular economy in businesses: Impact and implications for regional policies. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 2(1), 187-205. https://doi.org/10.3280/ EFE2018-002010
Aranda-Usón, A., Portillo-Tarragona, P., Marín-Vinuesa, L. M., & Scarpellini, S. (2019). Financial Resources for the Circular Economy: A Perspective from Businesses. Sustainability, 11(888), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11030888
Aranda-Usón, A., Portillo-Tarragona, P., Scarpellini, S., & Llena-Macarulla, F. (2020). The progressive adoption of a circular economy by businesses for cleaner production: An approach from a regional study in Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247(1), 119648. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2019.119648
Archel, P. (2003). Social and Enviromental information reporting of big size Spanish Pirms in the period 1994-1998. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 32(117), 571-601. https://doi.org/10.1080/02102412.2003.10779496
Azevedo, S.G., Godina, R., Matias, J.C. de O., (2017). Proposal of a sustainable circular index for manufacturing companies. Resources, 6, 1–24. https://doi.org/10. 3390/resources604006
Bennett, M., & James, P. (1998). The green bottom line: Management accounting for environmental improvement and business benefit. Management Accounting, 76(10), 20-25. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com/docview/195659067?accountid=28930
Bierer, A., Götze, U., Meynerts, L., & Sygulla, R. (2015). Integrating life cycle costing and life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1289-1301. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.036
Birkin, F. (2001). Capitalism. Environmental Protection, 57, 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.153
Bocken, N. M. P., Miller, K., Weissbrod, I., Holgado, M., & Evans, S. (2017). Business model experimentation for circularity: Driving sustainability in a large international clothing retailer. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 2017(1), 85-122. https://doi.org/10. 3280/EFE2017-001006
Burritt, R., Hahn, T., & Schaltegger, S. (2002). Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental management accounting - Links between business actors and environmental management accounting tool. Australian Accounting Review, 12(2), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1835-2561.2002.tb00202.x
Burritt, R. L. (2004). Environmental management accounting: Roadblocks on the way to the green and pleasant land. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(1), 1332. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.379
Burritt, R. L., & Saka, C. (2006). Environmental management accounting applications and eco-efficiency: case studies from Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(14), 1262-1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2005.08.012
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967.
Christ, K.L., Burritt, R.L., (2015). Material flow cost accounting: A review and agenda for future research. J. Clean. Prod., 108, 1378-1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2014.09.005
Christ, K. L., & Burritt, R. L. (2013). Environmental management accounting: The significance of contingent variables for adoption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 41(1), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012. 10.007
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 33(4-5), 303-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
Contrafatto, M., & Burns, J. (2013). Social and environmental accounting, organisational change and management accounting: A processual view. Management Accounting Research, 24(4), 349-365. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.mar.2013.10.004
Criado-Jiménez, I., Fernández-Chulián, M., Husillos-Carqués, F. J., & Larrinage-González, C. (2008). Compliance with mandatory environmental reporting in financial statements: The case of Spain (2001-2003). Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 245-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-007-9375-7
Cullen, D. D., & Whelan, C. (2006). Environmental management accounting: The state of play. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 4(10), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/ JBER/article/view/2698
Daddi, T., Nucci, B., & Iraldo, F. (2017). Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to measure the environmental benefits of industrial symbiosis in an industrial cluster of SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147(1), 157-164. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.090
Deegan, C. (2014). An overview of legitimacy theory as applied within the social and environmental accounting literature. Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, 248-272.
Deegan, C. (2017). Twenty five years of social and environmental accounting research within Critical Perspectives of Accounting: Hits, misses and ways forward. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 43, 65-87. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cpa.2016.06.005
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). DiMaggio and Powell_1983_The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Elia, V., Gnoni, M. G., & Tornese, F. (2017). Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: A critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2741-2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.196
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015a). Delivering the Circular Economy: A Toolkit for Policymakers. Delivering the Circular Economy: A Toolkit for Policymakers.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015b). Towards a Circular Economy - Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition.
European Comission. The European Green Deal. Communication from the European Commission. COM(2019) 640 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Eruopean Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2019) 640 final g˘ (2019). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvd1c6zh.7
European Commission. (2015). An EU action plan for the circular economy. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - COM(2015) 614 Final. https://doi.org/10. 1017/CBO9781107415324.004
European Commission. (2018a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee snd the Committee of the Regions: A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. COM(2018) 28 Final, SWD(2018)(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est. 7b02368
European Commission. (2018b). Report on Critical Raw Materials and the Circular Economy - SWD(2018) 36 final. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/mmlg2/ Downloads/swd2018-36-part2_en.pdf
European Commission. (2020). The New Circular Economy Action Plan, (09-2020).
European Parliament. (2015). Circular economy package Four legislative proposals on waste.
Ferreira, A., Moulang, C., & Hendro, B. (2010). Environmental management accounting and innovation: an exploratory analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 920-948. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09513571011080180
Franco, M. A. (2017). Circular economy at the micro level: A dynamic view of incumbents' struggles and challenges in the textile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168(1), 833-845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.09.056
Franklin-Johnson, E., Figge, F., & Canning, L. (2016). Resource duration as a managerial indicator for Circular Economy performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 589-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016. 05.023
Garcés-Ayerbe, C., Scarpellini, S., Valero-Gil, J., & RiveraTorres, P. (2016). Proactive environmental strategy development: from laggard to eco-innovative firms. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(7), 1-17. https: //doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2016-0081
Geng, Y., Fu, J., Sarkis, J., & Xue, B. (2012). Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: An evaluation and critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 23(1), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2011.07.005
Gibson, K. C., & Martin, B. A. (2004). Demonstrating value through the use of environmental management accounting. Environmental Quality Management, 13(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20003
Gimeno, J. Á., Llera, E., & Scarpellini, S. (2018). Investment Determinants in Self-Consumption Facilities: Characterisation and Qualitative Analysis in Spain. Energies, 11(8), 2178. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11082178
Government, S. (2020). Estrategia Española de Economía Circular. ESPAÑA CIRCULAR 2030 Por un #FuturoSostenible.
Gray, R., Adams, C., & Owen, D. (2018). Social and environmental accounting. In The Routledge Companion to Critical Accounting (pp. 243-259). https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315775203-14
Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (2009). Some theories for social accounting?: A review essay and a tentative pedagogic categorisation of theorisations around social accounting. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management (Vol. 4). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1108/S14793598(2010)0000004005
Haupt, M., Vadenbo, C., & Hellweg, S. (2017). Do We Have the Right Performance Indicators for the Circular Economy?: Insight into the Swiss Waste Management System. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 615-627. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12506
Higgins, C., & Larrinaga-González, C. (2014). 16 Sustainability reporting. Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, 273.
Huysman, S., De Schaepmeester, J., Ragaert, K., Dewulf, J., & De Meester, S. (2017). Performance indicators for a circular economy: A case study on post-industrial plastic waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120(1), 4654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.013
Katz Gerro, T., & López Sintas, J. (2019). Mapping circular economy activities in the European Union: Patterns of implementation and their correlates in small and mediumsized enterprises. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 485-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2259
Khan, O., Daddi, T., & Iraldo, F. (2020). Microfoundations of dynamic capabilities: Insights from circular economy business cases. Business Strategy and the Environment, (September 2019), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. 2447
Kornberger, M., & Carter, C. (2010). Manufacturing competition: How accounting practices shape strategy making in cities. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(3), 325-349. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09513571011034325
Kristensen, H. S., & Mosgaard, M. A. (2020). A review of micro level indicators for a circular economy - moving away from the three dimensions of sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118531
Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Wamba, S. F., & Shahbaz, M. (2018). Effects of environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management's commitment on corporate environmental performance: The role of environmental management accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.106
Lerner, J., Stern, S., & Nelson, R. R. (2013). Some Features of Research by Economists on Technological Change Foreshadowed by The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. In university of Chicago Press (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited (pp. 3542). Chicago (USA). https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/ 9780226473062.003.0003
Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 115, 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12. 042
Linder, M., Sarasini, S., & van Loon, P. (2017). A Metric for Quantifying Product-Level Circularity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 545-558. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jiec.12552
Linder, M., & Williander, M. (2017). Circular Business Model Innovation: Inherent Uncertainties. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 182-196. https://doi.org/10. 1002/bse.1906
Llena, F., Moneva, J. M., & Hernandez, B. (2007). Environmental disclosures and compulsory accounting standards: The case of Spanish annual reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(January 2006), 50-63. https: //doi.org/10.1002/bse.466
Llena Macarulla, F. (2008). El papel de la contabilidad en la gestión medioambiental de la empresa: propuesta y evidencia empírica. Revista de Contabilidad y Dirección, 7(7), 103-134. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/ servlet/extart?codigo=3127470
Lopez-Valeiras, E., Gomez-Conde, J., & Naranjo-Gil, D. (2015). Sustainable Innovation, Management Accounting and Control Systems, and International Performance. Sustainability, 7(3), 3479-3492. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su7033479
Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., & Crutzen, N. (2016). Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2016.05.008
Marco-Fondevila, M., Llena-Macarulla, F., Callao-Gastón, S., & Jarne-Jarne, J. I. (2020). Are Circular Economy policies actually reaching organisations? Evidence from the largest Spanish companies. Cleaner Production, IN PRESS, 124658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020. 124858
Marco-Fondevila, M., Moneva-Abadía, J. M., & LlenaMacarulla, F. (2020). Accounting for Carbon Footprint Flows in Wine Production Process. Case Study in Spanish Winery. Applied Sciences, 10(23), 8381. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/app10238381
Marco-Fondevila, M., Moneva Abadía, J. M., & Scarpellini, S. (2018). CSR and green economy: Determinants and correlation of firms' sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1492
Marco, M., Moneva, J. M., & Scarpellini, S. (2019). Environmental disclosure and Eco-innovation interrelation . The case of Spanish firms. Spanish Accounting Review, 22(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.6018/rcsar.22.1.354321
Marrucci, L., Daddi, T., & Iraldo, F. (2019). The integration of circular economy with sustainable consumption and production tools: Systematic review and future research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118268
Miller, P., & O'Leary, T. (2007). Mediating instruments and making markets: Capital budgeting, science and the economy. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 32(7-8), 701-734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.003
Moneva, J. M., & Ortas, E. (2010). Corporate environmental and financial performance: a multivariate approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(2), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011020304
Niero, M., & Kalbar, P. P. (2019). Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: A proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140(October 2018), 305-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resconrec.2018.10.002
Ogunmakinde, O. E. (2019). A review of circular economy development models in China, Germany and Japan. Recycling, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ recycling4030027
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis.
Organisation Studies, 24(3), 403-441. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0170840603024003910
Ormazabal, M., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., & Santos, J. (2016). An overview of the circular economy among SMEs in the Basque Country: A multiple case study. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 9(5), 1047-1058. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2065
Ormazabal, M., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Puga-Leal, R., & Jaca, C. (2018). Circular Economy in Spanish SMEs: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018. 03.031
Patten, D. M., & Shin, H. (2019, March). Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal's contributions to corporate social responsibility disclosure research: A review and assessment. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SAMPJ-01-2018-0017
Pauliuk, S. (2018). Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organisations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129(1), 8192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.019
Portillo-Tarragona, P., Scarpellini, S., Moneva, J., Valero-Gil, J., & Aranda-Usón, A. (2018). Classification and Measurement of the Firms' Resources and Capabilities Applied to Eco-Innovation Projects from a Resource-Based View
Perspective. Sustainability, 10(9), 3161. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su10093161 Qian, W., & Burritt, R. (2011). Lease and service for
product life-cycle management: an accounting perspective. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 19(3), 214-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 18347641111169232
Qian, W., Hörisch, J., & Schaltegger, S. (2018). Environmental management accounting and its effects on carbon management and disclosure quality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1608-1619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.092
Rehfeld, K.-M., Rennings, K., & Ziegler, A. (2007). Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: An empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 61(1), 91100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.003
Rigamonti, L., Falbo, A., Zampori, L., & Sala, S. (2017). Supporting a transition towards sustainable circular economy: sensitivity analysis for the interpretation of LCA for the recovery of electric and electronic waste. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(8), 1278-1287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1231-5
Rivera-Torres, P., Garces-Ayerbe, C., Scarpellini, S., & ValeroGil, J. (2015). Pro-Environmental Change and Shortto Mid-Term Economic Performance: The Mediating Effect of Organisational Design Change. Organization & Environment, 28(3), 307-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1086026615603867
Rossi, E., Bertassini, A. C., Ferreira, C. dos S., Neves do Amaral, W. A., & Ometto, A. R. (2020). Circular economy indicators for organisations considering sustainability and business models: Plastic, textile and electro-electronic cases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119137
Scarpellini, S., & Romeo, L. M. (1999). Policies for the setting up of alternative energy systems in European SMEs: a case study. Energy Conversion and Management, 40(15), 1661-1668. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(99) 00059-X
Scarpellini, Sabina. (2021). Social indicators for businesses' circular economy: multi-faceted analysis of employment as an indicator for sustainability reporting. European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy, IN PRESS.
Scarpellini, Sabina, Marín-Vinuesa, L. M., Aranda-Usón, A., & Portillo-Tarragona, P. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and environmental accounting for the circular economy in businesses. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(7), 1129-1158. https://doi.org/10. 1108/SAMPJ-04-2019-0150
Scarpellini, Sabina, Portillo-Tarragona, P., Aranda-Usón, A., & Llena-Macarulla, F. (2019). Definition and measurement of the circular economy's regional impact. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(13), 2211-2237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018. 1537974 Scarpellini, Sabina, Valero-Gil, J., Moneva, J. M., & Andreaus, M. (2020). Environmental management capabilities for a "circular eco-innovation." Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(5), 1850-1864. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bse.2472
Scarpellini, Sabina, Valero-Gil, J., Rivera-Torres, P., & GarcésAyerbe, C. (2017). Analysis of the generation of economic results in the different phases of the pro-environmental change process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 14731481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.114
Schaltegger, S, & Burritt, R. (2017). Contemporary environmental accounting: issues, concepts and practice.
Schaltegger, Stefan, Bennett, M., Burritt, R. L., & Jasch, C. (2008). Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) as a Support for Cleaner Production. In Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production (pp. 3-26). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8913-8_1
Schaltegger, Stefan, & Burritt, R. L. (2010). Sustainability accounting for companies: Catchphrase or decision support for business leaders? Journal of World Business, 45(4), 375-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.002
Schaltegger, Stefan, & Csutora, M. (2012). Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.024
Schaltegger, Stefan, Zvezdov, D., Etxeberria, I. A., Csutora, M., & Günther, E. (2016). Corporate carbon and climate accounting. Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9 Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organisations. Foundations for organisational science. London: A Sage Publication Series.
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organisations: ideas, interests and identities. Sage. https://doi.org/10.3917/ mana.202.0204
Shih, D. H., Lu, C. M., Lee, C. H., Cai, S. Y., Wu, K. J., & Tseng, M. L. (2018). Eco-innovation in circular agribusiness. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su10041140
Stewart, R., & Niero, M. (2018). Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: A review of corporate sustainability reports in the fastmoving consumer goods sector. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 10051022. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2048
Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in China: Moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42(1), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012. 11.020
Triguero, A., Moreno-Mondéjar, L., & Davia, M. A. (2014). The influence of energy prices on adoption of clean technologies and recycling: Evidence from European SMEs. Energy Economics, 46, 246-257. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.09.020
Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O'Dwyer, B. (2010). Sustainability accounting and accountability. Sustainability Accounting and Accountability. Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780203815281
Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., & Chiesa, V. (2017). Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168(1), 487-498. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.047
Wagner, M. (2007). On the relationship between environmental management, environmental innovation and patenting: Evidence from German manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 36(10), 1587-1602. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.respol.2007.08.004
Witjes, S., & Lozano, R. (2016). Towards a more Circular Economy: Proposing a framework linking sustainable public procurement and sustainable business models. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 112(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.015
Yakhou, M., & Dorweiler, V. P. (2004). Environmental accounting: An essential component of business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(2), 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.395
Yuan, Z., Bi, J., Moriguichi, Y., & Zengwei Yuan, Jun Bi, and Y. M. (2006). The Circular Economy: A New Development Strategy in China. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(1-2), 4-8. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819806775545321
Zamfir, A.-M., Mocanu, C., & Grigorescu, A. (2017). Circular Economy and Decision Models among European SMEs. Sustainability, 9(9), 1507. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su9091507
Zhao, H., Zhao, H., & Guo, S. (2017). Evaluating the comprehensive benefit of eco-industrial parks by employing multi-criteria decision making approach for circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(4), 2262-2276.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.041 Zhou, Z., Zhao, W., Chen, X., & Zeng, H. (2017). MFCA extension from a circular economy perspective: Model modifications and case study. Journal of Cleaner Pro- duction, 149(1), 110-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.02.049
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
This paper aims to provide a model to measure the circular economy in businesses from an environmental accounting approach. The range of circular activities and the intensity with which companies implement them are analysed to increase the understanding of the relationship between the implementation of circular economy in firms and their different environmental management accounting and reporting practices. The study is developed through an empirical analysis based on a survey addressed to a sample of Spanish companies and designed to analyse different environmental accounting practices and measure the circular economy-related activities introduced by companies to close the material loops in processes. Main results indicate that circular economy activities are generally introduced by companies progressively, without clearly responding to common patterns for the introduction of the different circular principles and activities. A moderate correlation is observed between companies' level of circular economy and their environmental management accounting practices, with a more significant correlation for a higher number of circular activities, particularly for firms that implement environmental management systems and have higher levels of transparency and sustainability information policies. Although companies are progressively adopting circular activities, the lack of specific indicators limits their internal measurement. Consequently, the information provided by organisations about the closing of material loops remains sporadic. The results highlight the need for built-in specific metrics to deploy environmental accounting practices in circular economy models. ©2023 ASEPUC. Published by EDITUM - Universidad de Murcia. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).