The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2041-2568.htm
A qualitative examination of how Circulareconomy
accountability manifests itself
in a circular economy
Amoako Kwarteng 111
Business School, Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration,
Accra, Ghana, and Received 23 December 2021
Revised 10April 2022
Cletus Agyenim-Boateng and Samuel Nana Yaw Simpson 28 June 2022Accepted 20 July 2022
Department of Accounting, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Abstract
Purpose – Accountability within the framework of circular economy (CE) is unknown even though the
concept of CE is increasingly gaining momentum among governments, policymakers and academics. The
purpose of this study is to investigate how accountability expresses itself in the CE.
Design/methodology/approach – This study draws on the institutional logics theory and adopted an
exploratory qualitative study aimed at eliciting stakeholders’ perspectives on how accountability manifests in
the context of CE. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews of cross section of Ghanaians.
Respondents were recruited using the purposeful sampling method, and data saturation was reached with
35 respondents. Concurrent data collection and analysis were carried out, and emerging themes were
investigated as the research progressed.
Findings – The results indicate that accountability manifestations take on a variety of forms and shapes through
both formal and informal processes within the circularity space. The specific areas of accountability manifestations
are through the social system embedded in the society, through the organization’s responsibility and transparency,
through regular reporting to stakeholders using appropriate metrics, through agency and answerability to relevant
stakeholders and through governance systems embedded within social interaction. Additionally, this study
discovered that accountability manifestations would contribute to thefirm’s sustainability by enhancing competitive
advantage through stakeholder engagement, improving riskmanagement and promoting creativity and innovation.
Originality/value – Given an apparent gap in the literature on circularity and accountability, as well as a
call for further studies on the reflections of accountability within the CE, this study provides empirical
evidence to fill these gaps.
Keywords Accountability, Circular economy, Sustainability, Institutional logics, Ghana
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Accountability is a critical component of corporate governance that has captivated
policymakers and academics for decades. Without accountability, there really is no system
to call irresponsible behavior into question, and actors are not held accountable.
Consequently, accountability has been identified as a crucial aspect of effective function
execution (Gorman and Ward, 2020; Tamvada, 2020). Accountability involves moral or
institutional relationship in which one person or a group of agents is granted the right to
question, lead, sanction or constrain the exercise of power by another (Macdonald, 2014).
Journal of Global Responsibility
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2023
pp. 111-134
The authors would like to thank the Carnegie Corporation of New York for partly funding this project © EmeraldPublishingLimited
2041-2568
through the UG-BANGA-3 Thesis Completion Grant. DOI 10.1108/JGR-12-2021-0107
JGR The emphasis on accountability stems from the fact that without a grasp of
14,1 accountability manifestations, social actors are unlikely to achieve their objectives within
the circular economy’s (CE) bounds (Pan and Patel, 2020; Frink and Klimoski, 2004). The
more social actors understand accountability evaluation and development, the more
probable it is to achieve operational sustainability (Pillai et al., 2017). In other words, lack of
accountability has been connected to increasing unethical behavior leading to sustainability
112 issues. Accountability is consequently fundamental to successful social systems,
particularly formal organizations and CE implementation (Frishammar and Parida, 2019;
Murray et al., 2017). It is puzzling why such a fundamental topic has not gotten more
attention in the circularity literature. In other words, the existing literature gives little
attention to accountability manifestations within the CE (Frishammar and Parida, 2019;
Murray et al., 2017).
A lack of consensus exists in the literature regarding the nature of accountability and
how it is defined (Cooper and Owen, 2007). It is also assumed to be context dependent
(Ahrens and Khalifa, 2015), having been studied from many angles such as social
psychology (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999), health care (Gaitonde et al., 2019), leadership (Ogden
et al., 2006), human resource management (Ji et al., 2012) and business ethics (Yang et al.,
2019) and accounting (O’Dwyer and Boomsma, 2015). As a result of this, the concept of
accountability and its representations are discussed in the sense of the CE in this study.
The CE is a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emissions and
energy leakage are minimized through the slowing, closing and narrowing of material and
energy loops. This can be accomplished by focusing on long-term design, maintenance,
repair, reuse, remanufacturing and refurbishment (Ellen MacArthur foundation, 2019;
Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Previous attempts have been made in the extant literature to
explore the issue of circularity from different perspective: for instance, the role of
management controls in promoting the CE within organizations (Svensson and Funck,
2019), business model innovation for CE and sustainability (Pieroni et al., 2019), exploring
barriers to implementing different circular business models (Vermunt et al., 2019) among
others. Conspicuously missing from the literature is the nature of accountability in the CE
space (Di Maio et al., 2017; Frishammar and Parida, 2019; Murray et al., 2017).
The purpose of this study therefore is to investigate how accountability is manifested in
the CE by specifically addressing the following research questions:
RQ1. How is accountability manifested in the CE in contemporary times?
RQ2. How accountability manifestations contribute to the sustainability of the firm?
This study approaches these questions from the perspective of institutional logics which
deals with how individuals and organizations are influenced by higher order (Freidland and
Alford, 1991; Thornton et al., 2012). To this end, this qualitative study investigates
stakeholders’ opinions of accountability in Ghana’s CE space. The study participants were
purposely sampled, and data was gathered through semi-structured interviews (SSIs).
Concurrent data analysis and gathering occurred, and a thematic approach was used to
identify pertinent themes.
The study discovered that within the framework of the CE, accountability is manifested
by both formal and informal processes. The specific areas of accountability manifestations
are through the social system embedded in the society, through the organization’s
responsibility and transparency, through regular reporting to stakeholders using
appropriate metrics, through agency and answerability to relevant stakeholders and
through governance systems embedded within the organization. Additionally, from the
perspective of the sustainability of the firm, the study discovered that accountability Circular
manifestations would contribute to the firm’s sustainability by enhancing competitive economy
advantage through stakeholder engagement, improving risk management and promoting
creativity and innovation.
In this regard, the study adds to the existing literature by drawing on institutional logics
to illustrate how accountability arises within the CE (Freidland and Alford, 1991; Thornton
et al., 2012; Diab, 2021). The contribution of this study is part of a larger conversation about
the importance of accountability in achieving a CE paradigm, a topic that has been 113
surprisingly overlooked in existing literature. (Di Maio et al., 2017).
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: the next subsection deals with the study’s
context and setting. Second 2 presents the literature review. Section 3 discusses the
methodology for the study. Section 4 deals with the results and discussions. Section 5 deals
with the summary, conclusions, implications and limitations of the study.
1.1 Context of study and setting
Accountability is a contextual term. This means that the nature of accountability and the
manner in which it presents itself varies according to field of study. For instance,
accountability manifestation within the health delivery field will be different from the
accountability within the educational field (Cooper and Owen, 2007). Given this premise, this
study is situated within the context of CE as a phenomenon or field of study.
The study setting is Ghana which presents quite an interesting and a unique setting for
the subject matter in several ways. Ghana was appointed as a cochair for United Nation
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) advocate between 2017 and 2018. Since then,
Ghana’s development goals and priorities have been aligned with circularity activities and
SDGs. It is therefore crucial to explore how accountability will manifest itself in a country
with its status as a former SDGs advocate. As a developing country, Ghana faces several
environmental difficulties due to the old linear business paradigm of take-make-waste (EPA,
2020). Coupled with declining natural resources estimated at 12.37% of gross national
income, the country is looking for ways to extend resource utilization andmaximize value.
In this regard, the Ghana Government has put in place policies and regulation toward
CE. For instance, there is a ministerial task force against illegal mining in a bid to protect the
environment and water bodies. Further, there is a policy on plastic waste management as a
vehicle for sustainable development and a shift toward a plastics CE. The country has
declared a policy of making Accra the capital city the cleanest city in Africa by reducing
waste and pollution. Thus, an accountability perspective in CE is especially necessary in
Ghana and throughout Africa, owing to the country’s specific circumstances, which include
considerable resources, donor-driven growth, marginalized civil societies, weak government,
a lack of effective political leadership, corruption, weak institutions, restricted markets and
private sector development (Soobaroyen et al., 2017).
2. Literature review
This section discusses the theoretical lens, the concept of CE and accountability.
2.1 Theoretical lens
The study is positioned within the institutional logics theory, which analyses the ways in
which broader value systems shape actors’ perceptions and behaviors. Institutional logics
enquires into the relationships that exist between individuals, organizations and society
(Friedland andAlford, 1991). According to Friedland andAlford (1991):
JGR Institutions are preorganization patterns of human activity by which individuals and
14,1 organizations produce and reproduce their material subsistence and organize time and space.They are also symbolic systems, ways of ordering reality, and thereby rendering experience of
time and space meaningful (Friedland and Alford, 1991, p. 248).
The authors asserted that each institutional order is guided by a core logic that underpins its
organizing principles and provides social actors with motivational languages and a sense of
114 self identification, hence rejecting both individualistic, rational choice theories and
macrosystemic perspectives. Individuals, organizations and associations can further
elaborate, exploit and use these traditions and symbols to their advantage (Friedland and
Alford, 1991). The authors further state that each of society’s core structures – the capitalist
market, the bureaucratic state, families, democracy and religion – has a central logic that
constrains both the means and ends of individual actions and is constitutive of individuals,
organizations and society. Although, institutions impose constraints on policy, they also
provide opportunities for agency and reform (Friedland and Alford, 1991). Individuals,
communities and organizations may use the cultural tools provided by the contradictions
inherent in the differentiated collection of institutional logics to transform their
personalities, organizations and society (Thornton et al., 2012). In this study, which
examines accountability manifestations in a CE sense, the societal demands for businesses
to exhibit responsible behavior (i.e. accountability manifestations and CE) is the underlying
logics of action, shape heterogeneity, stability and change in individuals and organizations.
Although, the different concepts of institutional logics differ in their focus, they all
presuppose a fundamental metatheory for comprehending individual and organizational
actions (Thornton et al., 2012). Institutional logics must be situated in a social and
institutional context, and this institutional context both regularizes actions and allows for
agency and accountability (Thornton et al., 2012; Friedland andAlford, 1991).
2.2 Circular economy
CE is a method proposed by Chinese and European officials to help countries, businesses
and consumers reduce environmental damage and end the product life cycle loop (European
Commission, 2015; Murray et al., 2017). It now includes contributions from a range of
concepts that share the idea of closed loops. The cradle-to-cradle (McDonough and
Braungart, 2010), laws of ecology (Commoner, 2020), looped and performance economies
(Stahel, 2010), regenerative design (Lyle, 1996), industrial ecology (Graedel and Allenby,
1995), biomimicry (Benyus, 2002) and the blue economy (Commoner, 2020) are some of the
most relevant theoretical influences.
The most renowned definition has been framed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
introducing the CE as “an industrial economy that is restorative or regenerative by intention
and design” (2013b, p. 14). Similarly, Geng and Doberstein (2008, p. 231), focusing on the
Chinese implementation of the concept, describe the CE as the “realization of [a] closed loop
material flow in the whole economic system.” Following Geissdoerfer et al. (2017), this study
defines CE as a regenerative system in which resource input andwaste, emission and energy
leakage are minimized by slowing, closing and narrowing material and energy loops. This
can be achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing,
refurbishing and recycling. The CE has received increased attention in academic research
with a range of reviews on the topic by Ghisellini et al. (2016), Lieder and Rashid (2016) and
Su et al. (2013).
2.2.1 Concept of circular economy. The concept of CE has gained traction with
policymakers, governments and intergovernmental agencies at the local, regional, national
and international level. Germany was a pioneer in integrating the CE into national laws, as
early as 1996, with the enactment of the “Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Circular
Act” (Su et al., 2013). This was followed by Japan’s 2002 “Basic Law for Establishing a economy
Recycling-Based Society” (METI, 2004) and China’s 2009 “Circular Economy Promotion
Law of the People’s Republic of China” (Lieder and Rashid, 2016). Supranational bodies have
also incorporated CE concerns most notably the EU’s 2015 Circular Economy Strategy
(European Commission, 2015).
In the context of Ghana, CE principles have been used for years. Several actionable
policies have been implemented to foster the CE’s future development in Ghana. For 115
instance, Ghana requires manufacturing industries, particularly those in the consumables
sector to incorporate eco-friendly design elements into their packaging solutions. For rural
areas where waste management choices are limited but food and agricultural waste is
prevalent, the government has established a buffer stock system in which surplus
agricultural produce is stockpiled for consumption during the lean season. International
development agencies, notably the EU, have held seminars on the possibilities of Ghana’s
CE. At these seminars, green jobs for young people and women were pushed and awareness
is developed. Thus, CE emerges from both government regulations and foreign development
agencies. It is in this context that this study seeks to examine how accountability is
manifested in the CE space in Ghana.
2.2.2 Review of empirical studies on circular economy. Empirical analysis of CE has
increased in recent times (De Angelis, 2020; Tsai et al., 2020; Mashud et al., 2020a, 2020 b,
2020c). Chhimwal et al. (2021), for instance, conducted a study on the challenges in the
implementation of CE in manufacturing industry. The study discovered that noncompliance
with environmental laws, revenue generation, design issues due to technological limitations
and a lack of preference for refurbished and reused products are all significant barriers to
the manufacturing industry’s adoption of CE practices. Further, numerous researchers have
recently worked in this area to establish a link between the CE concept and contemporary
sustainable supply chain business models (Mashud et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Bocken et al.
(2016) discussed how product design and business model strategies can aid in the
implementation of CE models. Rizos et al. (2017) concentrated on increasing knowledge and
understanding of the challenges and enablers that small- and medium-sized enterprises face
when implementing CE business models. Marjamaa et al. (2021) conducted a study on the
stakeholders’ interest in CE from the context of Finland and discovered that key
stakeholders have a vested interest in promoting long-term CE and that they are actively
shaping actions toward a more sustainable CE. Further, the authors found that stakeholders
prioritize economic and ecological interests, while social interests – particularly in a broader
global social sustainability context – remain undervalued, particularly among businesses
and partially industrial organizations (Marjamaa et al., 2021).
In a similar study, Liu et al. (2021) used a qualitative case study technique to investigate
the numerous challenges China faces in implementing large-scale sustainable food
consumption and production. This is predicated on the backdrop that China has
incorporated the CE into its national development strategy. Winschel (2021) used content
analysis to determine whether and to what extent European corporations convert their
carbon reduction strategy into carbon objectives that serve as the foundation for their chief
executive officers’ short-term and long-term rewards. The author then analyzed the common
quality and timeframe aspects of carbon targets, as well as whether carbon targets differ
between carbon-intensive and less carbon-intensive businesses. Further, Thakhathi et al.
(2021) used qualitative SSIs to shed light on the obscured micro-individual level of corporate
governance practice by drawing pragmatic insights from the landmark South African King
Code experience that can be applied to other governance jurisdictions for global
JGR organizational accountability and responsibility. The combined effect of the literature
14,1 review revealed that, despite the increase in CE studies, there is still a scarcity of studies that
address how accountability manifests within the circularity space. This study aims to fill
that gap by investigating how accountability manifests itself in the CE environment.
2.3 Concept of accountability
116 Accountability is a foundational principle upon which societies and their institutions are
constructed (Frink, 2008; Von Dornum, 1997). Nonetheless, the obvious lack of agreement on
the concept of accountability is a major impediment when discussing accountability
literature (Asare et al., 2021; Cooper and Owen, 2007). Scholars have defined accountability
in a variety of ways in the literature. For instance, accountability can be defined as “(a) the
allocation and acceptance of responsibility for decisions and actions and (b) the
demonstration of whether and how these responsibilities have been met” (Lockwood et al.,
2010: 993). Frink and Klimoski (1998) define accountability as:
[. . .] perceived need to justify or defend a decision or action to some audience(s) which has
potential reward and sanctions power, and where such rewards and sanctions are perceived as
contingent on accountability conditions.
Gray et al. (1996, p. 38) defines accountability as “the duty to provide an account (by no
means necessary a financial account) or reckoning of those actions for which one is held
responsible.” Further, Munro and Hatherly (1993 p. 369) define accountability as “[. . .] the
willingness and ability to explain and justify one’s actions to self and others.” In this respect,
it encapsulates a self-will dimension that goes beyond the statutory duty to provide
accounts to varied stakeholders.
Accountability as a term must be seen from both the descriptive and normative
perspective (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., 2018; Rached, 2016). From a descriptive point of
view, the basic accountability system can be described as: A accounts to B for K acts, on the
basis of X standards, through Y procedures, at time Z, subject to Q consequences (Dillard and
Vinnari, 2019). The description of accountability system in this way demands that every
component be defined such as who accounts to whom, for what, based on what criteria, how,
when and subject to what consequences (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). From the normative
point of view, these elements are portrayed to ask for possible accountability system such as
why should A account to B, on the basis of what standards, through what procedures, at
what time, subject to what consequences? In other words, is the power holder “accountable
to the right constituency, in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons or
standards?” (Rached, 2016: 326).
Rached (2016), drawing on Bovens (2010), proposes the accountability relationship
between A and B as a “reflective discursive encounter.”
It is reflective since it lets the agents turn inward and find a justification for their acts. It is also
discursive because the agents also need to turn outward and express this justification publicly
and intelligibly in order to engage in a back-and-forth conversation. Furthermore, it instantiates a
non-arbitrary encounter inasmuch as there is some sort of link binding the two subjects in an
ongoing account-giving and account taking (Rached, 2016: 323).
The accountable agent (power holder/account provider) may be a single individual or a
collective, and the account holder may be single agent or collective. The relationship is
pluralistic in that the power holder may be differently accountable to multiple
constituencies. It is also dynamic in that the nature of the relationships may change over
time and ongoing because the relationships are situated within an ongoing community
(Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). Rached (2016) proposed eight “coordinates” or dimensions that Circular
further specify the “variables” in the definition articulating basic properties by which an economy
accountability system can be conceptualized, implemented and evaluated. The first is the
level of formality and concerns the degree to which X, Y, Z, Q are articulated and the degree
to which they can be adhered. The relationships between the account holder and the power
holder can be depicted as more or less formal and legalized. The second dimension is a
spatial one and concerns how the power relationship between the two agents (A, B) plays 117
out along horizontal (peer relationships) or vertical (hierarchical) lines. The third coordinate,
institutionality, defines A in terms of whether the collective or the individual members that
make up the collective (entity) are to be held accountable. The fourth dimension, expertise, is
concerned with the characteristics of A and B with four possible combinations: both are
experts; both are lay agents; the power holder is expert and the account holder is lay; or the
power holder is lay and the account holder is expert. The fifth dimension, substance
(output), refers to the specificity and stringency of the standards (X) to which the power
holder is held. The sixth dimension, procedure (input), relates to the types of participatory
tools (Y) used so as to render the power holder accountable. The seventh dimension is a
temporal one, relates to Z and concerns the moment that the power holder expects the
account holder to react, or the account holder has the opportunity to do so, relative to
the action on the part of the former. The eighth dimension considers the consequences, Q, of
the exercise of power by the account holders to affect the power holders. Rached (2016)
claims that the application of these eight properties is the starting point for both a
descriptive and a normative engagement regarding the parameters of accountability.
Trustworthy description is presumed to precede meaningful prescription, and these
coordinates or dimensions provide a framework for such an undertaking.
It should be emphasized that the way and manner in which the general principle of
accountability is conceptualized, implemented and evaluated within CE environment is
unknown. This is why the study’s primary objective is to examine how accountability
manifests itself within a CE context.
3. Methodology
This section discusses the research methodology adopted in this study.
3.1 Research design
Constructivism is the philosophical foundations of this study, and it is based on the belief
that reality lies primarily in individuals, through relationships, experiences, structures and
generations (Savin-Baden and Howell-Major, 2013). Constructivism is predicated on the
premise that individual comprehension and knowledge are based on their own experiences
(Kirschner et al., 2006). The epistemology is grounded on the premise that to ascertain the
underlying meaning of events and activities, reality must be interpreted and this
interpretation was accomplished through phenomenology, which attempted to assign
meaning to relevant stakeholders’ experiences, views and perceptions on accountability in
the circularity space.
From the above philosophical foundations, the researchers used a qualitative research
approach to elicit in-depth perspectives from stakeholders on how accountability manifests
in the context of CE (Yin, 2014). Qualitative research methods are useful for providing rich
descriptions of complex phenomena, tracking unique or unexpected events, illuminating the
experience and interpretation of events by actors with widely varying stakes and roles and
progressing toward explanations (Yin, 2014; Creswell, 2013).
JGR 3.2 Population, sample and sampling technique of the study
14,1 The study’s population consisted of cross section of Ghanaians with experience in CE
initiatives and accountability framework. Given the context of the study which is
accountability within CE in Ghana, the study focused on five stakeholders as follows:
academics/researchers; policymakers; CE networks; industry organization; and
nongovernmental/civil society groups. Participants were recruited to meet inclusion and
118 exclusion criteria. Based on the sample’s accessibility, the researchers proposed
interviewing 40 participants. Saturation however, was achieved with 35 face-to-face
interviews. Although qualitative researchers have differing opinions on sample sizes, they
all agree that extremely small numbers should be used for research. Most qualitative studies
use a sample size of 12 until the researcher(s) reach saturation (Braun and Clarke, 2016;
Stebbins, 2001). The number of participants depend on the research approach chosen,
homogeneity of participant’s background, accessibility of participants and the attainment of
saturation.
To select the interviewees, the study relied on the network of work colleagues who are
familiar with the subject matter and through snowballing approach, other participants were
recruited. To ensure that all participants understood the subject of CE, we specifically asked
if they had been involved in the implementation of CE through their respective
organizations and how they perceived the concept. Thus, all the participants have
knowledge about the subject matter. The study was guided by the heterogeneous nature of
the sample and as a result more samples were required to achieve data saturation.
3.3 Data collection
A pilot study was conducted from February 26 to March 15, 2021, before the actual data
collection began. A total of 15 interviews were conducted with reference to the pilot study.
The pilot study’s findings had no influence on the research questions. Nonetheless, this
process was used to ensure face validity of the questions and also help in linking the
research questions to the development of the interview questions as suggested by Saunders
et al. (2009).
The primary source of data was obtained through 35 SSIs of key respondents who are
familiar with CE and accountability issues in Ghana. Given the coronavirus pandemic and
restriction on face-face and human interaction, all the interviews were done using the virtual
system specifically zoom. All the interviews were conducted in English. As Zoom has a
recording system, all the interviews were video and audiotaped and transcribed verbatim.
Participants consented to the recording of interviews.
The justification for using SSIs as a data collection tool in this study was that SSI is an
effective method for engaging in in-depth conversation. During the SSI, the researcher can
typically examine critically the talks and various initially superficial responses to reach
complex conclusions. In addition, using SSI, a researcher can typically follow-up on all
verbal and nonverbal responses, such as hunches, laughter and silence to disclose hidden
information that may prove useful in the final data analysis of various themes collected from
the conversation (Ritchie et al., 2013). The interviewers might blend various themes to
increase adaptability. In SSI, a researcher might discuss diverse issues with multiple
themes. Moreover, the participatory character of the SSI allows the interviewee to respond
freely (Yin, 2014; Creswell, 2013).
The interview explored what CE is about, what accountability entails, how
accountability manifests in CE context, how accountability is evaluated in CE context (Refer
to Appendix 1 for the full interview guide). Follow-up questions were asked to gain full
understanding of participants’ views/opinions and perceptions. Interviews lasted for 50– Circular
60min andwere conducted by the first author. economy
The interviewing process began in April 2021 and lasted four months. Senior faculty
members at the department of accounting of the University of Ghana provided a review of
the interview data to ensure appropriateness and adequacy. To corroborate the face-to-face
interview, data triangulation was performed, which means that data was gathered from
additional sources such as CE and accountability literature. Further, the study relied on the 119
field notes to provide additional information that helps put the interview responses into
context. Overall, the idea was to get a complete understanding of the phenomenon from as
many sources as possible.
Trustworthiness comprising the elements of credibility, transferability, dependability
and confirmability are fundamental elements of qualitative research that allow the reader to
assess the value of the research (Yin, 2014). To ensure the study’s credibility, a technique of
sustained participation, continuous observation, triangulation and member checking was
used. Further, to ensure transferability, the study adopted a strategy of thick description
such as the context in which the research was carried out, its setting, sample, sample size,
sample strategy, demographic and socio-economic characteristics, inclusion and exclusion
criteria, interview procedure and topics, changes in interview questions based on the
iterative research process and excerpts from the interview guide. Moreover, to ensure
dependability and confirmability, the study used the use of audit trail by providing a
complete set of notes on decisions made during the research process, research team
meetings, reflective thoughts, sampling, research materials adopted, emergence of the
findings and information about the data management. This enables an independent auditor
to study the transparency of the research path.
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Ghana Humanities
Ethics Committee. Permission was sought from the relevant gate-keepers at the firms and all
participants gave informed consent before interviews were conducted. Respondents were
further informed about the objectives of the research and how their contributions will help
conceptualize accountability within the context of CE. The participants were informed that
participation was purely voluntary and that they had the right to opt out of the process at
any time. Anonymity and confidentiality were assured and observed. All identifying
information in participants’ accounts was removed to ensure anonymity. Participants were
assigned identification codes and these were used to present findings.
3.4 Data management and analysis
Generally qualitative researchers complete the first steps of data analysis as they collect the
data rather than waiting until all of it is collected (Miles and Huberman, 1994). This study
therefore adopted this approach as this makes it easier to analyze the data and also help to
know when data saturation has occurred. The study relied on inductive coding approach.
Inductive coding is a bottom-up approach in which the codes are derived from the data
(Saldaña, 2021). This is critical for exploratory research or when developing new theories,
ideas or concepts (Saldaña, 2021). The overall approach to the data analysis was based on
thematic analysis. Several steps were used in analyzing the field data. First, the data was
organized into specific units, words and sentences. Second, transcripts were read several
times to immerse in participants’ world. In the third step, codes were identified and themes
and subthemes were generated. In the next step, data was transferred into NVivo software
version 12, and this was used to manage the data subsequently. Next, similarities and
differences in the coded expressions and sentences were identified.
JGR The themes of this study were obtained as follows: By applying first-order analysis
14,1 (Gioia et al., 2013), the corpus of expressions and sentences was reduced to a manageable
number of categories, each of which was given a generalized phrasal description. In the
next step, the second-order analysis was used to convert the phrasal descriptions into
abstractions (Gioia et al., 2013) that expressed the key dimensions of accountability
within CE context. Table 1 illustrates the data analysis abstraction process from
120 empirical expressions to theoretical abstractions. The researchers discussed the themes
and subthemes and where discrepancies occurred, a consensus was reached to ensure
that participants’ views, opinions and perceptions were captured faithfully. Verbatim
quotes were then used to support findings (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2014). Finally, the
results of the analysis were discussed and synthesized for the purpose of validating the
findings (Yin, 2014).
4. Results and discussions
This section presents and discusses the findings from the study.
4.1 Demographic characteristics
The participants were made up of 35 respondents from a cross section of Ghanaians and
comprised 22 males and 13 females and age between 31 to 56 years. The respondents had
experience ranging between 9 and 15 years. The educational background of the participants
includes 8 bachelor degrees, 15 master’s degrees and 12 doctoral degrees in addition to their
relevant professional qualifications. The respondents include academics/researchers;
policymakers, CE networks; industry organizations; nongovernmental and civil society
organizations. Table 2 presents the demographic profile of the study respondents.
4.2 Themes and subthemes
During the analysis of the data, two broad themes emerged in relation to the research
objectives as follows:
(1) accountability manifestations in CE; and
(2) accountability manifestations in contributing toward the sustainability of the firm.
4.2.1 Accountability manifestations in circular economy. This theme highlights how
accountability manifests within the context of CE. It includes how it manifests and why it
does so within the context of CE. The subthemes described are as follows: social system,
responsibility and transparency, regular reporting to stakeholders, agency and
answerability and governance systems.
4.2.1.1 Existence of social system. Accountability has been defined as a social glue
(Frink and Klimoski, 1998). No mutual expectation or social order can exist without
accountability for organizational conduct, operations and choices. Many of these rules and
conventions are explicit, but most are socially accepted. Accountability is required by
reciprocal expectations in social systems. In a CE, accountability would be reflected in the
social system available to all.
On this theme, some of the respondents explained as follows:
I think the societal norms and values will reflect how accountability will manifest particularly in
the context of Ghana which is a collective state.” (AR 02); “I believe the kind of social norms and
value systems will dictate the nature of accountability.” (PM 05); “I think the standard expectation
imposed by the society will determine the nature of accountability. (CEN 07)
First-order analysis: phrasal Second-order analysis: Circular
Raw data/original expression description abstraction/subthemes economy
The society has norms, values and standard of Societal norms, values and Social system
expectation regarding responsible consumption standard of expectation
and production especially those regarding the
ecology. These social norms should be the starting
point for any accountability framework for this
circular economy phenomenon 121
CE is somehow new concept towards Showing some level of Responsibility and
sustainability and this means that organizations transparency and Transparency
will have to show how they are applying its ideals. responsibility
In this context the firm or firms will have to be
transparent. Transparency and responsibility
system ought to be the focus of these
organizations when it is about showing how
accountable you are in the circular economy
environment
As a policymaker, I would have to assume that Reporting to stakeholders Reporting to
there is the need for firms to provide regular about ecological impact stakeholders
reports to all stakeholders about their impact or
footprint on the ecology. In this way stakeholders
can measure how accountable and responsible you
are in the light of circular economy
The whole discussion about accountability and CE A principal and an agent Agency and
can be likened to the issue of principal and agent. relationship answerability
In fact the organizations are the agents of the
society which represent the principals. The agent
is required to be answerable to the principal if you
want to prove accountability
Governance and for that matter good governance Good governance and Governance systems
is an ideal way to prove accountability. This is ethical behavior
even critical in the context circular economy.
Governance will entail ethical behaviour in all
aspect of the operations of the organization and in
particular toward responsible consumption and
production
Circular economy and sustainability are related to Achieving competitive Driving competitive
a large extent. As the firm exhibits accountability advantage through cost or advantage
in operations particularly circular accountability differentiation advantage
will lead to better competitive advantage. This
could be in the form of cost advantage or
differentiation and unique advantage
Circular economy accountability will lead to Promoting and undertaking Improving risk
proper risk management which is a major concern risk management initiative management
for most if not all organizations. By improving and
undertaking risk initiatives linked to circular
economy, the sustainability of the firm is also
guaranteed
Accountable practices relative to circular economy Adoption and use of Fostering innovation
also entails innovation. Successful implementation technology and innovation
of circular ideals and sustainability require practices
adoption and use of innovation and technology.
Continuous adoption of new and improve
technology and innovation is a requirement for
sustainable rm Table 1.fi
Coding of themes
Source: Authors’ compilation, 2021 process
JGR
14,1 Participating groups No. of interviewees Technique Average duration (minutes)
Academics/researchers (AR) 8 Via Zoom 52
Policymakers (PM) 6 Via Zoom 55
Circular economy network (CEN) 7 Via Zoom 57
Industry organization (IO) 9 Via Zoom 55
NGO/CSO 5 Via Zoom 54
122 Gender
Male 22
Female 13
Experience (years)
0–5 3
6–10 8
above 10 24
Highest education
Bachelor 8
Masters 15
Doctorate 12
Table 2.
Demographic profile Source:Authors’ compilation
On this same theme, other respondents asserted as follows:
Social systems have already defined what is considered acceptable within social interactions [. . .]
therefore any accountability framework should consider that.” (IO 03); “Accountability manifestations
will exhibit in social system which is maintained by the various social control mechanisms. These
mechanismsmaintain the equilibrium between the various processes of social interaction. (NGO/CSO 03)
In a CE, accountability would be achieved through current social mechanisms according to
respondents. This result is in line with the literature’s position (Frink and Klimoski, 1998;
Rached, 2016) that society contains social systems in the form of values and standards that
actors must adhere to in order to be accountable. These social systems are considered
institutional logics influencing actor behavior (Thornton et al., 2012). A social system has
pattern, order and balance, as well as an adjustment function. Societal changes influence this
multifaceted issue. That is, the social system is dependent on society’s aims, objects and
interests. In a CE, these social system dynamics would manifest accountability.
Social systems for instance are part of higher logics that governs behavior (Friedland and
Alford, 1991; Thornton et al., 2012). Social systems are built on mutual expectations of behavior,
norms and values (Hall et al., 2021; Martin-Gutierrez et al., 2020; Frink and Klimoski, 2004; Frink
et al., 2015; Rached, 2016). In Ghana, these norms, attitudes and expectations include, for example,
seasonal prohibitions on farming and fishing. Various cultural and religious festivals aimed to
unite people. Therefore, any accountability structure will take these values and norms into
account. In the CE, a social system may include reducing emissions, greenhouse gases and
protecting the ecology. The social systems are defined by conventions, values and business
practices. The company is part of a larger industry with conventions, values and acceptable
standards. These link people and organizations to a bigger institution.
4.2.1.2 Existence of responsibility and transparency. Responsibility and transparency
are essential for the efficient operation of the modern economy. They ensure that
information is accessible that can be used to assess organizational environmental efficiency.
Transparency and responsibility help to provide accountability, which ensures that
businesses can be held accountable for their stewardship.
On this theme, some of the respondents alluded as follows: Circular
At the heart of the whole issue is that, sufficient transparency and accountability are essential for economy
ensuring that society’s natural resource assets were handled for the good of the entire
population.” (PM 02); “Transparency and responsibility are the ideal way of showing
accountability in any setting. (NGO/CSO 01)
On this same theme, other respondent claimed as follows:
123
I think a necessary but not sufficient condition to establishing the perception of accountability is
responsibility and transparency [. . .] in fact for accountability to be achieved, there must be
transparency. (IO 04)
Another respondent posited as follows:
Transparency and responsibility are critical in this context. The organization’s governing
documents and policies relevant to circularity must be available to stakeholders for assessment
[. . .]. Organizational responsibility in the context of circular economy must be clear and
understood by all. (IO 02)
Transparency and accountability are fundamental manifestations of accountability in the
CE, according to Tamvada (2020) and Blankenberger and Williams (2020). In
acknowledgment of the relevance of these issues, many recent worldwide initiatives have
been launched to promote transparency. Among these are the IMF’s new Resource Revenue
Transparency Guide, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the G8’s larger
transparency initiatives and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, which
emphasizes strong transparency (Diab, 2021). These initiatives constitute institutional logics
driving accountability manifestations within the context of CE.
Further, the issue of responsibility and transparency are key consideration in
accountability discourse because these concepts underpin the framework of general
accountability (Diab, 2021). From the perspective of institutional logics, transparency and
responsibility ensure that information is available that can be used to measure organizational
environmental performance and to guard against any possible misuse of natural resources
(Thornton et al., 2012). This is consistent with what Bovens (2010) and Rached (2016)
proposed that accountability relationship between account holder and the power holder as a
“reflective discursive encounter.” “It is reflective since it lets the agents turn inward and find
a justification for their acts (i.e. responsibility on the part of the agent or power holder). It is
also discursive because the agent also needs to turn outward and express this justification
publicly and intelligibly to engage in a back-and-forth conversation (i.e. transparency on the
part of the agent or power holder). In the CE context, transparency will be discharged
through perceived disclosure of CE practices (i.e. the degree to which information is made
available rather than concealed), perceived clarity (i.e. the degree to which information is
comprehensible as opposed to obscured) and perceived accuracy (i.e. the degree to which
information is accurate and not exaggerated or skewed) (Schnackenberg et al., 2021).
4.2.1.3 Regular reporting to stakeholders. Regular reporting is essential for
accountability. Reports inform stakeholders on achievements, failures, solutions, costs, risks
and future steps. Businesses are currently grappling with how to create reliable, rigorous
and objectively validated reporting that allows their adherence to these ideals to be properly
evaluated. The under-listed responses are in support of this theme:
I share the view that regular reporting to stakeholders provides social actors with an opportunity
to communicate information to a much wider range of stakeholders about the environmental,
social, economic, and governance performance. . .I guess this is a form of accountability. (NGO/
CSO 03)
JGR I believe regular annual cycle of reporting on common agreed-upon data in relation to circular
14,1 economy activities, analyzing, reporting and discussing the findings and identifying areas forimprovement, built into the agendas of global governance and leadership bodies are clear
manifestation of accountability. (CEN 04)
Keeping track of the many commitments made to various stakeholder groups at various times,
and communicating progress made against these commitments on a regular basis is a must for
124 accountability. (CEN 07)
I think regularly updating your commitments and disclose progress to affected and interested
parties [. . .]. In particular, publicize any material changes to commitments or implementation
actions that vary from publicly disclosed document. (AR 05)
Accountability is demonstrated by routine contact with stakeholders concerning circularity
initiatives and activities. An organization’s feeling of accountability is demonstrated by
providing information, taking responsibility for it and listening to feedback from others
about how effectively it is meeting its commitments. According to prior research (Diab,
2021; Asare et al., 2021), governmental institutions promoted corporate accountability by
pressing for regular reporting to stakeholders. To make routine reporting to stakeholders
feasible, metrics for quantifying circularity should be created (Rached, 2016). Moreover,
regular reporting is vital for effective stakeholder assurance and engagement, and reports
play an important role in informing stakeholders about milestones, challenges, resolutions,
costs, threats relative to CE implementation (Schnackenberg et al., 2021). In line with the
institutional logic theory, regular reporting ensures compliance with established
institutional requirements (Thornton et al., 2012; Rached, 2016). In this regard, the social
actor will have to regularly collects, analyses and discusses a mix of data, information and
evidence/metrics to assess its performance and the extent to which they are upholding its
commitments toward CE principles (Schnackenberg et al., 2021).
4.2.1.4 Agency and answerability. To be dubbed an accountability practice, a practice
must make a genuine effort to track the mandate’s demands. Accountability demands
scrutiny, but it also necessitates answerability. The concept of agency is linked to the
necessity for accountability whereby actors perform two distinct roles that are linked by
formal social settings. First, the focal person/entity whose decisions, activities or other
behaviors are judged by others. Second, position involves someone observing and assessing
the focal person. As a result, accountability will come through agency and answerability.
This is akin to the principle of principal-agent relationship.
Some respondents noted as follows:
I think accountability is a two-way interaction involving agency on one part and answerability on
the other part [. . .] these elements are critical to show accountability.” (IO 08). “In my estimation
there should be principal agency relationship in this context of accountability [. . .]. This assumes
a relation between accountable and accounting actors and the public debates in which they
engage. It is closely tied to transparency. (CEN 06)
Another respondent indicated as follows:
Whichever side one takes, accountability systems that seek to promote both answerability and
responsibility are needed in circular environment. (AR 04)
On this same theme, another respondent asserted as follows:
Given these realities of circularity, I will argue that accountability policies need to recognize the
mutual relationships between answerability and agency [. . .]. This is because accountability
policies are unlikely to be effective unless both are addressed and coordinated at least to some Circular
extent. (PM 03) economy
As stated above, improving accountability focuses on boosting answerability. The findings
support the existing literature (Frink and Klimoski, 1998; Frink and Klimoski, 2004) that
agency and answerability are required for accountability to manifest. Institutional logics
theory says that accountability is heavily institutionalized, with diverse prescriptions for
individuals (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Thornton et al., 2012). In fact, every accountability 125
policy or collection of policies must consider the mutuality of agency and answerability
(Klimoski. 2004). The reality is that any accountability policies need to recognize the mutual
relationship between agency and answerability (Moser and Leipold, 2021). Institutional
logics requires agency relationship and answerability from social actors (Thornton et al.,
2012; Diab, 2021). When applied to CE environment, the organization being the agent is
expected to be answerable for its actions and decision relative to responsible business
practices including CE (Frink and Klimoski, 1998; Rached, 2016; Dillard and Vinnari, 2019).
In this regard, organizations should be held responsible for adhering to defined and agreed-
upon procedures and/or objectives, according to the concept of answerability.
4.2.1.5 Governance systems. Accountability is vital in promoting good governance and
sustaining stakeholder engagement in organizational performance. Governance is
concerned with how an entity administers and runs itself, as well as how it holds itself and
its employees accountable. Ethics, risk management, compliance and administration are all
aspects of governance. As a result, in a CE, accountability can be achieved via governance
structures. The following comments are in support of this theme:
I can deduce that governance and accountability are two aspects of social interaction that often
overlap [. . .] I mean both terms are linked since many businesses use corporate governance to
outline goals for being accountable to internal and external stakeholders. (PM 06)
Corporate governance and accountability provide a focus for business practices that promote
fairness, ethical behavior, and transparency. (CEN 05)
In my view a misalignment between corporate governance and accountability practices can
damage a company’s image among investors and the general public [. . .]. Accountability should
therefore manifest via governance system. (IO 09)
I think stakeholder views corporate governance structure as a disciplinary mechanism used to
reprimand, executives, managers, and workers who fail to maintain accountability in business
operations. (NGO/CSO 04)
Gorman and Ward (2020) stated that accountability is a subset of governance that involves
monitoring, managing and assessing corporate agents to ensure they operate in the best
interests of all parties. According to the respondents, governance and accountability are
intrinsically intertwined. It is unrealistic to demand accountability without effective
governance systems. CE implementation demands an effective governance framework that
considers circularity (Asare, et al., 2021). These logics will establish, among other things,
whether the organization should engage in CE practices which are all part of the
accountability procedures (Diab, 2021; Rached, 2016). Therefore, any accountability policy
relative to CE adoption should be situated within the governance system.
4.2.2 Accountability manifestations in contributing toward sustainability of firm. This
theme deals with how the accountability manifestations in CE context will contribute
toward the sustainability of the firm. Businesses are increasingly implementing responsible
JGR behaviors as they pursue profit-making activities. This is due to the rising stakeholder
14,1 expectations which are motivating organizations to consider the impacts of their actions in a
broad, transparent and systematic manner. The subtheme that emerged from the responses
are as follows: driving competitive advantage; improving risk management; and fostering
innovation.
4.2.2.1 Driving competitive advantage. Accountability in the CE will help firms stay
126 competitive by engaging stakeholders. The strategic importance of sustainability efforts derives
from the need to continuously engage with and learn from important stakeholders. Being
accountable to stakeholders and regularly engaging them on the firm’s sustainability initiatives
will result in a competitive advantage. Some of the respondents stated the following on this theme:
I think accountability manifestation will lead to eventual sustainability of the firm in that
businesses may create economic benefit by recognizing and resolving social issues that are
related to their operations [. . .] in this case the engagement of stakeholders will be crucial in
driving economic value. (IO 01)
I guess by being accountable, organization will be able to predict and respond to economic, social,
environmental and regulatory changes as and when they occur through frequent consultation
with stakeholders [. . .] and this will drive competitive advantage. (IO 08)
As the firm continues to be accountable, they are able to establish good relationships with their
stakeholders thereby reducing conflict and enhancing cooperation [. . .] this I believe will help the
firm to operate within schedule and budget. (AR 05)
The above responses reveal a strong link between accountability and company
sustainability. In business, sustainability means managing and integrating environmental,
social and financial demands and concerns for long-term success. According to prior studies
(Hahn et al., 2018; Landrum and Ohsowski, 2018), this will lead to firm sustainability. As
applied to the framework of CE, there should be a business case for organizations to
demonstrate accountability. This business case can be seen in the increased competitive
advantage that the company can gain from frequent stakeholder engagements. Through
these processes, the firm will exhibit accountability that will lead to sustainability of the
firm (Kuzma et al., 2020; Hahn et al., 2018; Landrum and Ohsowski, 2018).
4.2.2.2 Improving risk management. Accountability in a CE environment will improve
risk management and thus firm sustainability. Social and environmental hazards develop
over time, often affecting the enterprise in multiple ways, and are usually uncontrollable.
The management of such hazards depends on the organization’s accountability for CE
activities. On this theme, some of respondent alluded as follows:
From my perspective, I think adopting socially ethical practices will reduce the firm’s exposure to
risk [. . .] with the continuous reduction in the firm’s risk exposure level will create long term
value. (CEN 04)
I believe risk management and firm’s sustainability moves hand in hand [. . .] by this I mean that
an alignment between the two should be efficient enough to sustain and grow a business while
preserving the natural environment. (NGO/CSO 03)
Successful risk management strategy may assist management in identifying emerging issues of
concern including the availability of renewable energy sources, the depletion of non-renewable
resources, or evolving government regulations. . .which ultimately will lead to firm’s
sustainability (PM 04).
Accountability in a CE improves an organization’s risk assessment and risk management. Circular
Via these processes, an organization is able to align its profit objectives with its circularity economy
strategies. The finding is consistent with prior literature that posited that accountability
ensures that firms are always alert to emerging risk (Hahn et al., 2018; Landrum and
Ohsowski, 2018). Further, accountability in a CE environment increases risk perception and
risk management in an organization. When businesses incorporate sustainability values
into their business practices, risk management programs must be incorporated as well.
Paying close attention to risk factors as a result of the organization’s obligation to be 127
accountable in relation to circularity results in long-term value development, which is
consistent with prior studies (Tseng, 2021; Whelan and Fink, 2016).
4.2.2.3 Fostering innovation. Accountability manifestations in CE environment can lead
to the firm’s long-term viability through encouraging creativity and innovation. In fact,
innovation has been identified as a critical method for achieving sustainability. This opens
up new market and business opportunities for firms. On this theme, several respondents
made the following observations:
It is expected that the desire of the firm to be accountable relative to circularity will involve
innovations and creativity [. . .] which if sustain will result in the long-term value creation and
improve performance. (AR 07)
For companies, innovation is an essential growth tool, particularly when promoted by public
policy or voluntary initiatives such as accountability in circular economy. (REP19)
I think accountability in all its forms will drive innovation [. . .] in this sense, innovations should
generate positive economic, social, and environmental results at the same time for the
organization. (PM 02)
The views expressed above indicate that accountability manifestations within the
circularity space will drive innovation. Organizations pursuing CE initiatives should be
concerned with novelties that address the multiple dimensions of circularity in a systematic
manner and produce beneficial outcomes for both society and environment. Research has
indicated that, technological innovation is a critical policy component for long-term growth
(Tseng, 2021; Whelan and Fink, 2016). Accountability within CE business model calls for the
need to be innovative. Innovation in turn exert strong and positive influence on
sustainability performance (Pillai et al., 2017; Kuzma et al., 2020). As a result of the need for
companies to be accountable, creative practices will emerge, resulting in long-term value
creation, performance enhancement and eventually firm sustainability.
5. Summary, conclusions, implications and limitations
The study had the objective of exploring how accountability manifests within CE
environment and how these manifestations may lead to sustainability of the firm. The
objectives were situated within two research questions for qualitative investigation:
RQ1. How is accountability manifested in the CE in contemporary times?
RQ2. How accountability manifestations contribute to the sustainability of a firm?
The examination of field data showed that accountability in the circularity space takes
several forms and configurations. The specific areas of accountability manifestations are
through the social system embedded in society, through the organization’s responsibility
and transparency, through regular reporting to stakeholders using appropriate metrics,
JGR through the organization’s agency and answerability and through governance systems.
14,1 Furthermore, the study found that accountability manifestations will contribute to the firm’s
sustainability by creating competitive advantage through stakeholder engagements,
improving risk management and boosting creativity and innovation.
These findings substantiate the position espoused by previous researchers (Rached,
2016; Cooper and Owen, 2007; Frink, 2008; Frink and Klimoski, 2004; Von Dornum, 1997) to
128 the extent that accountability is a multifaceted concept and must be investigated from
different levels. Further, it also substantiates the position of the literature to the effect that
accountability within the framework of CE should be linked to the business case agenda
which is the sustainability of the firm (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., 2018; Gherardi et al.,
2021). Additionally, the results compares favorably with studies by Asare et al. (2021) on
strategic accountability using institutional theory in Sub-Saharan Africa.
To this end, the research contributes variously to the literature on accountability and
circularity as follows.
First, the study offers empirical evidence about how accountability manifests in the
circularity space. Within the framework of the CE, accountability is manifested by both
formal and informal processes. Formal accountability uses established management control
methods for example, budgeting and budget targets, product costing procedures,
performance evaluation systems and key performance indicators relative to CE. Informal
accountability involves directing company actions or behaviors in a way that helps the
organization achieve its economic goals in a discretionary manner while incorporating social
norms and political value systems (Diab, 2021; Moser and Leipold, 2021). It is assumed that
by implementing these procedures, the social actors will preserve and strengthen its
legitimacy in the public eye.
Second, in terms of theoretical contribution, this study uses institutional logics theory
(Friedland and Alford, 1991; Thornton et al., 2012) to demonstrate how accountability
manifests itself. In this context, CE is underpinned by higher institutional processes (Diab,
2021). Thus, accountability manifestation will be based on multiple institutional logics
existing within the circularity space including state order in the organizational field. Higher
order logics are translated into conventions and routines, which can be used to define social
behavior such as circularity practice (Freidland and Alford, 1991; Thornton et al., 2012).
This is important to appreciate how numerous institutional demands not only obstruct
activities and impose restrictions on organization but also facilitate this process. This
contribution of the study is part of a larger discussion about the need to focus on
accountability in a CE context and investigate its critical position, a subject that has been
surprisingly overlooked by extant literature (Di Maio et al., 2017; Asare et al., 2021).
Third, the study’s results have both policy and managerial implications as follows: the
CE is emerging as a viable alternative to the traditional linear system of production and
consumption (De Angelis, 2020; Tsai et al., 2020; Mashud et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c).
Scholars, government and policymakers are calling for more scholarly reflections on the role
of accountability within the CE setting, given that accountability is critical in ensuring
sustainable development (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., 2018; Gherardi et al., 2021). This
study therefore sets the stage for identifying accountability framework or mechanism
within the emerging phenomenon of CE. Additionally, accountability is a fundamental
principle of good governance, including natural resource governance of which the CE is a
component. This has the effect of guarding against negative social and environmental
consequences as well as power abuse (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., 2018; Gherardi et al.,
2021; Bovens, 2007).
Fourth, accountability directs the actions of power holders toward more socially and Circular
environmentally sustainable outcomes by ensuring that the voices of citizens and economy
potentially impacted people are included in decision-making (Nuesiri, 2016). Thus, this
study has a broader significance in that it proposes mechanisms for ensuring accountability
within the circularity space. Ultimately, the government bears the primary responsibility for
accountable management of production and consumption systems, as well as natural
resources on behalf of its citizens, who are the owners of these resources. However, the
government is frequently hesitant to hold powerful actors, particularly businesses to 129
account without reservation, preferring to allow businesses to opt for voluntarymechanisms
of accountability or self-regulation (Nuesiri, 2016). By addressing this pressing question of
the nature of accountability manifestation, the study sets the tone for government, corporate
leaders, policymakers and society in general to initiative discussions for a more formalized
system of accountability within the circularity space. In fact, the World Bank and other
comparable international financial institutions recognize the importance of accountability
mechanisms that would enable them to address complaints and grievances regarding social
and environmental outcomes of their funded programs and projects worldwide (Nuesiri,
2016). Thus, the study’s findings are contextually relevant, emphasizing the importance of
accountability mechanisms in sustainable production and consumption systems, a subject
recognized by global institutions.
It should however be noted that given the pluralistic nature of the CE, formal
accountability that is excessively based on control and justification would possibly inspire
short-term compliance-oriented actions and will not produce the desired results. Therefore,
government, policymakers, corporate executives and proponents of CE should recognize
that accountability in the circularity space is multifaceted. It should include both formal and
informal mechanisms in designing effective accountability systems so as to fulfil the ideals
of the CE.
This study has the typical limitations of qualitative research in that the results cannot be
generalized. As a result, a potential research direction will be to establish and validate
suitable measures for the accountability manifestations constructs in this study using
quantitative methodology. Future studies may find it useful to explore how accountability
within CE context is evaluated and the boundary conditions that predict positive as well as
negative consequences of accountability. Further, future studies could also explore the
challenges that accountability faces within the context of CE.
References
Ahrens, T. and Khalifa, R. (2015), “The impact of regulation on management control: compliance as a
strategic response to institutional logics of university accreditation”, Qualitative Research in
Accounting &Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 106-126.
Asare, E.T., Burton, B. and Dunne, T. (2021), “Strategic accountability for sustainability of natural
resources–public discharge and optimism in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2020-0437.
Benyus, J.M. (2002), Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature,Harper Collins, NewYork, NY.
Blankenberger, B. andWilliams, A.M. (2020), “COVID and the impact on higher education: the essential
role of integrity and accountability”, Administrative Theory and Praxis, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 404-423.
Bocken, N.M., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C. and Van Der Grinten, B. (2016), “Product design and business
model strategies for a circular economy”, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 308-320.
JGR Bovens, M. (2007), “Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework 1”, European Law
14,1 Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 447-468.
Bovens, M. (2010), “Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism”,
West European Politics, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 946-967.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
130 Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2014), “What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing
researchers?”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, Vol. 9 No. 1,
p. 26152.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2016), “(Mis) conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems
with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis”, International Journal of
Social ResearchMethodology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 739-743.
Chhimwal, M., Agrawal, S. and Kumar, G. (2021), “Measuring circular supply chain risk: a Bayesian
network methodology”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 15, p. 8448.
Commoner, B. (2020),The Closing Circle: nature, Man, and Technology, Courier Dover Publications.
Cooper, S.M. and Owen, D.L. (2007), “Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: the
missing link”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 649-667.
Creswell, J. (2013), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 3rd ed.,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
De Angelis, R. (2020), “Circular economy: laying the foundations for conceptual and theoretical
development in management studies”, Management Decision, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1108/MD-05-2019-0587
Di Maio, F., Rem, P.C., Baldé, K. and Polder, M. (2017), “Measuring resource efficiency and circular
economy: a market value approach”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 122,
pp. 163-171.
Diab, A. (2021), “The accountability process during the centrality of state institutional logics: a case
from an African rural context”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, Vol. 11 No. 3,
doi: 10.1108/JAEE-06-2020-0126
Dillard, J. and Vinnari, E. (2019), “Critical dialogical accountability: from accounting-based
accountability to accountability-based accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 62,
pp. 16-38.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019), “What is the circular economy?”, available at: www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/what-is-the-circular-economy (accessed 16 February
2021).
European Commission (2015), Closing the Loop – an EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, Com
(2015) 614 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European
Commission, Brussels.
Friedland, R. and Alford, R.R. (1991), “Bringing society back in: symbols, practices, and institutional
contradictions”, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in
Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Frink, D.D. and Klimoski, R.J. (1998), “Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human
resource management”.
Frink, D.D. and Klimoski, R.J. (2004), “Advancing accountability theory and practice: introduction to
the human resource management review special edition”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Frink, D.D., Hall, A.T., Perryman, A.A., Ranft, A.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R. and Royle, M.T.
(2008), “Meso-level theory of accountability in organizations”, Research in Personnel and Human
ResourcesManagement, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.
Frishammar, J. and Parida, V. (2019), “Circular business model transformation: a roadmap for Circular
incumbent firms”, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 5-29. economy
Gaitonde, R., Muraleedharan, V.R., San Sebastian, M. and Hurtig, A.K. (2019), “Accountability in the
health system of Tamil Nadu, India: exploring its multiple meanings”, Health Research Policy
and Systems, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M. and Hultink, E.J. (2017), “The circular economy–a new
sustainability paradigm?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143, pp. 757-768. 131
Geng, Y. and Doberstein, B. (2008), “Developing the circular economy in China: challenges and
opportunities for achieving’ leapfrog development”, International Journal of Sustainable
Development andWorld Ecology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 231-239.
Gherardi, L., Linsalata, A.M., Gagliardo, E.D. and Orelli, R.L. (2021), “Accountability and reporting for
sustainability and public value: challenges in the public sector”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 3,
p. 1097.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C. and Ulgiati, S. (2016), “A review on circular economy: the expected transition to
a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 114, pp. 11-32.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
notes on the Gioia methodology”,Organisational ResearchMethods, Vol. 1 No. 16, pp. 15-31.
Gorman, L. andWard, A.M. (2020), “Accountability”, Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management, Vol. 1.
Graedel, T.E. andAllenby, B.R. (1995), Industrial Ecology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Gray, R., Owen, D. and Adams, C. (1996), Accounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in
Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Prentice Hall.
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. and Preuss, L. (2018), “A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability:
descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 148No. 2, pp. 235-248.
Hall, D.M., Gilbertz, S.J., Anderson, M.B., Avellaneda, P.M., Ficklin, D.L., Knouft, J.H. and Lowry, C.S.
(2021), “Mechanisms for engaging social systems in freshwater science research”, Freshwater
Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 245-251.
Ji, L., Tang, G., Wang, X., Yan, M. and Liu, Z. (2012), “Collectivistic-HRM, firm strategy and firm
performance: an empirical test”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 190-203.
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Dahl, A.L. and Persson, Å. (2018), “The emerging accountability regimes for
the sustainable development goals and policy integration: Friend or foe?”, Environment and
Planning C: Politics and Space, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1371-1390.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R.E. (2006), “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and
inquiry-based teaching”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 75-86.
Kuzma, E., Padilha, L.S., Sehnem, S., Julkovski, D.J. and Roman, D.J. (2020), “The relationship between
innovation and sustainability: a meta-analytic study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 259.
Landrum, N.E. and Ohsowski, B. (2018), “Identifying worldviews on corporate sustainability: a content
analysis of corporate sustainability reports”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 128-151.
Lerner, J.S. and Tetlock. P.E. (1999), “Accounting for the effects of accountability”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 255-275.
Lieder, M. and Rashid, A. (2016), “Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review
in context of manufacturing industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 115, pp. 36-51.
Liu, Y., Wood, L.C., Venkatesh, V.G., Zhang, A. and Farooque, M. (2021), “Barriers to sustainable food
consumption and production in China: a fuzzy Dematel analysis from a circular economy
perspective”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 28, pp. 1114-1129.
JGR Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E. and Griffith, R. (2010), “Governance principles for
14,1 natural resource management”, Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 986-1001.
Lyle, J.T. (1996), Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development, JohnWiley and Sons NewYork, NY.
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2010), Cradle to Cradle: Remaking theWay we Make Things, North
point press, London.
Macdonald, K. (2014), “The meaning and purposes of transnational accountability”, Australian Journal
132 of Public Administration, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 426-436.
Marjamaa, M., Salminen, H., Kujala, J., Tapaninaho, R. and Heikkinen, A. (2021), “A sustainable circular
economy: exploring stakeholder interests in Finland”, South Asian Journal of Business and
Management Cases, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 50-62.
Martin-Gutierrez, S., Losada, J.C. and Benito, R.M. (2020), “Impact of individual actions on the collective
response of social systems”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Mashud, A.H.M., Roy, D., Daryanto, Y. and Ali, M.H. (2020a), “A sustainable inventory model with
imperfect products, deterioration, and controllable emissions”, Mathematics, Vol. 8 No. 11,
pp. 1-21.
Mashud, A.H.M., Wee, H.M., Huang, C.V. and Wu, J.Z. (2020b), “Optimal replenishment policy for
deteriorating products in a newsboy problem with multiple just-in-time deliveries”,
Mathematics, Vol. 8 No. 11, pp. 1-18.
Mashud, A.H.M., Wee, H.M., Sarkar, B. and Chiang Li, Y.H. (2020c), “A sustainable inventory system
with the advanced payment policy and trade-credit strategy for a two-warehouse inventory
system”,Kybernetes, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2020-0052
METI (2004), Handbook on Resource Recycling Legislation and 3R Initiatives, Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, Tokyo.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage.
[Database][Mismatch]
Moser, C. and Leipold, S. (2021), “Toward ‘hardened’ accountability? Analyzing the European Union’s
hybrid transnational governance in timber and biofuel supply chains”, Regulation and
Governance, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 115-132.
Munro, R. and Hatherly, D. (1993), “Accountability and the new commercial agenda”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 369-395.
Murray, A., Skene, K. and Haynes, K. (2017), “The circular economy: an interdisciplinary
exploration of the concept and application in a global context”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 140 No. 3, pp. 369-380.
Nuesiri, E.O. (2016), “Accountability of powerful actors for social and environmental outcomes”, NRGF
Conceptual Paper, IUCN and CEESP, Gland, Switzerland.
O’Dwyer, B. and Boomsma, R. (2015), “The co-construction of NGO accountability: aligning imposed
and felt accountability in NGO-funder accountability relationships”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal.
Ogden, S., Glaister, K.W. and Marginson, D. (2006), “Empowerment and accountability: evidence from
the UK privatized water industry”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 521-555.
Pan, P. and Patel, C. (2020), “Formal accountability, perceived accountability and aggressive reporting
judgements”,Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 1, pp. 1-27.
Pieroni, M.P., McAloone, T.C. and Pigosso, D.C. (2019), “Business model innovation for circular
economy and sustainability: a review of approaches”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 215,
pp. 198-216.
Pillai, K.V., Slutsky, P., Wolf, K., Duthler, G. and Stever, I. (2017), “Companies’ accountability in
sustainability: a comparative analysis of SDGs in five countries”, Sustainable Development Goals
in the Asian Context, Springer, Singapore, pp. 85-106.
Rached, D. (2016), “The concept(s) of accountability: form in search of substance”, Leiden Journal of Circular
International Law, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 317-342. economy
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M. and Ormston, R. (Eds) (2013), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide
for Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage, New York, NY.
Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T. and Topi, C. (2016),
“Implementation of circular economy business models by small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs): barriers and enablers”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 11, p. 1212. 133
Saldaña, J. (2021).The CodingManual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, Pearson
education.
Savin-Baden, M. and Howell-Major, C. (2013), Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and
Practice, Routledge.
Schnackenberg, A.K., Tomlinson, E. and Coen, C. (2021), “The dimensional structure of transparency: a
construct validation of transparency as disclosure, clarity, and accuracy in organizations”,
Human Relations, Vol. 74 No. 10, pp. 1628-1660.
Soobaroyen, T., Tsamenyi, M. and Sapra, H. (2017), “Accounting and governance in Africa–
contributions and opportunities for further research”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging
Economies, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-427.
Stahel, W.R. (2010), “Sustainability and the performance economy”, The Performance Economy,
Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 269-287.
Stebbins, R.A. (2001), Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences, Kindle edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y. and Yu, X. (2013), “A review of the circular economy in China: moving
from rhetoric to implementation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 42, pp. 215-227.
Svensson, N. and Funck, E.K. (2019), “Management control in circular economy. Exploring and
theorizing the adaptation of management control to circular business models”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 233, pp. 390-398.
Tamvada, M. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility and accountability: a new theoretical foundation
for regulating CSR”, International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 1-14.
Thakhathi, A., De Jongh, D. and Langeni, P. (2021), “What’s in a king? Unveiling the pragmatic micro-
perceived value attributes of a fulfilling corporate governance code for responsible sustainable
development”, Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 12 No. 4.
Thornton, P., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012),The Institutional Logics Perspective, JohnWiley and
Sons, NJ.
Tsai, F.M., Bui, T.D., Tseng, M.L., Lim, M.K., Wu, K.J. and Mashud, A.H.M. (2020), “Assessing a
hierarchical sustainable solid waste management structure with qualitative information: Policy
and regulations drive social impacts and stakeholder participation”, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, p. 105285.
Tseng, S. (2021), “Capitalising on capitalism: the growing business case for sustainability and the
crucial role of shareholders”.
Vermunt, D.A., Negro, S.O., Verweij, P.A., Kuppens, D.V. and Hekkert, M.P. (2019), “Exploring barriers
to implementing different circular business models”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 222,
pp. 891-902.
Von Dornum, D.D. (1997), “The straight and the crooked: legal accountability in ancient Greece”,
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 1483-1518.
Whelan, T. and Fink, C. (2016), “The comprehensive business case for sustainability”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 2016.
JGR Winschel, J. (2021), “Climate change policies and carbon-related CEO compensation systems: an
14,1 exploratory study of European companies”, Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 12 No. 2.
Yang, D., Xiao, T. and Huang, J. (2019), “Dual-channel structure choice of an environmental
responsibility supply chain with green investment”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 210,
pp. 134-145.
Yin, R. (2014), Case Study Research: Design andMethods, 5th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
134
Further reading
Bovens, M. (2005), “Public accountability”, in Ferlie, E., Lynne, L. and Pollitt, C. (Eds), The Oxford
Handbook of Public Management, OUP, Oxford.
Gary, R., Owen, D. and Adams, C. (1996), “Accounting and accountability: changes and challenges in
corporate social and environmental reporting”, Prectice Hall.
Mulgan, R. (2000), “Accountability: an ever-expanding concept?”, Public Administration, Vol. 78 No. 3,
pp. 555-573.
Appendix. Interview guide – semi-structured interview questions
The following interview questions were put to the respondents to obtain their views and perception
relative to the subject matter:
(1) What is CE and why do you think that is CE? (2) Have you been involved in CE
implementation or initiative? (2) What is accountability? (3) What accountability entails? (4) What is
the meaning of accountability in the CE context? (5) What makes you believe that is accountability in
the context of CE? (6) How is accountability manifested within the CE context? (7) Why does it
manifest in this way? (8) How are these manifestations contributing toward sustainability of the firm?
(9) How is accountability evaluated in the context of CE? (10) What are the elements of accountability
in the CE environment? (11) What type or kind of accountability (i.e. formal or informal) would you
recommend within the context of CE and why?
Corresponding author
Amoako Kwarteng can be contacted at: akwarteng@gimpa.edu.gh
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com