Purpose The purpose of this paper is to systematically review accounting and non-accounting literature related to accounting for the circular economy (CE) and develop a research agenda that advances and promotes interdisciplinary research. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review is conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. This is followed by a comprehensive content analysis examining how CE is represented in both accounting and non-accounting journals. The study uses a conceptual framing informed by knowledge boundaries to understand conceptual fragmentation and boundary objects to identify both resilient and adaptable features across disciplines. Findings Accounting for the CE is an emerging yet highly diverse field, characterised by a range of terminology, concepts, measurement bases, tools, techniques and disclosure practices. Research published in accounting journals predominantly focuses on aligning the CE imperatives with traditional accounting principles and lags behind non-accounting journals in terms of both publication volume and scope. In contrast, non-accounting journals often explore innovative methods for assessing and measuring circularity, though these approaches frequently remain disconnected from corporate decision-making processes. This disciplinary fragmentation stems from differences in terminology (syntactic boundaries), interpretation (semantic boundaries) and priorities (pragmatic boundaries). Framing academic journals as boundary objects may help to foster interdisciplinary dialogue and overcome conceptual fragmentation. Research limitations/implications This study advances the field of accounting for the CE by identifying its current boundaries and proposing a synthesised research agenda to support interdisciplinary engagement. The study is limited by the scope of its systematic review protocol, which future research can build upon. Originality/value This study extends prior systematic literature reviews by examining sources of diversity within the field and identifying a way forward by promoting interdisciplinary collaboration through a proposed research agenda.
Atupola et al. (Mon,) studied this question.