Measuring CSR with Accounting Information Systems Through a Managerial Model for Sustainable Economic Development

Abstract

In the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) context, organizations must increasingly integrate non-financial indicators into their reporting structures. The role of accounting information in establishing a comprehensive model for measuring corporate social responsibility (CSR) is critical due to its inherent characteristics. This study proposes a structured model for measuring CSR performance using accounting information systems (AIS) as an analytical and operational support tool. The research investigates the extent to which financial analysts and auditors use AIS to evaluate specific CSR indicators related to employee satisfaction, environmental impact, and customer relations and how these contribute to a global CSR index. The study is based on a quantitative survey conducted among accounting professionals in Romania using a structured questionnaire, analyzed through correlation-based models. The findings reveal a statistically significant association between AIS usage and the capacity to quantify CSR performance, with clear distinctions based on professional roles and areas of expertise. This article contributes to the literature by demonstrating how AIS can operationalize sustainability reporting frameworks and support the transition toward evidence-based CSR assessments. The proposed model offers a practical tool for organizations to improve transparency, stakeholder engagement, and strategic alignment with sustainability objectives.

1. Introduction

In today’s landscape of economic transformation and heightened demands for sustainable growth, there is an urgent need to reassess how organizations contribute to economic development. CSR, once seen primarily as a voluntary or ethical commitment, is increasingly being woven into strategic business models that align with long-term economic goals [1]. At the same time, AIS provides the essential framework for implementing this integration, facilitating the transformation of qualitative commitments into measurable performance metrics. Consequently, understanding the intersection of CSR and AIS is crucial in shaping organizational behaviors that promote inclusive and sustainable economic development [2,3].

The increasing pressure on companies to report sustainability-related data has created a growing need for measurable, transparent, and standardized CSR practices. While the regulatory framework has progressed significantly, notably through the EU Directive 2022/2464, implementation at the organizational level remains uneven, particularly in emerging economies such as Romania. In this context, the role of accounting professionals in integrating sustainability criteria into financial evaluation processes is underexplored and critical. The epistemic and empirical origin of social responsibility is based on previous research initiated by American authors [4,5]. They were seeking solutions to ensure a liberal framework for entrepreneurs and to assure the entire community that it would benefit from economic development. Corporate social responsibility is a concept that integrates social, environmental, and financial concerns into an entity’s activity and comprises all its relations with different partners [1].

The epistemological approach is intended to critically examine the existing literature on CSR measurement through various accounting tools, a domain characterized by relative scarcity of comprehensive and prolific literature [6]. Furthermore, this analysis encompasses the theoretical framework for measuring CSR, which, despite its vast scope, remains an underexplored area with insufficient specific delimitations [7]. Gradually, and almost as a fashionable effect, the discourse on social responsibility has been increasingly integrated within the contexts of Western, Central, and Eastern European countries [8]. Although substantive differences exist between these regions and the American context, both theorists and businesses have endeavored to achieve theoretical and practical adaptability in their approaches.

Measuring an enterprise’s social responsibility by indicators is a recent development, and the data available do not share the same characteristics [9]. This issue has been addressed only tangentially in the international literature and is almost non-existent in Romanian literature [8]. Moreover, in most of the works studied, the conclusions from some international studies are regarded as absolute truths and are adopted almost automatically without considering the differences in economic and social contexts [10,11].

A key motivation for this research stems from the limited empirical investigation into how financial analysts and auditors use AIS to structure and validate CSR performance. Existing sustainability assessment models, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or environmental, social, and governance (ESG) indices, often remain disconnected from internal accounting tools and decision-making processes. This study seeks to bridge that gap by analyzing how AIS can support the quantification of CSR actions, moving beyond narrative reporting toward data-driven evaluation.

The empirical research aims to identify the perception of social responsibility in the Romanian business environment, the variables of social responsibility, and the extent to which accounting provides the information necessary to measure the different components of social responsibility.

The research’s originality lies in developing and empirically validating a CSR evaluation model that integrates specific indicators (environment, employees, customers) into a global index, using AIS as a backbone. Unlike prior studies, which primarily rely on financial performance proxies or external sustainability ratings, this model is built from internal data sources and perceptions of accounting professionals directly involved in sustainability reporting.

Accordingly, the following research question guides this study: To what extent do specific CSR indicators—related to employees, environmental practices, and customer orientation—contribute to the formation and reliability of a global CSR evaluation model supported by AIS? The study aims to test the statistical relationships between specific CSR indicators and the composite global CSR index and assess how these relationships vary across professional roles and decision-making levels.

This analysis uncovered rare scenarios that are often overlooked in the literature, ultimately validating the researchers’ hypotheses. Some socially responsible companies may fail to report their efforts, either due to a lack of awareness regarding the significance of social accountability or because their communication systems are underdeveloped [3,4]. Additionally, the researchers observed a certain reluctance among individuals in accounting services to embrace social reporting as a necessary task amid economic development. A notable divide persists between decision makers and accounting services concerning social responsibility. While accounting effectively highlights the various activities of an enterprise, it remains the primary means of assessing the organization across economic, financial, and social dimensions. SPSS software was employed to process the data, and the results were presented using Microsoft Office components.

The remainder of the study is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews and highlights the current state of CSR measurement approaches, presents the research hypotheses, describes sample selection, and outlines the basic methodology employed to measure conditional conservatism and CSR orientation and examine their association. Section 3 reports our empirical results and presents a new managerial model for measuring CSR using accounting information. After Section 4, Section 5 summarizes the study’s research findings.

2. Materials and Methods

Social responsibility has theoretically and empirically proven to be a reporting position on enterprise governance that reflects its integration into the community. The relationship between corporate governance and social responsibility has been debated in a series of specialized works highlighting one or the other elements [12,13].

The GRI standards are widely recognized as the most frequently adopted framework for sustainability reporting worldwide, enabling organizations to disclose their ESG impacts consistently and transparently [14]. The GRI provides structured guidelines that facilitate stakeholder engagement and enhance corporate accountability by promoting disclosures beyond financial performance. However, despite their broad applicability, GRI standards place limited emphasis on integrating traditional accounting information. While economic indicators—such as revenues, government payments, and employee compensation—are included, the overall framework favors narrative and qualitative disclosures over detailed financial metrics. This limited focus on accounting-based data may restrict the depth of performance evaluation, particularly in scenarios where quantification and comparability are essential. Therefore, incorporating AIS into CSR evaluation models could address this shortcoming by linking sustainability efforts to traceable financial processes and measurable outcomes.

In contrast to the GRI’s broad stakeholder-focused approach, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards emphasize the financial materiality of sustainability issues from the investors’ perspective [15]. SASB provides industry-specific disclosure standards that aim to connect ESG factors with economic performance, thus enhancing the decision usefulness of sustainability information. While SASB is more aligned with accounting principles than GRI, it focuses on external reporting and investor relevance rather than the operational use of accounting data within firms. As a result, even SASB does not systematically incorporate data flows from internal AIS, nor does it provide direct tools for integrating financial and non-financial performance at the transactional or managerial level. This creates an opportunity for AIS-supported CSR evaluation models to complement existing standards by internalizing sustainability performance metrics and linking them to organizational decision processes.

To understand the need to measure social responsibility, it is essential to highlight the dimension of enterprise governance that influences how it is managed and controlled, including the relationships between the various participating parties and the objectives that guide the enterprise. In this respect, two types of corporate governance can be distinguished [16]. The first type of governance, founded on the “shareholder theory”, privileges value creation for shareholders [17]. From this point of view, against the background of the increased mobility of financial capital, the interests of management must be aligned with those of shareholders, financial investors, and the board of directors. The stakeholder theory asserts that organizations should consider the interests of all parties affected by their actions rather than focusing solely on shareholders. This perspective is especially pertinent in the domain of CSR, where companies are increasingly expected to acknowledge their social and environmental impacts [18]. Incorporating the stakeholder theory into CSR evaluation highlights the significance of transparency and accountability to various stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and regulators. AIS can play a vital role in this integration by systematically gathering and reporting data that reflect the organization’s performance in addressing stakeholder concerns. By aligning AIS with the principles of the stakeholder theory, organizations can improve their CSR reporting, ensuring it captures the multifaceted nature of their operations and meets the informational needs of varied stakeholder groups.

The second way of governance, based on the principles of the “stakeholder theory”, should contribute to a vision of partnership and cooperation that fosters the anchoring of the participating parties around the enterprise [19]. In this broader sense, which considers the creation of value for all partners, performance is measured with the participation of all partners. This type of governance contributes to the formation and development of financial and human capital (individual skills, experience, know-how) and, organizationally, sources of value creation [20,21].

The increasing institutionalization of sustainability reporting has led to a reconfiguration of traditional accounting roles, with AIS emerging as an instrument for managing and validating CSR performance data. According to Shi et al. (2024), AIS facilitates the integration of environmental and social dimensions into business performance monitoring, contributing to sustainable business model innovation [22]. This aligns with the stakeholder theory, which emphasizes the importance of responding to the informational needs of a broad array of stakeholders beyond shareholders.

Recent literature also explores the correlation between structured CSR frameworks and improved corporate financial results. Li, Tang, and Li (2024) highlight that ESG system implementation contributes to higher returns on assets and equity, especially in industries with significant environmental exposure [23]. However, these studies primarily rely on aggregated ESG scores or external assessments and do not investigate the internal mechanisms professionals use to evaluate CSR dimensions.

Parthun (2024) discusses the expanding role of CPAs in sustainability assurance, noting that accounting professionals are increasingly expected to bridge financial and non-financial domains through digital tools [24]. Despite these advances, limited empirical research exists on how financial analysts and auditors specifically apply AIS to quantify CSR dimensions at the operational level.

The notion of shareholder value is an indicator of the company’s sound management, starting from the simple principle of encouraging all initiatives that increase the share price to improve the ratio between the profits expected by the shareholders and the capital invested by them [25]. Considering that the shareholder dimension of value is very restrictive to constructing a relevant theory on the governance of the enterprise, other authors proposed a broad definition of the value created, that of partnership value, in line with the company’s pluralistic vision [26]. The ultimate objective of the enterprise is no longer to create value at all costs for the shareholders but rather to promote a managerial culture oriented toward the satisfaction of the enterprise’s economic, financial, and social partners [27].

This study addresses that gap by proposing an indicator-based model for CSR assessment, developed from internal perceptions and validated with empirical data. The model contributes to the literature by combining AIS functionalities with CSR measurement practices, advancing conceptual understanding and practical application.

The authors extensively analyzed the literature on the perception of social responsibility in social and environmental accounting to address the measurable aspects of social responsibility through an interpretative and constructivist approach [11,28].

Table 1. Possibilities for measuring social responsibility approaches.

The Social Responsibility of the Enterprise as	Measurable	Source of Information
efficient management	Yes, classical management	Financial and management accounting
philanthropy	Yes	Financial accounting
solicitude	No	Satisfaction of employees’ needs
limiting pollution	Partial	Environmental accounting
social responsiveness	Partial	Social accounting
reprinting of accounts	Yes, triple the balance sheet	Social and environmental accounting

Source: Authors’ research.

highlights the main approaches to social responsibility that are largely measurable, and their measurability is given by accounting, either financial, management, environmental, or social.

The tools for measuring economic facts and results are indicators. In social responsibility, the indicators used for a long time have been environmental and social indicators, quartered in certain spheres or specific industrial activities, which often lack information sources and public visibility [29]. Over time, CSR improved by providing information about the new dimensions of social responsibility, which began to appear as the complexity of economic phenomena and the requirements of the enterprise’s different social partners increased. These are impact indicators (information about the social and environmental impact of the company’s activity) and indicators for measuring the relationship with stakeholders (e.g., customer satisfaction) [30]. Also, several indicators are aimed at charity, philanthropic, and community actions [31].

According to the updated interpretation of Friedman’s theory, the primary responsibility of an enterprise is to generate profit. If a business successfully achieves this objective, it may distribute remuneration to all factors of production [32]. However, managers often misinterpret this perception as being closely aligned with social responsibility. Recognizing that a high profit margin does not necessarily equate to a socially responsible operation is critical. In a market economy, the predominant focus tends to be on satisfying shareholder demands, which can result in inadequate remuneration for production factors, particularly human resources. This situation underscores the need for managerial tools grounded in accounting information that effectively measure social responsibility. Notably, added-value rates are considered among the most suitable financial instruments for evaluating various dimensions of social responsibility. Although national legislation and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) do not explicitly reference these instruments, financial accounting, through annual financial statements, has the potential to provide the requisite information for determining these critical indicators [33].

As a technique, financial accounting is, in fact, a construction that transposes a representation of the performance of the enterprise. This representation does not exist but is the product of accounting figures, and how they are designed and recorded creates the representation for the user. The accounting systems are based on a concept of capital accumulation presented on the balance sheet and enrichment, with the net result representing the change in accumulated capital because it appears on the balance sheet liability for equity. In that context, accounting is not limited to recording transactions. Nevertheless, it involves understanding phenomena, which consists of applying valuation methods, with consequences for the perception of performance [34,35].

Annual financial statements are summary accounting documents that indicate information on an entity’s financial position, financial performance, and statement of cash flows. They are helpful in the decision-making processes of allocating and using resources and obtaining and distributing results. Financial statements are intended to meet the everyday information needs of many users, e.g., shareholders, creditors, employees, and the public [36,37].

The performance analysis is performed based on data from the results account. An annual financial statement is written in terms of flow, which includes all the patrimonial flows that allow for the creation of wealth, starting from the totality of incomes and expenses. The profitability analysis, carried out through intermediate management balances and self-financing capacity, remains essential for many beneficiaries of the analysis report. In this regard, it is worth pointing out that most of the company’s stakeholders favor performance indicators that quantify profitability, as they are conclusive and easy to understand, including a quasi-unanimously accepted interpretation [38]. In addition, such analysis reveals the characteristics of some items of income that are cashable and expenditures that are payable to generate cash flows [39].

Added value is the most essential part of the assigned income of the total wealth obtained by the enterprise thanks to all its activities, which is divided between employees, the state, financial creditors, and the enterprise. Therefore, the difference between the value produced and consumed represents the enterprise’s added value. Added value is the contribution of the enterprise to the gross domestic product, representing the expression of the enterprise’s economic performance [40]. By measuring the financial surplus of the enterprise, the added value provides the perception of the additional value that is obtained using human resources (labor), technical resources (technical capital), and financial resources (financial capital). The key issue is assessing how to use these resources and remunerate them. At the same time, the added value, because it combines the factors of production, constitutes the source of their remuneration and behavioral determination, ensuring that the enterprise is kept on the market [41].

Based on these theoretical foundations, the authors summarize that corporate social responsibility is a concept according to which voluntary, social, environmental, and economic concerns are integrated into the activities of enterprises and their relations with different partners [42]. In practice, the social responsibility of the enterprise can ensure, for example, the overall quality of the supply sources, the establishment of lasting and cooperative relationships with suppliers, the customers’ expectations, the well-being of employees, the quality of management and climate at work, the invitation of employees to initiative, training, remuneration, and the environmental impact of the enterprise [43]. Without a standardized context and literature dedicated to measuring social responsibility, this research identifies, from an accounting perspective, measurable components of social responsibility and appropriate measurement tools.

The documentary research in the field allowed us to conclude that coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures mainly explain the choice of enterprises to use social responsibility indicators. By introducing economic variables into the rationale, they found that the search demonstrates the choice for a potential competitive advantage using rare and specific skills. A performance measurement system that includes social responsibility indicators can be seen as a resource and competence that would positively influence the performance of the enterprise [44].

To analyze the relationship between accounting and social responsibility, the authors proposed conducting a quantitative study that would provide answers regarding the existence of a relationship, its concrete forms of manifestation, and the methods for evaluating them. The study aimed to achieve two converging objectives: assessing social responsibility actions and formulating a measurement model using accounting information. Also, the authors formulated a set of hypotheses to identify the variables and their contribution to the model (

Table 2. The size of research hypotheses.

Objective	Hypothesis
O1—Evaluation of CSR actions	H0. Social responsibility is mainly assimilated into community-related actions and is influenced by financial performance.
	H1. The entity mainly engages in social responsibility activities to improve its financial image and performance.
	H2. The main areas in which the entities get involved in the social responsibility plan are the community and the employees.
O2—The role of accounting in the measurement of social responsibility	H3. The entities assess the results of the social responsibility actions carried out with the help of accounting information.
	H4. Most forms of evaluation are qualitative.
	H5. Financial accounting information is indispensable for the measurement of CSR actions.

Source: Authors’ research.

).

The hypotheses formulated in this study are grounded in the convergence between the stakeholder theory and emerging frameworks for sustainability reporting, particularly within the European context. H0 and H1 reflect the growing consensus that CSR initiatives are no longer purely philanthropic but are strategically linked to corporate image, legitimacy, and financial performance. These assumptions are supported by empirical evidence suggesting that organizations engage in CSR activities to strengthen their reputation and gain competitive advantages, especially in sectors with high stakeholder visibility. H2 narrows this focus by identifying community engagement and employee well-being as dominant CSR pillars, in line with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards and the ISO 26000 framework.

H3–H5 extend the conceptual foundation by highlighting the instrumental role of accounting information in CSR measurement. The use of financial indicators and internal accounting systems to evaluate CSR actions has been increasingly advocated in academic literature; yet, empirical adoption remains limited. These hypotheses explore the extent to which accounting professionals rely on qualitative versus quantitative methods (H4) and whether the accounting data are perceived as essential for assessing the impact of CSR programs (H5). The six hypotheses structure the research into a coherent model that connects CSR motivations, implementation domains, and the informational infrastructure used to measure and validate social responsibility outcomes.

Considering the objectives of this research, the observation unit is defined as comprising companies and public institutions in Romania, irrespective of their respective fields of activity. This research employed a quantitative, survey-based methodology to evaluate how accounting professionals assess CSR indicators within the framework of AIS. The study was conducted in Romania, an emerging economy with a growing institutional emphasis on sustainability reporting.

The research design was based on structured data collection using a questionnaire addressed to two professional categories: financial auditors and accounting experts. A quota sampling technique was used to ensure proportional representation across both categories. This non-probabilistic method was chosen due to the targeted population’s professional specificity and the need to ensure sectoral diversity while maintaining expertise relevance.

To investigate the significance of corporate social responsibility, elucidate the company’s role in this domain, and evaluate the extent of implementation of measurement methodologies related to social responsibility within accounting practices, a situational analysis was conducted involving employees from both public and private entities. Initially, relevant data were sourced from the Romanian National Institute of Statistics Database, enabling a statistical description of the public and private entities. The sampling approach adopted was non-probabilistic, utilizing quota sampling as the sampling frame [45].

There are several opinions regarding the estimation of the error in quota sampling. In their experiment, Moser and Stuart also estimated a quota sample’s standard errors versus a random sample [46]. On the other hand, Corlett claims that the odds sample has almost the same accuracy as the random sample [47].

Face-to-face interviews and completed questionnaires summarized a total of 115 respondents. To determine the sample size, the following formula (Equation (1)) was used:

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{t^2\ast p\ast q}{e^2}}$$

(1)

where

n—sample size.

t—the guarantee-coefficient-associated probability of research results.

p—the non-percentage weight of components characterized by an attribute of the sample.

q—the non-percentage weight of the sample components characterized by an attribute obtained by the equation q = (1−p).

e—margin of error.

Under a confidence level of 0.05 and a completion rate of 95%, a margin of error of ± 5%, for a p-value of 0.50, the sample size becomes Equation (2):

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{t^2 \ast p \ast q}{e^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\left(0.575\right)}^2 \ast 0.5 \ast 0.5}{{\left(0.05\right)}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{0.2875}{0.0025}}=115$$

(2)

The data were collected over six months (October 2023–March 2024) using an online survey platform. Of the distributed questionnaires, 115 valid responses were received and processed for analysis. The questionnaire included demographic variables (e.g., professional role, years of experience) and thematic questions related to CSR practices and AIS usage. The CSR evaluation was structured into three domains:

• CSR_Employees (e.g., involvement, motivation, relevance),
• CSR_Environment (e.g., environmental impact, forecasting, compliance tools),
• CSR_Customers (e.g., transparency, feedback, marketing integration).

Each domain was measured using Likert-scale items (1–5), and domain-level scores were computed as unweighted averages of the responses. Using the three domain-specific scores, a global CSR score was calculated. MS Excel was used to analyze the database, and a double-check method was used to enter the data. SPSS 24.0 software was used for statistical analysis.

The instrument was reviewed by a panel of five academic and professional experts and piloted on ten respondents. Minor linguistic adjustments were made to improve clarity and response consistency. The internal consistency of each subscale was tested using Cronbach’s alpha, yielding values above the 0.7 reliability threshold.

Correlation and aggregation techniques examined the relationships between specific CSR indicators and the composite global CSR score. The model included both unweighted and weighted versions of the CSR score, with weights derived from expert assessments of each domain’s importance.

The study is based on specialist perception data, which, while subjective, are methodologically appropriate in exploratory and model-building research, mainly when the target population consists of trained financial professionals actively engaged in sustainability reporting. The sample included 115 respondents: 62% accountants and 38% financial auditors. Approximately 60% of the participants worked in the private sector, 25% in public institutions, and 15% in NGOs. Over 70% had more than 10 years of professional experience. The results are thus contextually valid and offer grounded insights into the operationalization of CSR in accounting practice.

Firstly, a preliminary analysis of the overall data was performed using statistical descriptions. Secondly, the chi-square test [48] was used to compare observed results of the influencing factors on satisfaction with expected results [49]. The aims determined whether the relationship between the observed results and expected data was due to chance or links between the variables [50].

Following the structuring of the sample, a comprehensive questionnaire was administered, encompassing a range of inquiries regarding the entity’s engagement in social responsibility initiatives. The questions were meticulously crafted to elucidate how respondents evaluate the significance of accounting information in assessing social responsibility. Each area of social responsibility manifestations, such as employees, environment, community, shareholders, state, creditors, and trading partners, was addressed through one or more statements formatted on a Likert scale. The statements commenced with actions characteristic of social responsibility practices applicable to most companies and institutions. The Likert scale was chosen based on its ease of application and the possibility of further comparing the results between the analyzed areas. In addition, each of these parties included the possibility of respondents’ free expression of how the assessment of social responsibility activities is carried out and what information is used for this purpose.

3. Results

The concept of social responsibility was initially explored through an open-ended question. Respondents were invited to identify up to three words encapsulating the essence of social responsibility. Responses were subsequently categorized into eight distinct themes based on conceptual similarities. This methodological approach enabled the quantification of the concepts within each category. The findings indicate that the majority of respondents (92.2%) primarily associate social responsibility with notions of society or community, utilizing terms such as “welfare”, “community”, “society”, and “development”. Additionally, social responsibility is associated with the notion of employees by 53% of respondents. Another significant category identified encompasses various ethical values organizations may promote, which was cited by 50.4% of participants. It should be noted that the perception of social responsibility in terms of the company’s performance was recorded at a much lower percentage, namely 22.6%.

Table 3. Social responsibility from the perspective of respondents.

Notions	Category Details	No.	%
1. Society–Community	“welfare”, “community”, “society”, “better society”, “citizens”, “development”, “sustainable development”, “modernization”, “people”, “stability/stability of the community”, “progress”, “contribution”, “rights”, “laws”, “obligations”, “obligations payment”, “protection of employees”, “state”	106	92.2
2. Human Resources	“employees”, “workers”	61	53.1
3. Environment	“air”, “environment/environment protection”, “cleaner environment”, “appropriate environment”, “ozone”, “pollution”	47	40.9
4. Ethical Values	“help”, “attitude”, “charity”, “civilization”, “awareness”, “fairness”, “ethics”, “duty”, “care”, “involvement”, “integrity”, “volunteering”, “morality”, “honesty”, “principles”, “promotion of a cause”, “respect”, “seriousness”, “support”, “chance”, “transparency”, “responsibility”	58	50.4
5. Economic Performances	“fundraising”, “competitiveness”, “communication”, “image”, “integration”, “investments”, “opportunities”, “strategy”, “profit”	26	22.6
6. Other	“health”, “impact on the decision-making system”, “allocation of funds”, “promotion of young values”, “campaign”, “sponsorships”, “cultural issues”	13	11.3
Total Responses	311	x	x
Total Respondents	115	x	x

Source: Authors’ results.

shows the totality of the notions spontaneously evoked by the respondents regarding social responsibility.

Based on these answers, Figure 1 graphically represents the keywords associated with the concept of social responsibility.

3.1. Relationship Between Financial Performance and Involvement in CSR Actions

In this research, the validation of hypotheses H0 and H1 was achieved.

Table 4. Analysis of respondents’ opinions.

Statement	TD	D	NAD	A	TA	T	SD	W	S	R
Environmental actions	5	16	25	39	30	115	13,058	418	3635	4
Actions relating to employees	6	15	22	30	42	115	13,820	432	3757	3
Community-related actions	2	8	20	20	65	115	24,739	483	4200	1
Shares relating to shareholders and investors	5	7	31	38	34	115	15,732	434	3774	2

Note: TD—Total Disagreement; D—Disagreement; NAD—Neither Agreement nor Disagreement; A—Agreement; TA—Total Agreement; T—Total; SD—Standard Deviation; W—Weight; S—Score; R—Rank. Source: Authors’ results.

illustrates the influence of the financial performance of organizations on their involvement in social responsibility actions. Thus, the exceptionally high scores in terms of shares related to the community (score 4.20) and investors (score 3.77) denote a strong influence of financial performance on the involvement of organizations in social responsibility actions. The scores are also high for actions favoring the environment and employees. However, there is still a significant difference from other areas, which can be explained by the existence of legal obligations depending on the field of activity of each organization.

A possible dependence between the type of organization and each type of action was tested by χ² in the table regarding the relationship between financial performance and social responsibility actions. Two variables were thus defined:

H0: 

Organization variable is not associated with social responsibility actions;

H1: 

Organization variable is related to social responsibility actions.

To apply the chi-square test, particular prerequisites must be satisfied: the variables under consideration must be categorical, encompassing two or more groups for each variable; the observations must exhibit independence, ensuring that there is no inherent relationship between subjects and that variable pairings are not present; and the sample size must be of sufficient magnitude, necessitating that the expected frequencies reach a minimum of one and that at least 80% of the values have frequencies of five or more significant.

As

Table 5. Influence of organization type on the relationship between financial performance and CSR actions.

Actions	Intensity of Dependence	Values Above Average	Values Below Average
Environmental actions	p = 0.03748	Public institution → “Significant influence”	Public institution → “Insignificant influence”
	χ2 = 4.32841 *
Actions related to employees	p = 0.06657	Public institution → “Low influence”	Public institution → “Medium and Low Influence”
	χ2 = 3.36557
Actions related to community	p = 0.7263	Public institution → “Insignificant influence”	Public institution → “Insignificant influence”
	χ2 = 0.122549
Actions related to shareholders and investors	p = 0.02905	Private entity → “Significant influence”	Public institution → “Insignificant influence”
	χ2 = 4.75304

Note: * Two degrees of liberty, 5%. Source: Authors’ results.

shows, financial performance significantly influences social responsibility initiatives regarding employees and environmental concerns within public institutions.

Notably, a lack of dependence was observed regarding community actions, which is a logical outcome given that public institutions are fundamentally established for the benefit of the community. This analysis supports the validation of hypothesis H2.

3.2. Financial Accounting Information in the Assessment/Measurement of CSR

The table below highlights the significance of accounting information in evaluating social responsibility actions. Notably, there is a notably high level of total agreement, with a score of 2.94, regarding trust in financial accounting information. This is closely followed by a substantial score of 2.59, indicating the essential role that financial accounting information plays in measuring social responsibility actions. This finding supports the validation of hypothesis H3 (

Table 6. The use of financial accounting information in the evaluation of CSR actions.

Statement	TD	D	NAD	A	TA	T	SD	W	S	R
Financial and accounting information is indispensable for measuring the results of social responsibility actions.	3	3	35	44	30	115	41,200	440	3826	2
The evaluation of social responsibility action results is mainly conducted through qualitative indicators.	7	13	78	12	5	115	46,646	340	2957	5
The management of the company/institution trusts the financial accounting information.	1	1	7	58	48	115	45,005	496	4313	1
The accounting department is responsible for information not provided by the mandatory accounting regulations.	20	9	36	10	40	115	39,712	386	3357	3
The involvement in social responsibility actions is based on forecasting the leading financial indicators.	10	11	37	50	7	115	41,346	378	3287	4

Note: TD—Total Disagreement; D—Disagreement; NAD—Neither Agreement nor Disagreement; A—Agreement; TA—Total Agreement; T—Total; SD—Standard Deviation; W—Weight; S—Score; R—Rank. Source: Authors’ results.

).

The highest score in the table (4.31) highlights the management’s firm trust in financial accounting information, confirming its perceived reliability in assessing CSR activities. The second highest score (3.83) indicates that economic and accounting information is considered indispensable for measuring the results of social responsibility actions. This reinforces the idea that AIS is central to structuring and validating CSR evaluation processes. A moderate score of 3.36 shows that the accounting department may be asked to provide additional information beyond what is required by legal accounting standards, suggesting that CSR reporting often requires broader and more tailored financial insights. Lastly, the evaluation of CSR results through mainly qualitative indicators received the lowest score (2.96), indicating a trend toward partial agreement. This suggests that although qualitative methods are still used, there is an increasing shift toward combining them with quantitative, accounting-based measurements, consistent with the broader findings of this research.

Utilizing the χ² test, an examination was conducted to ascertain potential dependencies between the respondent’s role and the importance of accounting information (

Table 7. Testing opinions about the importance of financial accounting information.

Function of Respondents	Intensity of Dependence	Values Above the Average
Manager	p = 0.4992	“Totally Agree”
	χ2 = 0.4566
Economic Manager	p = 0.6558	“Totally Agree”
	χ2 = 0.1986
Employee Representative	p = 0.0145	“Partially Agree”
	χ2 = 5.69685
Others	p = 0.5483	“Totally Agree”
	χ2 = 0.3604

Source: Authors’ results.

). Employee representatives exhibited partial agreement at an above-average level regarding the essential nature of accounting information in measuring social responsibility contributions, thereby supporting the validation of hypothesis H5.

Figure 2 summarizes the key indicators deemed essential for performance analysis, as perceived by the respondents. Each participant identified their top three indicators in order of significance. The results indicate that the predominant indicators identified were the organization’s image (58.3%), the necessary financing for current activities (56.5%), and the satisfaction of beneficiaries of the services provided (53.9%). Closely following these, the turnover indicator was cited by 51.3% of respondents. Conversely, lower values were recorded for labor productivity and expenditure on wages and social contributions. The top three indicators for performance analysis comprised two qualitative measures (the organization’s image and beneficiary satisfaction) and one quantitative measure (the need to fund current activities). These findings support the validation of hypothesis H4.

Additionally, hypothesis H3, which examined the influence of organization type on the selection of performance analysis indicators, was analyzed (

Table 8. Influence of the type of organization on the indicators used for performance analysis.

Type of Organization	Intensity of Dependence	Values Above the Average
Public entities	p = 0.4998	“Turnover” Very significant
	χ2 = 0.4382
Private entities	p = 0.6532	“Statement of expenditure on salaries and social contributions” Very significant
	χ2 = 0.3826

Source: Authors’ results.

). The analysis revealed that turnover emerged as the most critical indicator for private enterprises. At the same time, the relationship between expenditure on salaries and social contributions was identified as significantly influential for public institutions.

3.3. Possibilities to Improve the Relationship Between Accounting and Social Responsibility

The table below contains statements that have as a background the existing possibilities and the directions to improve the relationship between accounting and social responsibility, given that the reality of measuring social responsibility is given by accounting. Thus, very high scores demonstrate an interest in unitary and regulated reporting of social responsibility actions, just as there is interest in appropriating the values of social responsibility, including within accounting services/departments (

Table 9. Possibilities to improve the relationship between accounting and CSR.

Statement	TD	D	NAD	A	TA	T	SD	W	S	R
I believe that social responsibility actions should be reported on a mandatory basis.	5	13	46	32	19	115	16.20185	392	2.613	4
It would be good if the reporting of social responsibility actions was unified.	3	6	17	29	60	115	23.07596	482	3.213	1
It is good that the values underlying social responsibility are also appropriate at the level of the accounting service.	6	16	15	29	49	115	16.68832	444	2.960	2
It would be useful for the annual financial statements to include a separate note for social responsibility.	7	20	12	20	56	115	19.26136	443	2.953	3

Note: TD—Total Disagreement; D—Disagreement; NAD—Neither Agreement nor Disagreement; A—Agreement; TA—Total Agreement; T—Total; SD—Standard Deviation; W—Weight; S—Score; R—Rank. Source: Authors’ results.

). An impressive score (2.95) was also achieved regarding the usefulness of introducing a separate note for social responsibility in the annual financial statements.

At the conclusion of the empirical research analysis, an χ² test was employed to assess the existence of a relationship between two variables designated, respectively, as “cause” and “effect”. In this context, the “effect” variables are identified as the proposals aimed at enhancing the relationship between accounting practices and social responsibility. Conversely, the “cause” variables are examined by separately analyzing the influence exerted by the respondents’ professional functions and their respective fields of study.

The data presented in

Table 10. Testing the influence of respondents’ function on the proposals to improve the relationship between accounting and social responsibility.

Improvement	Intensity of Dependence	Values Above the Average
Mandatory reporting	p = 0.4268	Employee representative → “full agreement” Economic director → “partial agreement”
	χ2 = 0.4471
Unitary reporting	p = 0.4822	Economic director → “partial agreement” Another → “disagreement”
	χ2 = 0.3629
RS values at the accounting service	p = 0.5328	Manager → “full agreement” Economic director → “partial agreement”
	χ2 = 0.5212
Regulated note	p = 0.6216	Manager → “full agreement” Economic director → “partial agreement”
	χ2 = 0.7944

Source: Authors’ results.

indicate a consensus among employee representatives concerning the necessity for mandatory reporting of wage responsibility actions, evidenced by an over-representation of this dependency relationship. In contrast, economic directors exhibit partial agreement with this proposal, highlighting a divergence in perspectives. Furthermore, with respect to the unitary reporting of social responsibility actions, there is a notable over-representation among economic directors, who express partial agreement. Conversely, a significant intensity of disagreement is observed among other organizational roles, including accountants, economists, and legal professionals.

In the context of the proposal to incorporate the values of social responsibility within accounting services, it is observed that organizational managers exhibit unanimous agreement, while economic directors demonstrate only partial agreement. This discrepancy is similarly reflected in the proposal advocating for the inclusion of a distinct note addressing social responsibility issues within the annual financial statements. This alignment among managers may be attributed to their comprehensive understanding of the utility of such a note. Conversely, the partial endorsement by economic directors may stem from their subordination to the accounting service, which would necessitate additional work associated with creating this supplementary note. Consequently, it can be inferred that although economic directors recognize the significance of regulating social responsibility through unified and mandatory reporting, their limited agreement may be influenced by concerns regarding the increased workload imposed on themselves or their subordinates.

For all four possibilities of improving the accounting–social responsibility relationship proposed, respondents with technical studies are over-represented for the option of total agreement, which denotes their pragmatism in applying the values of social responsibility and the measurement of its variables. Respondents with an economic profile are reserved in vehemently stating the necessity and usefulness of a mandatory, unitary, and regulated reporting of social responsibility variables. Simultaneously, there is an under-representation of their total agreement on compulsory reporting for the appropriation of social responsibility values at the level of the accounting service and the usefulness of a separate note in the annual financial statements (

Table 11. Influence of the proposals for improvement on the accounting–social responsibility relationship.

Actions	Intensity of Dependence	Values Above Average	Values Below Average
Mandatory reporting	p = 0.4456	Technical studies → “full agreement”	Economic studies → “total agreement” Technical studies → “partial agreement”
	χ2 = 0.3187
Unitary reporting	p = 0.4298	Technical studies → “full agreement” Economic studies → “partial agreement”	Technical studies → “partial agreement”
	χ2 = 0.2251
RS values at the accounting service	p = 0.5824	Technical studies → “full agreement”	Economic studies → “total agreement” Technical studies → “partial agreement”
	χ2 = 0.3184
Regulated note	p = 0.6128	Technical studies → “full agreement” Economic studies → “disagreement”	Economic studies → “total agreement”
	χ2 = 0.3740

Note: Four degrees of freedom. Source: Authors’ results.

). Moreover, in the latter aspect, there is an over-representation of disagreement expressed by respondents with economic qualifications. Their only over-representation concerns a single report for which they expressed partial agreement. The reasons could be the same as those revealed in the dependency relationship tested above, i.e., an additional workload would not be interesting, even if those reports were helpful for the organization and society.

3.4. Managerial Model for Sustainable Economic Development

The historical examination of social responsibility facilitates the elucidation of its meaning, enabling an analysis of various definitions of the concept. This approach underscores the potential for a paradigm shift, presenting a new image of the enterprise through its internal relations and interactions with the economic and social environment.

Social responsibility has been demonstrated to be a multifaceted concept, with its diverse components identified and conceptually developed. Research has focused explicitly on responsibility toward employees, shareholders, and the environment. This multidimensional perspective on social responsibility emphasizes qualitative aspects while concurrently highlighting the necessity to recognize quantitative components. Each CSR dimension was aligned with relevant standards, notably GRI 401 (employment), GRI 302 (energy use), and GRI 416 (customer health and safety).

Each CSR-specific employee, environment, and customer was assessed through a set of Likert-scale items rated from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). The standardized CSR action value is the average score computed for each subdimension, normalized to a 0–1 scale to enable comparability. The global CSR index is then calculated as the arithmetic mean of the three standardized CSR dimension scores. This aggregation reflects the balanced contribution of all three CSR pillars. An example of this calculation is provided below (see

Table 12. Dimensions of Global CSR.

Value of Global CSR	Explanation
<1	The entity has not achieved its rate of return and is not able to perform CSR actions.
=1	The entity is at the limit of performing CSR actions.
>1	The entity has active involvement in carrying out CSR actions.

Source: Authors’ results.

, illustrating the transformation from individual responses to final CSR scores.

For the measurement of social responsibility, it is proposed that a distinct note be integrated into the annual financial statements to report on the achievement of social responsibility indicators. This proposal is informed by empirical research that explores existing possibilities and directions for improving the interplay between accounting practices and social responsibility. Given that the reality of measuring social responsibility is inherently tied to accounting frameworks, managers must pursue a unified and regulated reporting mechanism for accountability actions. Furthermore, managers acknowledge the benefits of implementing such a report, which may encompass either result indicators or financial performance indicators, such as Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA) or Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT).

While EBITDA is not explicitly defined within IFRS and lacks clear standards for calculating adjustments, it is a significant indicator of a company’s economic performance. Due to its relative resilience against manipulation by various accounting practices, it is particularly valuable in supporting decision-making processes. EBITDA estimates the profit generated by a company through its current assets, thus functioning as a critical metric in financial analysis.

Based on the research carried out, the authors propose a managerial model for measuring social responsibility at commercial entities, based on accounting information, based on two dimensions:

• Global social responsibility—Global CSR;
• Social responsibility by components—Specific CSR.

Global CSR quantifies all CSR actions performed by the entity and is proposed to be measured as a significant return ratio in the profit margin indicator (Equation (3)) or the EBITDA indicator (Equation (4)).

$$Global CSR1={\displaystyle \frac{Profit margin-Realized Value of CSR actions}{Estimated Profit margin-Normalized Value of CSR actions}}$$

(3)

$$Global CSR2={\displaystyle \frac{Realized EBITDA-Realized Value of CSR actions}{Normalized EBITDA-Normalized Value of CSR actions}}$$

(4)

Given this ratio, the values of the two margins (realized and forecast) place the overall CSR result in one of the situations set out in Table 12.

If the Global CSR is supra-unitary, the premises of structured actions are created by determining Specific CSR. Specific CSR is determined based on components relevant to the entity: environment, employees, and customers.

Specific CSR—Employee component. The authors define four specific indicators for measuring CSR from employees’ perspectives within the proposed model.

CSRs₁. The number of hours allocated for internal and external professional training on the brand standard is relevant. The indicator highlights the organization’s concern about having qualified human resources to support organizational performance (Equation (5)).

$$Specific CSR{s}_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sum ni\ast ti+\sum nj\ast tj}{\sum nsk\ast tsk}}$$

(5)

where

ni—number of hours of professional training completed within the organization.

ti—the internal tariff accepted for the professional training hours completed.

nj—number of hours of professional training completed outside the organization.

tj—the external tariff accepted for the professional training hours completed.

nsk—the standard number of hours of vocational training.

tsk—the standard rate provided for the training hours.

Given this indicator, the resulting values place CSRs1 in one of the situations set out in

Table 13. Dimensions of Specific CSRs1.

Value of Specific CSRs1	Explanation
<1	The entity has not reached its proposed target for the professional training of human resources and is not able to carry out CSR actions.
=1	The entity is at the limit of performing CSR actions because it has limited itself to training following the initial planning.
>1	The entity focuses on the professional training of human resources and has an active involvement in carrying out CSR actions.

Source: Authors’ results.

.

CSRs₂. Relevance of the number of employees who received training during a period of time. The indicator highlights the same concerns about having qualified human resources to support organizational performance (Equation (6)) regarding the human resource (HR) dimension.

$$Specific CSR{s}_2={\displaystyle \frac{HR trained}{Total HR}}$$

(6)

Given this indicator, the resulting values place CSRs₂ in one of the situations set out in

Table 14. Dimensions of Specific CSRs2.

Value of Specific CSRs2	Explanation
<0.5	The entity does not carry out CSR-specific actions and does not support training in the organization or supports it to a small extent.
=0.5	The entity is at the limit of carrying out CSR actions because it is at 50% opportunity to support professional training.
>0.5	The entity focuses on the professional training of human resources, considers the full involvement of human resources, and therefore supports CSR actions.

Source: Authors’ results.

.

CSRs3. The relevance of employees’ income is related to the economic average income. The indicator highlights aspects regarding the motivation of human resources by reporting their incomes as the average income level in the economy (Equation (7)).

$$Specific CSR{s}_3={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sum HR}Income}{Economic Average income}}$$

(7)

Given this indicator, the resulting values place CSRs3 in one of the situations set out in

Table 15. Dimensions of Specific CSRs3.

Value of Specific CSRs3	Explanation
<1	The entity underestimates the quality of the human resources and does not perform CSR-specific actions.
=1	The entity does not undervalue the labor factor and ensures that the income follows the average level in the economy, but it is at the limit of carrying out CSR actions.
>1	The entity is socially responsible and motivates human resources, which creates the premises for specific CSR actions.

Source: Authors’ results.

.

CSRs₄. The relevance of health in the human resource dimension. The indicator is calculated based on aspects of health of the human resources in terms of identifying and treating occupational diseases with the organization’s support (Equation (8)).

$$Specific CSR{s}_4={\displaystyle \frac{Sick HR }{Total HR}}$$

(8)

Given this indicator, the resulting values place CSRs₄ in one of the situations set out in

Table 16. Dimensions of Specific CSRs4.

Value of Specific CSRs4	Explanation
<0.5	The entity regularly assesses aspects of occupational diseases and intervenes in their improvement, which places it in the scope of CSR-specific actions.
=0.5	The entity partially engages in actions to identify and support the treatment of occupational diseases, which puts it at the limit of carrying out CSR actions.
>0.5	The entity is not socially responsible, does not treat or engage in the health aspects of human resources.

Source: Authors’ results.

.

The centralization of the four indicators proposed for the CSR measurement specific to human resources determines the calculation of the CSRs according to the following formula (Equation (9)):

$$Specific CSRs=CSR{s}_1+CSR{s}_2+CSR{s}_3-CSR{s}_4$$

(9)

Specific CSRm—Environmental component. The authors define two specific indicators for measuring CSR from an environmental perspective within the proposed model.

CSRm₁. Share of expenditure on alternative energy sources in total energy expenditure. The indicator highlights the organization’s concerns about using alternative energy sources in economic processes (Equation (10)).

$$Specific CSR{m}_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sum Alternative energy Expenditures}{\sum Energy Expenditures}}$$

(10)

Given this indicator, the resulting values place CSRm₁ in one of the situations set out in

Table 17. Dimensions of Specific CSRm1.

Value of Specific CSRm1	Explanation
<0.5	The entity is not interested in environmental protection (0) or expresses little interest in the use of alternative energy sources and, by extension, does not promote CSR actions.
=0.5	The entity is partially involved in actions regarding the identification and use of alternative energy sources, which places it at the limit of positioning as an entity developing CSR actions.
>0.5	The entity is socially responsible and seeks to use alternative energy sources with a favorable impact on the environment.

Source: Authors’ results.

.

CSRm₂. Relevance of the organization’s recycling process. The indicator highlights the organization’s concerns about managing the recycling process for waste resulting from the current activity (Equation (11)).

$$Specific CSR{m}_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sum Value of recycled waste}{\sum Value of waste}}$$

(11)

In light of this indicator, the resulting values place Specific CSRm₂ in one of the situations set out in

Table 18. Dimensions of Specific CSRm2.

Value of Specific CSRm2	Explanation
<0.5	The entity is not interested in the recycling process (0) or expresses little interest in the recovery of recyclable waste and does not carry out CSR-specific actions.
=0.5	The entity is partially involved in actions concerning waste recovery and environmental protection, which place it at the limit of its positioning as an entity developing CSR.
>0.5	The entity is socially responsible and seeks to make the most of the waste generated through recycling (1).

Source: Authors’ results.

.

The centralization of the two indicators proposed for the environment-specific CSR measurement determines the calculation of the CSRm according to the following formula (Equation (12)):

$$Specific CSRm=CSR{m}_1+CSR{m}_2$$

(12)

Specific CSRc—Customer component. Within the proposed model, the authors define two particular indicators for measuring CSR from customers’ perspectives.

CSRc₁. The size of annual investments to meet customer needs. The indicator highlights the organization’s concerns about using new technology and providing products or services that meet customer needs (Equation (13)).

$$Specific CSR{c}_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sum Annual Investments}{Annual Profit}}$$

(13)

Given this indicator, the resulting values place CSRc₁ in one of the situations set out in

Table 19. Dimensions of Specific CSRc1.

Value of Specific CSRc1	Explanation
<0.5	The entity does not make investments (0) or only makes symbolic investments and therefore does not incorporate new technologies; it will fail to meet customer needs and will not be able to position itself from a CSR perspective.
=0.5	The entity makes quite a lot of investments in technologies, which partially satisfies the requirements of the clients, and implicitly, CSR actions are present.
>0.5	The entity invests heavily in technologies to raise the level of products/services offered to customers and is socially responsible.

Source: Authors’ results.

.

CSRc2. The size of scrap and reshuffles for own production. The indicator highlights the organization’s concerns about reducing the scraps obtained for production and avoiding wastage (Equation (14)).

$$Specific CSR{c}_2={\displaystyle \frac{Scrap Value}{Production Value}}$$

(14)

In light of this indicator, the resulting values place CSRc₂ in one of the situations set out in

Table 20. Dimensions of Specific CSRc2.

Value of Specific CSRc2	Explanation
<0.5	The entity periodically assesses the quality of production and minimizes the level of scrap, which places it within the scope of CSR-specific actions.
=0.5	The entity is partially involved in actions related to the reduction in scrap and reshuffles, which places it at the limit of carrying out CSR actions.
>0.5	The entity is not socially responsible, does not treat or engage in matters concerning the quality of production.

Source: Authors’ results.

.

The centralization of the two indicators proposed for the customer-specific CSR measurement determines the calculation of CSRc according to the following formula (Equation (15)):

$$Specific CSRc=CSR{c}_1-CSR{c}_2$$

(15)

Table 21. Scoreboard of Specific CSR.

Indicator	Reduced Responsibility	Average Responsibility	Big Responsibility
CSRs1	<1	1	>1
CSRs2	<0.5	0.5	>0.5
CSRs3	<1	1	>1
CSRs4	>0.5 (-)	0.5 (-)	<0.5 (-)
CSRs indicator	<2	2	>2
CSRm1	<0.5	0.5	>0.5
CSRm2	<0.5	0.5	>0.5
CSRm indicator	<1	1	>1
CSRc1	<0.5	0.5	>0.5
CSRc2	>0.5 (-)	0.5 (-)	<0.5 (-)
CSRc indicator	<0	0	>0
Specific CSR	<3	3	>3

Note: Indicators marked with (-) will be subtracted from the calculation of the consolidated value. Source: Authors’ results.

presents a comprehensive managerial model for evaluating corporate social responsibility (CSR) through a structured set of indicators categorized into three core dimensions: employees (CSRs), environment (CSRm), and customers (CSRc). Each dimension consists of quantitative indicators that enable organizations to consistently and objectively assess their level of commitment to socially responsible practices.

The CSRs indicator gauges an organization’s dedication to its employees by considering various factors, including investment in professional training, the proportion of trained personnel, remuneration in relation to national averages, and attention to occupational health. A cumulative CSRs score exceeding 2 signifies a robust commitment to employee-focused CSR initiatives, while a score below 2 indicates minimal or inconsistent efforts. This dimension is essential for evaluating how human capital is cultivated as part of broader sustainability objectives.

The CSRm indicator assesses environmental responsibility by measuring the share of expenditure on alternative energy and the effectiveness of recycling processes. A score above 1 denotes a proactive and integrated environmental strategy aligned with green business practices. By contrast, a score below 1 indicates limited or symbolic involvement, which may undermine the organization’s contribution to sustainable environmental outcomes. This component aligns closely with global climate action and resource efficiency expectations.

The CSRc indicator captures the organization’s commitment to customer satisfaction and quality assurance through two metrics: investments in innovation aligned with customer needs and reducing production waste (scrap and reshuffles). A positive CSRc value (>0) reflects a responsible approach to product and service quality, responsiveness to client expectations, and efficient use of resources. A negative or zero value may indicate poor quality management or a lack of customer-centric orientation.

Finally, the aggregate value of Specific CSR is obtained by summing CSRs and CSRm, and it offers a comprehensive picture of an entity’s social responsibility beyond financial performance. According to the thresholds defined in the model, a score above 3 suggests a high level of CSR maturity and organizational commitment to sustainable practices. In contrast, scores between 2 and 3 indicate moderate engagement. Values below 2 reveal limited implementation of CSR policies, signaling the need for strategic reconsideration.

By providing concrete benchmarks and interpretation thresholds, Table 21 serves as a diagnostic and managerial tool organizations can use to monitor, compare, and improve their CSR practices. It supports internal decision making and enhances transparency and accountability toward stakeholders, ultimately contributing to the organization’s sustainable economic development.

4. Discussion

The findings presented in this study confirm the substantial role of accounting information in facilitating the assessment and implementation of CSR activities. Empirical evidence indicates that organizations increasingly rely on financial and accounting data to evaluate the outcomes of CSR initiatives, particularly in domains such as employee development, environmental stewardship, and stakeholder engagement. Additionally, the research underscores a rising managerial interest in the formalization of CSR reporting, notably through the proposal to include a dedicated note within annual financial statements. These insights endorse the notion that AIS function as technical tools and strategic assets that enhance CSR practices’ visibility, measurability, and effectiveness. By enabling the integration of CSR into the managerial decision-making process, AIS contribute directly to sustainable economic development, allowing organizations to synchronize their performance with broader social and environmental objectives. Future advancements in enterprise social responsibility are anticipated to enrich the managerial and accounting literature, thereby establishing the “accounting of social responsibility” as a distinct area within the management sciences. This perspective is supported, as it emphasizes the transversal nature of enterprise social responsibility within the management sciences, influencing various fields, such as accounting, finance, human resource management, and marketing.

The results confirm the theoretical assumption that internal systems such as AIS are tools for financial control and enablers of integrated sustainability reporting. This supports the broader claims of the stakeholder theory, according to which organizations must create value beyond shareholders and address multidimensional expectations. The observed correlation between AIS usage and CSR evaluation practices indicates a functional alignment between the accounting structures and sustainability goals, consistent with findings from other research works [22,23].

The disaggregation of CSR performance into employee, environment, and customer-related dimensions provides a practical framework for targeted analysis. The differences observed between financial auditors and accountants suggest role-specific perspectives in CSR evaluation, echoing Parthun’s (2024) findings regarding professional positioning in sustainability assurance [24].

The determination of Global CSR was based on the analysis of organizational performance by investigating financial flows and annual statements. Thus, the authors define and exemplify Global CSR for which value 1 (one) is established as a reference threshold. An organization below this value is considered not concerned with social responsibility, and an organization for which the value of global CSR is supra-unitary shows its potential to engage in CSR actions.

Regarding the usefulness of Specific CSR, the authors justify its application from three points of view: employees, the environment, and customers. The results presented shall set out how to determine each indicator and the reference values. At an integrated level, Specific CSR has as the reference level the value 3, with organizations being classified into three categories: organizations that do not carry out social responsibility actions or perform at a nascent level (value less than 3); organizations that carry out social responsibility actions at the medium level (average value 3); organizations that routinely carry out or stand out through social responsibility actions (value greater than 3). The higher the integrated value for specific CSR is, the more involvement the organization has in such actions.

The proposed model for measuring corporate social responsibility (CSR), constructed through the use of accounting information and categorized into Global and Specific CSR dimensions, demonstrates significant utility in facilitating the economic development of organizations. This model allows decision makers to assess social performance with enhanced precision and alignment with organizational objectives by converting qualitative CSR initiatives into quantifiable indicators. Incorporating accounting data within the evaluation framework ensures that CSR is regarded not as a peripheral endeavor but as an integral component of performance management. Additionally, this model furnishes a systematic approach for identifying underperforming sectors—such as human resources, environmental stewardship, or customer engagement—thereby enabling targeted interventions that can amplify social impact and operational efficiency. As organizations increasingly function within contexts that necessitate transparency, accountability, and sustainability, the capacity to quantify CSR in financial terms can facilitate access to financing, bolster reputational capital, and reinforce stakeholder relationships. These outcomes are critical in contributing to long-term value creation and positioning the organization as a proactive participant in sustainable economic development.

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to understanding how AIS can effectively quantify CSR performance in a structured and replicable manner. The proposed model demonstrates that internal indicators can be aggregated to produce a global CSR score that reflects core sustainability dimensions relevant to corporate reporting.

From a practical standpoint, the model can be employed by organizations seeking to improve the traceability, consistency, and comparability of their CSR disclosures. For policymakers, the findings suggest that introducing a standardized CSR evaluation model supported by AIS could increase the effectiveness of compliance with EU reporting directives.

While the proposed model provides a replicable framework applicable to private and public entities, its generalizability depends on managerial decisions and the application context. This approach contributes to bridging the gap between accounting and sustainability research, offering concrete tools for decision makers to enhance organizational performance while supporting inclusive and responsible economic growth. Future research could expand the model by incorporating sector-specific indicators or testing it across national contexts to validate its broader relevance.

Nevertheless, challenges remain, particularly in the Romanian context, where digital infrastructure, cost constraints, and training needs may hinder full implementation. Future research could expand the model by incorporating objective performance data and testing it across industries and national contexts. Future research could apply the proposed CSR model to sustainability reports from publicly listed companies to strengthen external validity.

The model can be successfully applied in organizations that relate to individual customers, are present in markets, and are anchored in society. It can also be perfected by adding new components to the Specific CSR. Also, this research does not allow the generalization of the results for all organizational categories. Nevertheless, the approach is currently relevant, and the analysis method contributes to the use of accounting in research on sustainable development and social responsibility.