Revisiting Corporate Digital Responsibility in the Digital Era: Lessons from Management and Accounting Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65080/ajbmss.v2i2.CMT2622101008Keywords:
Corporate digital responsibility, Environmental Social and Governance (ESG), green innovation, digital transformation, management accounting, sustainability accountingAbstract
Introduction: This article constructs a comprehensive system that combines Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals, green innovation, and management accounting to address the current lack of unified and standardized digital responsible governance methods.
Methodology: This study belongs to conceptual research. This framework is formed through triangulation of stakeholder theory, agency theory, and management control theory, combined with the latest empirical research on digital transformation, green innovation, and ESG performance, as well as emerging literature in the fields of CDR, artificial intelligence ethics, and sustainability accounting.
Discovery: Responsible digitization should be based on CDR principles, while pursuing ESG goals and green innovation. Management accounting provides the information foundation for achieving this connection, making these goals quantifiable and feasible through continuous measurement and validation of balanced scorecards, carbon management accounting, and ESG. This framework distinguishes between experimentally validated relationships and speculative relationships, and proposes three hypotheses for further research.
Originality/Value: This article proposes using CDR as a clear governance hierarchy between digital capabilities and ESG outcomes, endowing three theoretical perspectives with clear division of labor, and mapping the CDR field to the ESG pillar at the tool level, linking it with management accounting tools, thereby expanding research in the field of CDR and sustainable development accounting.
Keywords: Corporate digital responsibility, Environmental Social and Governance (ESG), green innovation, digital transformation, management accounting, sustainability accounting.
Downloads
References
Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2022). Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. The Accounting Review, 97(1), 147–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0506
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard: Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.339
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675
Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30, 99–120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 193–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2340-3
Hermann, E. (2022). Leveraging artificial intelligence in marketing for social good: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 179, 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04843-y
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Jones, P., & Comfort, D. (2022). Corporate digital responsibility: Approaches of the leading IT companies. In M. G. Wynn (Ed.), Handbook of research on digital transformation, industry use cases, and the impact of disruptive technologies (pp. 231–248). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7712-7.ch013
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press. Available from: https://store.hbr.org/product/the-balanced-scorecard-translating-strategy-into-action/6513
Liu, J., Yuan, Y., & Zhu, Z. (2026). The role of artificial intelligence in enhancing ESG disclosure quality in accounting. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 19(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19010058
Lobschat, L., Mueller, B., Eggers, F., Brandimarte, L., Diefenbach, S., Kroschke, M., & Wirtz, J. (2021). Corporate digital responsibility. Journal of Business Research, 122, 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.006
Mihale-Wilson, C., Hinz, O., van der Aalst, W. M. P., & Weinhardt, C. (2022). Corporate digital responsibility: Relevance and opportunities for business and information systems engineering. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 64, 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-022-00746-y
Mio, C., Costantini, A., & Panfilo, S. (2022). Performance measurement tools for sustainable business: A systematic literature review on the sustainability balanced scorecard use. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(2), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2206
Mueller, B. (2022). Corporate digital responsibility. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 64, 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-022-00760-0
Pitrakkos, P., & Maroun, W. (2020). Evaluating the quality of carbon disclosures. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(3), 553–589. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2018-0081
Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. L. (2010). Sustainability accounting for companies: Catchphrase or decision support for business leaders? Journal of World Business, 45(4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.002
Schaltegger, S., & Csutora, M. (2012). Carbon accounting for sustainability and management: Status quo and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 36, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.024
Trier, M., Kundisch, D., Beverungen, D., Müller, O., Schryen, G., Mirbabaie, M., & Trang, S. (2023). Digital responsibility: A multilevel framework for responsible digitalization. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65, 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00822-x
Wang, S., & Esperança, J. P. (2023). Can digital transformation improve market and ESG performance? Evidence from Chinese SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 419, 137980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137980
Wang, X., & Zhong, X. (2024). Digital transformation and green innovation: Firm-level evidence from China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, 1389255. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1389255
Wirtz, J., Kunz, W. H., Hartley, N., & Tarbit, J. (2023). Corporate digital responsibility in service firms and their ecosystems. Journal of Service Research, 26(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705221130467
Zhang, W., & Li, X. (2025). Digital transformation and corporate ESG performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering, 4(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewJCCE42023387
Zhao, F., Han, Z., & Wang, L. (2024). Digitization path to improve ESG performance: A study on organizational perspectives. PLOS ONE, 19(12), e0313686. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313686
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Zixuan Zhao and Ju Guo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
