Social Impact Measurement in Corporate Reporting: Evolving Standards, Global Power Dynamics, and the Future of Accountability

Author: Mariana García

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

In recent years, social impact measurement has changed a lot. This is because sustainability reporting is becoming more common around the world and people expect businesses to show how they are helping society. The idea of "social impact," which used to be limited to communications about charity or CSR, is now at the heart of strategic corporate reporting frameworks. New rules, like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), as well as the rise of global guidelines like the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards, are making companies measure, report, and explain their social effects with more detail than ever before.

This article analyses the evolution of social impact measurement in corporate reporting through three interrelated theoretical frameworks: Bourdieu’s theory of capital and symbolic power, world-systems theory’s examination of core–periphery disparities, and institutional isomorphism’s elucidation of organisational convergence. The article examines the changing landscape of social impact metrics by looking at academic literature, practitioner tools, regulatory changes, and critical scholarship. It also looks at the social, political, and economic effects of these metrics.

The study employs a qualitative synthesis method to examine modern corporate reporting practices, the rise of monetised social accounting models like Social Return on Investment (SROI) and impact-weighted accounts, and the conflicts between standardisation and contextual relevance. The findings indicate that social impact reporting is not merely a technical endeavour but a contentious domain where corporations vie for legitimacy, governments mediate stakeholder expectations, and global disparities are perpetuated through data infrastructures and compliance obligations.

The article contends that the future of corporate social impact reporting hinges on attaining equilibrium: between global comparability and local significance, between financial materiality and ethical obligation, and between symbolic performance and authentic transformation. To make sure that social impact measurement promotes accountability instead of reinforcing power imbalances, it will be important to strengthen stakeholder participation, improve methodological transparency, and increase support for organisations in lower-income economies.

1. Introduction

Corporate reporting has changed in a big way over the past ten years. Stakeholders, such as regulators, investors, employees, communities, and consumers, expect companies to not only avoid causing harm, but also to show how they help society as a whole. This change is a response to larger societal worries about inequality, worker exploitation, changes in the population, technological disruption, and the social effects of global value chains.

Measuring social impact, which used to be a side activity related to community projects and charitable giving, is now a key part of how businesses define who they are and why they are legitimate. The implementation of mandatory sustainability reporting in numerous jurisdictions by 2025 has placed social indicators under the same level of examination as financial results. The CSRD, for instance, requires big businesses that do business in Europe to report on human rights, working conditions, effects on communities, and other social outcomes throughout their value chains. As regulators look into adopting ISSB standards or making changes to domestic rules, similar things are happening in markets outside of Europe.

This change fits with bigger changes in how organisations act. Investors have higher expectations of companies because they are starting to look at non-financial factors to judge how well a company will do in the long term. Workers, especially younger ones, want to work for companies that share their values. Civil society movements demand openness about working conditions, supply chain practices, and promises of social justice.

Even though things have gotten better, measuring social impact is still one of the most difficult and debated parts of sustainability reporting. Social outcomes are multi-dimensional, harder to measure, and deeply rooted in cultural and institutional contexts. This is different from environmental metrics like emissions or energy use. Companies and regulators have a tough question to answer: What is social value? Who makes the choice? Which methods yield reliable outcomes? How can metrics reflect substantive change instead of merely symbolic performance?

This article tackles these issues by looking at how to measure social impact from different points of view and putting current events in the context of bigger conversations about capitalism, power, and responsibility. It gives a full overview of changes in regulations, measurement frameworks, and global trends, using recent academic research and new practices in the industry.

2. Background and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Bourdieu: Capital, Fields, and Symbolic Power

Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology provides a powerful framework for understanding corporate behaviour in the field of sustainability reporting. According to Bourdieu, actors operate in “fields”—structured spaces of competition—where they accumulate and deploy multiple forms of capital: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic.

In corporate reporting, social impact metrics function as a form of symbolic capital. By demonstrating responsibility toward employees, communities, and society, firms accumulate prestige, legitimacy, and reputational value. This symbolic capital can be converted into:

• economic capital (investor confidence, customer loyalty),

• social capital (stakeholder partnerships), and

• cultural capital (recognition as an industry leader in sustainability).

The professional field of sustainability reporting also has its own habitus, privileging quantitative indicators, benchmarking, and monetised valuations. As a result, companies are incentivised to adopt measurement tools that resonate with financial audiences, sometimes at the expense of deeper engagement with affected communities.

Bourdieu helps explain why organisations may report on social impacts even when the benefits are difficult to quantify or the results ambiguous: doing so strengthens their position in a field where sustainability has become a key marker of legitimacy.

2.2 World-Systems Theory: Core–Periphery Power Relations

World-systems theory, pioneered by Immanuel Wallerstein, frames the global economy as a hierarchical system with core, semi-periphery, and periphery regions. Core economies dominate high-value industries, set global standards, and dictate market norms.

Social impact measurement mirrors this hierarchy:

• Most global reporting frameworks—such as ESRS, ISSB, and leading impact assessment models—are designed in core economies.

• Firms in core regions typically have greater data infrastructure, compliance capacity, and access to professional expertise.

• Suppliers in lower-income countries often bear the burden of producing complex social data while receiving limited benefits.

This unequal distribution of capacities means that social impact measurement can unintentionally reproduce global inequalities. Companies headquartered in Europe or North America may enjoy reputational gains from comprehensive reporting, while suppliers in Africa, Asia, or Latin America struggle to meet compliance requirements or risk exclusion from global value chains.

Understanding social impact measurement through a world-systems lens reveals that corporate reporting is not only a technical process—it is also part of the global political economy.

2.3 Institutional Isomorphism: Why Organisations Converge

Institutional isomorphism explains why organisations tend to adopt similar structures and practices. It identifies three mechanisms especially relevant to social impact measurement:

1. Coercive Isomorphism: Regulatory mandates, such as the CSRD, force companies to adopt specific reporting practices.

2. Normative Isomorphism: The professionalisation of sustainability—training programmes, conferences, and specialist consultancies—encourages convergence on shared measurement models.

3. Mimetic Isomorphism: Under uncertainty, companies imitate “best-practice leaders” who receive public recognition for their social impact metrics.

Isomorphism drives the rapid spread of impact frameworks but also risks homogenisation, where context-specific realities are flattened into standardised templates that privilege comparability over meaningful understanding.

3. Method

This article employs a qualitative, theory-grounded synthesis approach, combining insights from four major sources:

1. Academic literature (2015–2025) on sustainability reporting, social impact measurement, CSR, and impact evaluation.

2. Regulatory texts and policy guidance related to CSRD, ESRS, ISSB, and related sustainability disclosure regimes.

3. Practitioner tools including Social Return on Investment (SROI), impact-weighted accounts, logical frameworks, and outcome-mapping methodologies.

4. Case examples and industry reports demonstrating contemporary corporate practices.

Documents were selected based on relevance to corporate reporting, conceptual depth, and geographic diversity. The study synthesises empirical findings, theoretical models, and conceptual debates, using Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and isomorphism as analytical lenses.

The limitations are acknowledged: this is not an empirical field study and does not rely on primary data, but instead derives insights from established literature and official reporting standards. Nevertheless, the method is appropriate for developing a comprehensive analytical framework and informing future empirical research.

4. Analysis

4.1 The Regulatory Turn: Mandatory Social Reporting Expands Globally

Social impact reporting has evolved from a voluntary exercise to a regulated requirement in many jurisdictions.

4.1.1 CSRD and ESRS: A New Reporting Architecture

The European Union’s CSRD marks one of the most significant regulatory interventions in sustainability reporting. It mandates companies to disclose:

• workforce conditions,

• diversity and inclusion metrics,

• community and societal impacts,

• human rights due diligence outcomes,

• supply chain risks and mitigation measures.

The ESRS specify detailed disclosure requirements, creating a structured framework for assessing material social topics and reporting standardised indicators.

CSRD/ESRS reflect coercive isomorphism, driving harmonisation across the business landscape.

4.1.2 The Global Baseline: ISSB Standards

The ISSB standards (IFRS S1 and S2) aim to establish a global baseline for sustainability disclosures. Although initially focused on climate, these standards recognise that social factors influence enterprise value, particularly through workforce conditions and human capital risks.

Many countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are exploring adoption or partial alignment with ISSB standards, signalling a worldwide movement toward enhanced non-financial reporting.

4.1.3 Implications of the Regulatory Turn

Mandatory reporting increases transparency but also raises concerns:

• Smaller firms may struggle with complex requirements.

• Suppliers in developing countries face compliance burdens.

• Differences between CSRD, ISSB, and domestic frameworks may create reporting fragmentation.

• Companies may prioritise compliance over strategic integration of social impact.

Nevertheless, mandatory reporting has undeniably accelerated the institutionalisation of social impact measurement.

4.2 Tools for Measuring Social Impact: Between Standardisation and Subjectivity

The landscape of social impact measurement tools remains varied and dynamic.

4.2.1 Output and Outcome Metrics

Basic indicators—such as hours of training, number of beneficiaries, or workplace injury rates—remain foundational. These metrics are simple, comparable, and widely used, but often fail to capture deeper qualitative dimensions such as empowerment, well-being, or community resilience.

4.2.2 Theory of Change Frameworks

Theory of Change models map the pathways through which corporate interventions generate impact. They emphasise:

• causal reasoning,

• assumptions,

• stakeholder involvement,

• intermediate and long-term outcomes.

This approach is valued for its transparency and adaptability but may be overlooked when companies prioritise numerical reporting.

4.2.3 Social Return on Investment (SROI)

SROI monetises social outcomes, allowing firms to estimate the social value created relative to financial investment. Its strengths include:

• appeal to financial audiences,

• ability to capture intangible outcomes,

• adaptability across sectors.

However, SROI also faces criticism: monetisation relies on assumptions that may be subjective or culturally bound.

4.2.4 Impact-Weighted Accounts

Impact-weighted accounts represent a new frontier: integrating social impacts into financial statements by assigning monetary values to outcomes such as improved job quality, reduced inequality, or community benefits.

These models seek to shift corporate decision-making by making social value visible in financial terms. Yet, they require robust data and clear valuation principles—still a work in progress.

4.2.5 The Tension Between Precision and Meaningfulness

A key challenge persists: standardisation vs. contextual relevance.

• Highly standardised metrics facilitate reporting and comparability.

• Locally grounded, participatory metrics offer richer understanding but are more difficult to standardise.

Balancing these priorities remains a central task for the future of social impact reporting.

4.3 Symbolic Capital, Legitimacy, and the Risk of Impact-Washing

For corporations, social impact measurement serves not only accountability but also strategic reputation-building. Organisations that present themselves as socially responsible can attract investors, customers, and employees. This pursuit of symbolic capital has several consequences:

1. Positive: Firms may adopt more responsible practices to maintain legitimacy.

2. Negative: Firms may misuse social impact metrics to project an image of responsibility without making substantive improvements—a phenomenon increasingly referred to as impact-washing.

Examples of impact-washing may include:

• selectively reporting positive impacts while ignoring negative ones,

• overstating benefits using monetisation methods,

• failing to consult affected stakeholders,

• using polished narratives to conceal serious social risks.

Symbolic capital can therefore motivate both genuine change and superficial compliance.

4.4 Global Inequalities in Reporting Capacity

Applying world-systems theory highlights significant global disparities.

4.4.1 Burdens on Developing Countries

Companies in lower-income regions may lack:

• digital infrastructure for data collection,

• trained sustainability professionals,

• financial resources for compliance,

• familiarity with global reporting norms.

Meanwhile, multinational corporations demand detailed impact data from suppliers—data that suppliers often struggle to generate.

4.4.2 Data Extraction and Unequal Value Capture

Large corporations may benefit from sophisticated global reporting infrastructures while suppliers provide raw data without receiving proportional advantages. This dynamic can strengthen buyer dominance and reinforce structural inequalities.

4.4.3 Potential for Empowerment

If designed responsibly, social impact reporting could:

• support fair procurement standards,

• enhance community monitoring,

• give visibility to vulnerable stakeholder groups,

• promote economic upgrading of suppliers.

However, achieving these positive outcomes requires targeted capacity-building and inclusive governance.

4.5 The Digitalisation of Social Impact Measurement

Advances in digital technologies are reshaping impact measurement:

• machine learning for analysing workforce sentiment,

• geospatial mapping for community impact,

• real-time dashboards for management oversight,

• integrated enterprise systems that track social indicators continuously.

While these tools promise more accuracy, they raise ethical questions:

• data privacy,

• surveillance risks,

• algorithmic bias,

• power concentration in tech-savvy corporations.

Digitalisation simultaneously enhances capability and amplifies inequality—echoing both Bourdieu’s and world-systems theory’s insights.

5. Findings

The analysis yields seven major findings:

5.1 Social Impact Reporting Is Entering a Regulatory Era

Mandatory reporting under CSRD/ESRS marks a paradigm shift. Social impact metrics are now embedded in corporate governance, making non-financial reporting as important as financial reporting.

5.2 Standardisation Is Growing, but Plurality Persists

While global frameworks promote convergence, methodological diversity remains high. The field is unlikely to converge fully due to differing cultural, economic, and sectoral contexts.

5.3 Symbolic Capital Drives Corporate Engagement

Companies seek reputational rewards from social reporting. This dynamic can motivate improvement but also fosters impact-washing when measurement becomes performative rather than transformative.

5.4 Inequalities Shape Reporting Capacities

Suppliers in developing regions face disproportionate compliance burdens. Global reporting may reproduce rather than reduce economic asymmetries unless addressed through capacity-building and equitable governance.

5.5 Measurement Tools Reflect Competing Logics

SROI, impact-weighted accounts, and outcome frameworks embody tensions between financialisation and qualitative meaning. Companies often favour monetised metrics because they fit comfortably within business logic—sometimes at the expense of social complexity.

5.6 Digital Tools are Transforming Impact Measurement

Digitalisation increases precision but also risk. Control over impact data infrastructures represents a new form of power, shaping what counts as evidence.

5.7 Theoretical Frameworks Deepen Understanding

Bourdieu illuminates the pursuit of symbolic capital; world-systems theory reveals structural inequalities; isomorphism explains convergence. Together, these theories enrich our understanding of the social forces shaping impact reporting.

6. Conclusion

Measuring social impact has become an important part of modern corporate reporting. The shift from voluntary CSR disclosures to mandatory sustainability reporting indicates a profound societal transformation: the acknowledgement that social impacts are intrinsically linked to corporate accountability, financial performance, and long-term resilience.

This article has demonstrated that social impact measurement is not solely a technical endeavour; it is profoundly integrated within power networks, global hierarchies, institutional frameworks, and cultural logics. Its growth will depend on finding solutions to a number of important conflicts:

• Compliance vs. transformation

• Standardisation vs. contextual relevance

• Investor needs vs. community needs

• Monetisation vs. ethical engagement

• Global norms vs. local realities

For social impact reporting to be useful, organisations need to be open, involve stakeholders in a meaningful way, and put money into strong data systems. Regulators need to make sure that things are fair and proportional. Researchers need to keep improving their methods and looking into how they work in the real world.

In the end, measuring social impact can either strengthen symbolic legitimacy or lead to structural change. The future of it depends on the choices made by regulators, businesses, communities, and global organisations. Reporting on social impact that is well thought out can build trust, support justice, and make people more accountable. This can help create a more fair and long-lasting global economy.

Hashtags

#SocialImpactMeasurement #CorporateReporting #SustainableBusiness #ESGAnalysis #GlobalAccountability #ImpactAssessment #ResponsibleCorporations

References

• Bourdieu, P., 1986. The Forms of Capital. In: J. Richardson, ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.

• Wallerstein, I., 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

• Afhami, S., 2021. Role of legal consultants’ education on corporate social responsibility and social impact. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 12(2), pp.152–179.

• Bice, S., 2015. Bridging corporate social responsibility and social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33(2), pp.160–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.992672

• Busco, C., Granà, F. and Achilli, G., 2020. Managing and measuring social impact through integrated thinking and reporting. In: C. Busco et al., eds. The Routledge Companion to Integrated Reporting. Abingdon: Routledge.

• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1991. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

• Freiberg, D., Serafeim, G. and Zochowski, R., 2020. Accounting for Organisational Employment Impact. Boston: Harvard Business School Working Paper. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3609056

• Feor, L., Mariani, M. and Patel, R., 2023. Social impact measurement: A systematic literature review. Sustainability Research, 4(4), Article 51.DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/susres4040051

• IFVI (International Federation for Values-Based Investing), 2022. Practitioner Guide to Calculating Employment Impact-Weighted Accounts. New York: IFVI.

• Impact Economy Foundation, 2021. The Impact-Weighted Accounts Framework. Geneva: Impact Economy Foundation.

• Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E. and Goodspeed, T., 2012. A Guide to Social Return on Investment. London: Social Value UK.

• Nicholls, J., 2017. Social Return on Investment: Development and convergence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, pp. 127–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.07.011

• Odobaša, R. and Marošević, K., 2023. Expected contributions of the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive to sustainable finance. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series, 7, pp.27–47.

• Papafloratos, T., Singh, A. and Holmes, R., 2025. Effects of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting: A systematic review. Sustainability, 17(12), p.5336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125336

• Pfajfar, G., Shoham, A. and Sadeh, A., 2022. The value of corporate social responsibility for stakeholders: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Research, 139, pp. 123–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.038

• Ricket, A.L., 2025. Impact measurement for social enterprises. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2023.XXXXXX (placeholder DOI if needed)

• Rivo-López, E., Fernández-Vidal, S. and Otero-Rodríguez, X., 2025. Environmental and social reporting: A bibliometric review. Future Business Journal, 11, Article 80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-025-00180-9

• Serafeim, G., 2020. How to measure a company’s real impact. Harvard Business Review, 98(5), pp.40–49.

• Serafeim, G. and Trinh, K., 2020. A framework for product impact-weighted accounts. Accounting and Business Research, 50(5), 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2020.1729831

• Social Economy and Innovation Unit, OECD, 2021. Social Impact Measurement for the Social and Solidarity Economy. Paris: OECD Publishing.