Causal Integration of Financial and Non–Financial Information in Strategic Accounting

Non-financial indicators can influence strategic decisions, but their joint presentation with financial data does not explain the transmission mechanism. Treating an untested causal hypothesis as an established financial effect creates a risk of false precision. This study develops a conceptual procedure for documenting and revising causal routes in strategic accounting. A purposive integrative review of 20 standard-setting, discussion and scholarly sources is combined with comparative decomposition and logical construction. The research gap is restricted to the reviewed corpus; neither exhaustive literature coverage nor empirical validation is claimed. The working proposition is that the same non-financial change can yield different accounting consequences depending on its mechanism, destination and evidential status. The analysis distinguishes inherited concepts from proposed integration rules and groups review questions by the interpretation failures they address. The resulting Causal Accounting Integration Map (CAIM) connects a measured driver, transmission mechanism, specified accounting or forecast parameter and decision. Accounting addressability is defined as an operational property of a route, distinct from materiality and recognition. Four integration states are presented as a logical classification, while eight evidence criteria constitute an open diagnostic checklist rather than necessary and sufficient conditions. The proposed contribution is a rule separating a hypothesis, a conditional financial scenario and an evidence-supported route, with an explicit accounting destination, disconfirmation conditions and revision procedure. A hypothetical illustration shows why improved resource efficiency need not produce a positive net financial effect. The theoretical implication is a more explicit distinction between financial relevance and the evidential status of a decision input. Potential applications include budgeting, investment appraisal and internal review of assumptions; improved practical outcomes remain untested. Future research should compare CAIM with existing indicator governance and assess agreement between independent reviewers. This is a theoretical and methodological article.