Artificial Intelligence Usage Intention for Sustainable Development: A Neo ESG Perspective Using Hybrid Methods
DOI:
10.33395/sinkron.v10i2.15985Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Neo-ESG, Diversity–Equity–Inclusion (DEI), Green Innovation, Sustainable DevelopmentAbstract
This study finds that the rapid development of artificial intelligence, together with the growing pressure to implement environmental, social, and governance principles, has driven firms to search for new models of sustainable governance. However, prior research has lacked empirical evidence on the role of artificial intelligence usage intention within a dynamic environmental, social, and governance framework and its interplay with social and environmental dimensions. To address this gap, the study reconceptualizes environmental, social, and governance by representing governance through artificial intelligence, the social dimension through diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the environmental dimension through exploitative green innovation and exploratory green innovation. Based on survey data from 357 firms, a hybrid methodological approach employing partial least squares structural equation modeling, artificial neural networks, and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis is applied. The results reveal that diversity, equity, and inclusion has the strongest effect on sustainable development (β = 0.533; t = 13.061; p < 0.001), followed by artificial intelligence, while exploitative green innovation plays a supportive role and exploratory green innovation shows no significant impact. Artificial neural networks validate these findings with stable predictive accuracy, while fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis identifies multiple alternative pathways to sustainability (equifinality). The study contributes by positioning artificial intelligence as a new governance mechanism within environmental, social, and governance and highlighting the central role of diversity, equity, and inclusion, while also offering strategic guidance for integrating technological and social factors to foster sustainable development.
Downloads
References
Abraham, K. T. (2024). Responsible leadership and triple bottom line performance: Imperatives for corporate sustainability. Journal of Global Responsibility, 15(4), 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-06-2023-0111
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2018). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011
Alsheibani, S., Cheung, Y., & Messom, C. (2018). Artificial intelligence adoption: AI readiness at firm level. In Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems.
Babalola, H. B. (2024). The influence of technological, organisational, and environmental factors on green supply chain management adoption among SMEs in Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia).
Barbosa, M. W., de la Calle Vicente, A., Ladeira, M. B., & de Oliveira, M. P. V. (2018). Managing supply chain resources with big data analytics: A systematic review. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 21(3), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2017.1369501
Basah, M. Y. A., Marzuki, A., Ramli, N. A., Mat Nor, F., Ab. Aziz, M. R., Shahwan, S., & Sabri, H. (n.d.). Conceptual framework of environmental, social, and governance research. Journal of Muamalat and Islamic Finance Research. https://doi.org/10.33102/jmifr.510
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). Sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
Calik, E. (2023). A validated measurement scale for sustainable product innovation performance. Technovation, 122, 102882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102882
Chen, D., & Wang, S. (2024). Digital transformation and ESG performance in SMEs. Scientific Reports, 14, Article 24516. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-24516-x
Chen, Y. S. (2008). The driver of green innovation and green image. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 531–543.
Cubric, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence adoption in business. Technology in Society, 62, 101257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101257
Das, T. C., Bora, P. K., & Das, J. (2025). Corporate sustainability and ESG. International Review of Management and Marketing, 15(5), 345–355.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Baabdullah, A. M., Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Giannakis, M., Al-Debei, M. M., Dennehy, D., Metri, B., Buhalis, D., Cheung, C. M. K., Conboy, K., Doyle, R., Dubey, R., Dutot, V., Felix, R., Goyal, D. P., Gustafsson, A., Hinsch, C., Jebabli, I., … Wright, R. (2022). Metaverse beyond the hype. International Journal of Information Management, 66, 102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102542
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2017). Dynamic capabilities. In M. Augier & D. J. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. Palgrave Macmillan.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
Hassan, S. T. (2025). Measuring diversity, equity, and inclusion. IGI Global.
Hilb, M. (2020). Artificial governance: Applying artificial intelligence in corporate governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 24(4), 851–870.
Hyrynsalmi, S., Seppänen, V., & Suominen, A. (2025). The DEI backlash. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.
Juranek, J. F., & Pochwatko, G. (2024). Attitude toward artificial intelligence. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.xxxxxx
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755.
Kraus, S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Schüssler, M. (2018). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis in entrepreneurship and innovation research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14, 15–33.
Li, S., Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2022). Green innovation constructs. Sustainability, 14, 16919.
Liu, J., Wang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2025). Green innovation policies. Technovation, 136, 103207.
Liu, L., Chen, X., & Zhao, Y. (2025). ESG payoff of AI adoption. Systems, 13, 399.
Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14, 81–95.
McGrath, M. J.(2025). Trust in artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1582880.
Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025). Responsible AI governance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems.
Passas, I. (2024). ESG evolution. Encyclopedia, 4(4), 1711–1720.
Downloads
|
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Vo Dinh Cao Nguyen, Huu Tam Do
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Muhammad Khoiruddin harahap
Google Scholar 
Moraref
PKP Index
Garuda Kemdikbud
Indonesia OneSearch
OCLC Worldcat
Dimensions
Index Copernicus
Scilit
