AI-Enhanced ESG Framework for Sustainability: A Multi-Sectoral Analysis Through an Explainable AI Approach
Open accessAbstract
The study introduces an AI-enhanced Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework that integrates explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) and bias-mitigation techniques to improve transparency and comparability of sustainability assessments across sectors. Addressing the persistent gap in standardized ESG evaluation methods, the framework combines gradient-boosting models (XGBoost) with SHAP-based explainability and a human-in-the-loop (HITL) validation layer. The approach is demonstrated using ESG indicators for 18 firms across three industries from the banking, aviation, and chemical sectors between 2021 and 2023. Results indicate an average 12.4% improvement in ESG-score consistency and a 9% reduction in inter-sector variance relative to baseline traditional ESG evaluations. Fairness metrics (Disparate-Impact Ratio = 0.81–0.86) provide preliminary evidence of improved alignment across sectors. The findings provide preliminary evidence that XAI-driven frameworks can enhance the trustworthiness and regulatory compliance of ESG analytics, particularly under the EU AI Act and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The framework contributes to both research and practice by operationalizing explainability, fairness, and human oversight within ESG analytics, thereby supporting more reliable and comparable sustainability reporting.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An explainable AI ESG framework achieves an average 12.4% improvement in ESG score consistency and a 9% reduction in inter-sector variance compared to traditional ESG assessments.
“Using ESG data from 18 firms across banking, aviation, and chemical sectors (2021-2023), the framework achieves an average 12.4% improvement in ESG score consistency and a 9% reduction in inter-sector variance compared to traditional ESG assessments.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Managerial Decision-Making for Sustainable Business Models: A Systematic Literature Review (2026) · cites this paper as [43]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 9
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Nishant, R.; Kennedy, M.; Corbett, J.; Lawrence, B. Artificial Intelligence for Decision Making in Organizations: Challenges and Opportunities. MIS Q. Exec. 2020, 19, 79-98. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol19/iss2/4/ (accessed on 15 December 2025).
- Lundberg, S.M.; Lee, S.-I. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2017, 30, 4765-4774. Available online: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/8a20a8621978632d76c43dfd28b67767- Abstract.html (accessed on 30 September 2025).
- SSRN. AI-Enhanced ESG Assurance. 2024. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com (accessed on 30 September 2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/su18020794
- de Pelsmacker, P.; Janssens, W. ESG Rating Divergence and Investor Decision Bias. J. Bus. Ethics 2024, 189, 745-763. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Busch, T.; Bauer, R.; Orlitzky, M. Sustainable Finance and ESG Ratings: A Critical Review. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 178, 131-152. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Kumar, R.; Arora, S. Artificial Intelligence Applications for ESG Reporting: Opportunities and Challenges. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1121. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Liu, H.; Sun, J.; Li, X. Deep Learning-Based ESG Scoring Models and Their Interpretability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 192, 122593. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99-120. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Christensen, D.M.; Hail, L.; Leuz, C. Mandatory CSR Disclosure, Management Incentives, and Firm Value. J. Account. Econ. 2021, 72, 101455. [CrossRef] · DOI
- WorldScientific. ESG Analytics and Sustainability Frameworks. 2023. Available online: https://www.worldscientific.com (accessed on 30 September 2025).
- Usmani, M.A.A.; Ahmad, A. A machine learning-based framework for detecting crop nutrient deficiencies. J. Inf. Syst. Eng. Manag. 2025, 10, 1183-1202. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Amershi, S.; Cakmak, M.; Knox, W.B.; Kulesza, T. Power to the People: The Role of Humans in Machine Learning. AI Mag. 2014, 35, 3-128. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Parveen, N.; Khan, M.W. A conceptual framework for leveraging web data in sentiment analysis and opinion mining. J. Inf. Syst. Eng. Manag. 2025, 10, 562-570. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Araci, D. FinBERT: A Pretrained Language Model for Financial Communications. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1908.10063. · arXiv
- Slack, D.; Hilgard, A.; Jiang, E.; Singh, S. Fair-XAI: Towards Fair and Transparent AI Systems. Patterns 2023, 4, 100734. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Hardt, M.; Price, E.; Srebro, N. Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NeurIPS 2016);
- Lee, D.D., Sugiyama, M., Luxburg, U.V., Guyon, I., Garnett, R., Eds.; Curran Associates, Inc.: Red Hook, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3315-3323.
- Ahmad, S.A.; Izhar, T.; Ahmed, T.; Mumtaz, N. Transformative role of machine learning in design optimization of reinforced concrete frames. Int. J. Adv. Technol. Eng. Explor. 2024, 11, 2394-5443. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Miller, T. Explainable AI: Foundations, Critiques, and Emerging Directions. Inf. Syst. Res. 2023, 34, 45-63. [CrossRef] · DOI
- European Union. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. Off. J. Eur. Union L 2022, 322, 15-80. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2464/oj (accessed on 15 December 2025).
- Hardt, M.; Price, E.; Srebro, N. Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2016, 29.
- Barocas, S.; Hardt, M.; Narayanan, A. Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023.
- Sun, Y.; Kumar, V. Graph Neural Networks for ESG Risk Propagation. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 238, 121982.
- CrossRef · DOI
- Authors
- Ahmad, I., & Ahmed, T.
- Affiliations
- Integral University (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Ahmad, Imran
- Ahmed, Tasneem
- ORCID
- Ahmed, Tasneem
- Venue
- Sustainability
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2026-01-13
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 794
- ISSN
- 2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7123356639
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9
- FWCI
- 52.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
- Keywords
- ESG assessment, explainable AI, SHAP, bias mitigation, human-in-the-loop validation, XGBoost, algorithmic fairness, sustainability reporting, EU AI Act, Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, banking sector, aviation sector, chemical industry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review