The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing ESG Outcomes: Insights from Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) adoption and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance among 100 listed Saudi Arabian firms over the period 2015–2024. Drawing on panel data regression techniques, including fixed effects models with Driscoll–Kraay standard errors, pooled OLS with industry and year controls, and dynamic panel estimations using system GMM, the analysis reveals a significant and positive association between AI implementation and overall ESG scores. Disaggregated analysis shows that AI adoption is particularly associated with improvements in the environmental and social dimensions, with a more moderate relationship to governance practices. To address potential issues of cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity, the study applies the Common Correlated Effects Mean Group (CCEMG) and Mean Group (MG) estimators as robustness checks, which confirm the consistency of the main findings. In addition, the Dumitrescu–Hurlin panel Granger causality test indicates that AI adoption Granger-causes ESG performance—especially in the environmental and social dimensions—while no reverse causality is observed. The results suggest that AI technologies are positively linked to firms’ sustainability strategies and performance, supporting the integration of digital transformation into national and corporate ESG agendas, particularly in emerging markets like Saudi Arabia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".