Next Article in Journal
Optimal Matching with Matching Priority
Next Article in Special Issue
Interconnected Markets: Unveiling Volatility Spillovers in Commodities and Energy Markets through BEKK-GARCH Modelling
Previous Article in Journal
Visual Analytics for Robust Investigations of Placental Aquaporin Gene Expression in Response to Maternal SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Artificial Intelligence and Sustainability—A Review

Rachit Dhiman
Sofia Miteff
Yuancheng Wang
Shih-Chi Ma
Ramila Amirikas
2 and
Benjamin Fabian
School of Business and Economics, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10178 Berlin, Germany
EDIH pro_digital, Technische Hochschule Wildau, 15745 Wildau, Germany
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Analytics 2024, 3(1), 140-164;
Submission received: 22 December 2023 / Revised: 8 February 2024 / Accepted: 16 February 2024 / Published: 1 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Business Analytics and Applications)


In recent decades, artificial intelligence has undergone transformative advancements, reshaping diverse sectors such as healthcare, transport, agriculture, energy, and the media. Despite the enthusiasm surrounding AI’s potential, concerns persist about its potential negative impacts, including substantial energy consumption and ethical challenges. This paper critically reviews the evolving landscape of AI sustainability, addressing economic, social, and environmental dimensions. The literature is systematically categorized into “Sustainability of AI” and “AI for Sustainability”, revealing a balanced perspective between the two. The study also identifies a notable trend towards holistic approaches, with a surge in publications and empirical studies since 2019, signaling the field’s maturity. Future research directions emphasize delving into the relatively under-explored economic dimension, aligning with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and addressing stakeholders’ influence.

1. Introduction

In the past decades, seminal advancements have been made in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) [1]. AI has the potential to transform various markets and industries, driving unforeseen change [2,3]. Sectors such as healthcare [4], transport [5], agriculture [6], energy [7], and the media [8] have seen major changes implemented as a result of AI systems. Despite widespread enthusiasm, there exists a notable caution, stemming from both evidence showcasing AI’s efficacy and concerns about potential negative effects [9]. For instance, training a state-of-the-art model, especially Natural Language Processing (NLP) models, requires substantial computational resources, imposing significant energy along with associated financial and environmental costs [10]. Furthermore, the rise of AI also sparked new ethical and societal challenges for the economy and society. These challenges include concerns about stagnant real wages for workers [11] and social injustice originating from discriminating AI systems [12,13], as well as the proliferation of fake news [14,15,16]. Hence, researchers are increasingly interested in examining their impact on sustainability. Comprehending the effects and transformative potential AI can drive, specifically on sustainability, requires a critical review of the topic.
Sustainability can be analyzed by focusing on one of the following three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental [17]. Furthermore, when surveying the current body of literature on AI sustainability, research is often divided between AI as a tool for achieving sustainable goals and the impact of AI on sustainability [18]. However, current studies on this topic often look only at one certain dimension, which might oversimplify the issue at hand, creating a narrow view of what AI sustainability truly entitles.
Given the current non-holistic state of the research outlined above, the primary objective of this paper is to create a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) that allows for the compilation and analysis of the available literature on the topic, unifying both perspectives across all three dimensions of sustainability. By doing so, this paper intends to identify knowledge gaps and inspire future research endeavors. Moreover, our SMS will allow researchers, policymakers, as well as businesses to have a concise overview of the current findings in the field.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents our initial literature review, where the fundamental concepts as well as current reviews of research on AI sustainability are introduced. Section 3 elaborates on the methodological approach of the paper by going through the main steps of our SMS. In Section 4, our main research questions are analyzed and answered, along with visualizations based on our data sets. In Section 5, we discuss the limitations of our study, and Section 6 provides the conclusion.

2. Initial Literature Review

Oxford dictionary defines AI as “the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages”. Here, we see the emergence of AI as a system that can act similarly to humans. John McCarthy, widely known as one of the fathers of AI, defined AI as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs. It is related to the similar task of using computers to understand human intelligence, but AI does not have to confine itself to methods that are biologically observable” [19]. Though in McCarthy’s definition, the idea of human-like behavior is present, he goes further by defying the limits of the possibility of AI, differentiating it from human intelligence, and highlighting that its boundaries are not limited by biology.
When it comes to sustainability, we can see an evolution of the concept. Early on, in 1987, the United Nations Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Authors have since added depth to the concept, breaking it down into three different dimensions or pillars: social, economic, and environmental [17].
Ref. [18] points out the dichotomy of using AI to achieve sustainability and sustainability of utilizing AI systems, and hence, the term “Sustainable AI” has been introduced to address the whole socio-technical system of AI.
According to existent literature, the rapid growth of AI has raised concerns about its environmental and social sustainability [20]. To address these issues, there is a need for AI governance and regulation, multidisciplinary collaboration, and building trust in AI applications [21]. AI has the potential to support environmental governance and reduce resource and energy intensity [22]. However, there are challenges, such as over-reliance on historical data, uncertain human behavioral responses, and cybersecurity risks [22]. Ref. [22] also suggests that future research should consider multilevel views, systems dynamics approaches, design thinking, psychological and sociological considerations, and economic value considerations. To portray the big picture of AI sustainability, we analyzed the related previous literature reviews by other researchers in this field with the two aspects described above, i.e., AI for sustainability and sustainability of AI.

2.1. AI for Sustainability

The study by [22] argues that AI has the potential to facilitate the development of culturally suitable organizational processes and individual practices that can effectively reduce the ecological footprint of human activities. However, the true significance of AI lies not solely in its capacity to diminish energy, water, and land usage intensities within society, but rather in its ability to enhance and nurture environmental governance at a higher level.
Another literature review of AI for sustainability by Kar et al. [23] focuses on diverse applications across sectors such as construction, transportation, healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture, and water management. The paper highlights the approaches, difficulties, and obstacles regarding adopting AI for sustainable development.
This literature highlights the various methods used to improve sustainable practices on a small to large scale using AI and various future research directions for academic researchers [23].
In short, the state-of-the-art research on AI for sustainability encompasses a wide range of topics, including energy efficiency, climate change mitigation, resource management, biodiversity conservation, and more.

2.2. Sustainability of AI

The review paper by Verdecchia et al. [24] reviews the growing field of Green AI, which addresses the environmental impact of artificial intelligence. It highlights trends like increased interest since 2020, methods for improving model sustainability, and the involvement of academia and industry. The findings suggest a mature field ready for broader adoption in both research and industrial practice.
The study by Natarajan et al. [25] has the main aim of discerning the ongoing research trajectories within the intersection of AI and sustainability. Additionally, the article employs the affordance theory as its conceptual framework, intending to pinpoint the affordances within the realm of sustainable AI.
Notably, the field has exhibited significant growth since 2020. The majority of studies focus on monitoring AI model footprints, fine-tuning hyperparameters to enhance model sustainability, or conducting model benchmarking.

2.3. Combining AI for Sustainability and Sustainability of AI

While the applications of AI and related technologies have the potential for more efficient utilization of land and seascapes, heightened capabilities in environmental monitoring, and enhanced transparency within supply chains, there could also be systemic sustainability challenges emerging as these AI technologies extend to novel social, economic, and ecological domains. Although some recent compilations [18,26] briefly acknowledge these risks, they often provide only brief elaboration on the potential harms and unanticipated social and ecological consequences [27]. In many cases, influential reports outlining the societal impacts of AI either disregard the dimensions of sustainability entirely or downplay the conceivable social, economic, and ecological risks they might pose [28]. In contrast, ref. [29] offers a more holistic overview of the involvement of those technologies in fields which have a relatively greater influence on sustainability in an environmental sense. The study also addresses potential challenges that could jeopardize the sustainability of AI. Besides the unfolding of these underlying challenges, the authors also discuss the limitations of existing research frameworks in effectively tackling sustainability-related AI risks within these sectors [29].
In reviewing existing literature in the field of AI sustainability, it is clear that many tend to focus narrowly on either AI for sustainability or the sustainability of AI. Only a sparse number of works consider both aspects, and even those predominantly emphasize only one or two dimensions, primarily the environmental aspect. This leads to an incomplete understanding of the broader landscape. Our paper aims to address this gap by offering a more comprehensive view of the research filed by integrating both perspectives, at the same time capturing the various dimensions of AI sustainability, i.e., environmental, economic, and social. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of the complexities and interactions within AI sustainability. By doing so, we not only fill a noticeable void in the literature, but also provide a framework for future research. This synthesis enables scholars to grasp the broader context, identify trends, and pinpoint areas for further investigation.
In essence, our goal is to offer a more inclusive exploration of AI sustainability, facilitating a better understanding of this topic. Through this approach, we aim to contribute to the ongoing discourse and inform future research directions.

3. Research Methodology

Our paper employed a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) as the research methodology to explore the topic of AI sustainability. While Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) delve deeply into particular research inquiries through empirical studies, SMS takes a broader approach, offering an encompassing view of the literature in emerging research domains. SMS organizes and characterizes literature studies along various dimensions, addressing overarching questions like prevalent research methodologies and publication avenues. Unlike SLR, SMS provides a panoramic view of emerging fields, often employing visual aids like graphs and succinct data summaries for enhanced comprehension. While both methodologies have different strengths, in our study of AI sustainability, which is a relatively emerging study topic, SMS extends distinct advantages to researchers and practitioners, facilitating comprehensive understanding of evolving research areas [30].
We followed the “input–processing–output” approach by Levy and J. Ellis [31], which states the three stages of the effective literature review process. These stages were further delineated into five steps shown in Figure 1. Initially, the focus was on defining the scope and objectives, setting the foundation for the subsequent phases. This was followed by a comprehensive search for relevant literature, ensuring a thorough exploration of existing knowledge within the defined parameters. The third step involved rigorous screening and selection of literature, where meticulous attention was paid to relevance and quality. Moving into the processing phase, the fourth step entailed the development of a classification scheme and systematic map, facilitating the organization and synthesis of gathered insights. Finally, in the output phase, the interpretation of findings and review output occurred, culminating in a coherent and insightful analysis ready for dissemination and application in the relevant domain. Through this structured approach, we aimed to ensure methodical and rigorous execution, ultimately yielding valuable contributions to the existing body of knowledge.

3.1. Definition of Scope and Objective

To formulate the scope of the research, we conducted some preliminary research on AI sustainability, across the following three dimensions: environmental, economic, and social. We found out that using AI is accompanied by some major drawbacks. For example, many research papers raise a concern about the harmful impacts of accompanying computational processes on the environment. Specifically, training AI uses large data sets and consumes a tremendous amount of energy, which comes with tremendous greenhouse gas and other emissions [32]. After an examination of existent literature reviews within the research field of AI sustainability, we found that most papers investigate this topic by only summarizing either AI’s contribution toward sustainability goals or AI’s impact on a specific field. Consequently, we observed a lack of a precise definition of the term, AI sustainability, which acted as our motivation for the first research question (RQ1). In the process of reviewing existing research papers, we observed various trends in relation to their content scope. This intensified our curiosity to explore the maturity quotient of this research field, as it is a relatively new field and inspired us to formulate our second research question (RQ2). Further, the identification of research gaps during our research prompted us to examine adequate strategies to address these gaps. This acted as the motivation for our third research question (RQ3). Thus, aiming to provide novel insights and to address aspects that have potentially remained under-explored in the academic discourse, we formulate the research questions of this paper as follows:
RQ1: How does the existing literature capture AI sustainability? This objective aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how the current body of literature addresses the concept of AI sustainability. By conducting a systematic review, we can identify key themes, trends, and gaps in the existing research landscape, laying the foundation for further analysis and exploration. Inspired by Heilinger et al. [33], whose paper analyzes the ends and means of “sustainable AI” in social and environmental contexts, we therefore aim to explore in our paper two fundamental facets of AI sustainability, i.e., AI as a tool to achieve sustainability as well as the sustainability concerns of AI itself. Within each aspect, we further investigate three dimensions: environmental, social and economic.
RQ2: What is the maturity level of the research field of AI sustainability? This objective seeks to evaluate the depth and breadth of research conducted in the field of AI sustainability, including the extent of the research interest, the volume of publications, and the evolution of research topics over time. Understanding the maturity level can help gauge the level of advancement, identify areas of strength, and pinpoint emerging trends or areas requiring further investigation. Thus, this research question tries to evaluate the different approaches within the existing literature. What degree of empirical evidence can be observed in the existing literature? Are the majority of research papers on this topic still evaluating the associated problems? Are some solutions regarding the issues currently being implemented?
RQ3: What is the future research agenda of the research field of AI sustainability? This objective aims to propose directions for future research endeavors based on the insights gained from our review and assessment of the current state of the field. Here, we observe the research gaps in the existing literature, and we identify the possible road-map for potential research. By answering this question, we try to deliver some insights to guide researchers and practitioners in further contributing to this field.

3.2. Search for Relevant Literature

A comprehensive and extensive literature search is guaranteed by utilizing diverse sources and employing suitable keywords and search operators.
As the next step in our methodology, we needed to find and analyze relevant literature on our topic. To have a thorough process, we defined our search strategy and also identified sources to find the relevant literature. In our search strategy, we defined a list of keywords that we used to find the relevant literature on our target sources. We used both advanced and manual search techniques to find the relevant literature on our topic. List of databases used:
  • Google Scholar
  • Science Direct
  • IEEE
  • Springer Link
  • ACM Digital Library
  • AIS eLibrary
This choice of databases made our list of resources quite holistic, ranging from general platforms like Google Scholar and Science Direct to more information systems-oriented platforms such as ACM Digital Library and AIS eLibrary. Furthermore, we supplemented our research strategy with forward and backward searches. The former requires reviewing all research papers, citing the targeted research paper, and providing a good overview of its contribution, and the latter requires finding all cited references in this targeted research paper. To check the quality of the results, we also tried using different queries on each database. This step also helped us to narrow down our choice of databases.
The keywords used during our literature research were:
  • AI Sustainability
  • Artificial intelligence sustainability
  • Sustainable AI
  • AI environmental impact
  • AI economic impact
  • AI social impact
  • Artificial intelligence environmental impact
  • Artificial intelligence economic impact
  • Artificial intelligence social impact
  • AI ethics
To ensure comprehensive coverage of literature relevant to our research topic on AI sustainability, we crafted a set of keywords tailored to capture the nuances of our inquiry. With our research topic delineated into two primary aspects, namely AI for sustainability and the sustainability of AI, each further divided into three dimensions encompassing environmental, economic, and social impacts, our keyword selection process was strategic and iterative. We began by identifying core terms such as “AI sustainability” and “sustainable AI”. Building upon this foundation, we expanded our keyword list to encapsulate specific aspects and dimensions, including terms like “AI environmental impact”, “AI social impact” and “AI economic impact”. Furthermore, we employed synonymous terms, related concepts, and variations in terminology to ensure inclusivity and comprehensiveness in our literature search. Through this approach to keyword formulation, we aimed to cast a wide net, facilitating the thorough exploration and retrieval of literature pertinent to our multifaceted research inquiry into the sustainability implications of AI.
The mandatory condition for the keywords was that each keyword had to cover our review scope. Further, before including it, every keyword was also tested on each database. This step helped us double-check if the keyword used gave relevant results or not. Moreover, during this test, we also took care that if a keyword generated results that had already been covered before, that specific keyword was not included in our analysis. From the initial list, the keywords that did not produce relevant results or represented any sort of search bias were also excluded. While searching for papers on every database with our set of keywords, we looked at the papers up until the point when the relevant papers were coming up to a certain extent. We observed that the relevance of papers was decreasing, the further behind the papers were located in the search results. To make our process more comprehensive, we stored all the useful information from the relevant literature in the form of a Notion database (, accessed on 31 August 2023).

3.3. Screening and Selection of Literature

To ensure transparency and establish the credibility of the review, we refined the literature selection by employing explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria.

3.3.1. Inclusion Criteria

  • I1: Abstract explicitly highlights the topic of AI sustainability. This criterion helped us to only choose research papers having both components and to remove the papers talking about AI in some other context, and not explicitly stating either AI for sustainability or the impact of AI on sustainability.
  • I2: The paper’s focus aligns with the chosen research focus. While going through the paper, if the research paper did not cohesively talk about AI sustainability, then that paper was not included in our analysis.
  • I3: Abstract and keywords contain key terms related to the topic. Using this, we eliminated papers that contained the keywords of AI sustainability, but whose content was outside the scope of our research.

3.3.2. Exclusion Criteria

  • E1: Content focuses only on a specific niche sub-field of research regarding AI sustainability. To have an overall understanding of our topic, papers corresponding to a niche-specific sub-field of research with AI sustainability were not included.
  • E2: Publication date before 2000 (or after the first half of 2023). This criterion is useful because very few papers on this topic exist in the year range 2010–2018. Further, the year range 2000–2010 did not give any significant results. Hence, keeping the threshold at 2000 helped us to make our analysis extensive and at the same time a bit more efficient. The cut-off of our search and analysis is the first half of 2023.
  • E3: Abstract does not cover AI sustainability. To ensure that the analysis is strictly within the scope of our research, we excluded those papers whose abstracts exhibited a complete absence of any reference to AI sustainability.
  • E4: Full paper not accessible. Papers that looked relevant from the title and first information, but were not accessible, were also excluded from our analysis.
  • E5: Language not in English. Non-English papers were excluded from our analysis due to limitations in the authors’ language proficiency.
Out of 148 candidate papers collected using the list of keywords, a total of 60 were subjected to exclusion by the exclusion criteria, 46 of which were excluded through E3: Abstract does not cover AI sustainability. On the other hand, only one paper was excluded because of E5: Language not in English.
In the end, we included 88 papers, which served as the effective corpus of our literature analysis (see Table 1).

3.4. Classification Scheme and Systematic Map

We read abstracts and extracted useful information from the selected papers. We also looked for key points and concepts that reflected the contribution of the paper. Then the information was documented in our Notion database and combined to develop a high-level understanding of the nature and contribution of the research. This helped us define a set of categories that is representative of the underlying population. When abstracts alone could not deliver enough information, we also studied the introduction or conclusion sections of the papers. When a final set of information is chosen, they are clustered and used to form the categories for the map [114].

3.5. Interpretation of Findings and Review Output

The findings are one of the main priorities in SMS, which offer an explanation and understanding of the results so that researchers can proceed with their literature study after confirming all these criteria. The analysis of the database is mainly based on the frequency of publications for each category. By doing so, we were able to discover which categories have gained heightened attention and research endeavors, which also made it possible for us to identify potential for prospective research. The results will be more explicitly presented in the following sections of this paper.

4. Results and Visualization

4.1. RQ1: How Does the Existing Literature Capture AI Sustainability?

The literature review conducted led to the identification of distinct categories that provide a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted field of AI sustainability. One noteworthy categorization stems from varying interpretations of AI sustainability—some authors predominantly focus on assessing and mitigating the impact AI has on sustainability, while others explore how existing AI technologies can contribute to achieving sustainable development. This classification, inspired by Van Wynsberghe [18], delineates the 88 mapped papers into two primary categories: Sustainability of AI (43.2%) and AI for Sustainability (43.2%), with a smaller subset (13.6%) adopting a holistic approach addressing both facets simultaneously, as depicted in Figure 2.
The examination of sustainability dimensions, guided by [17], further stratified the literature based on specific niche fields or aspects within each dimension. Some papers focused on only one niche field or specific aspect, while others targeted two or three dimensions.
Figure 3 shows the breakdown of the papers per category. Notably, the Environmental dimension emerged as the most prevalent, encompassing studies that delve into AI’s interactions with the natural environment, such as carbon emission measurement, energy consumption optimization, and the energy costs of running large ML models. Following closely is the Social dimension, which explores ethical considerations, educational implications, and issues of equality related to AI. The Economic dimension, although the smallest, is represented by papers investigating economic growth, labor market dynamics, and novel business models. The third-biggest category includes papers that integrate all three dimensions and examine sustainability through a more comprehensive lens, which address its complexity by encompassing a broader perspective.
Table 2 offers a comprehensive view of paper distribution across categories, combining both proposed frameworks. Particularly noteworthy is the emphasis of “AI for Sustainability” papers on the environmental dimension, while those categorized under “Sustainability of AI” prioritize the social dimension. The economic dimension, as previously discussed, is comparatively less explored in this domain. Additionally, among the 88 papers reviewed, only five provided an all-inclusive perspective by addressing both “AI for Sustainability” and “Sustainability of AI”, and covering all three sustainability dimensions.
The observed fragmentation within the field underscores the ongoing evolution of research, with some papers intentionally unifying disparate dimensions, while others remain focused on specific facets of AI sustainability. This nuanced understanding emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to guide the future development and deployment of sustainable AI practices.

4.2. RQ2: What Is the Maturity Level of the Research Field of AI Sustainability?

We utilized the Litmaps platform, designed for generating interactive literature maps that group articles on a given research topic. In our analysis, we choose “Cited-by” on the Y-axis and “Date” on the X-axis. “Cited-by” arranges the papers in the increasing order of their “total number of citations”, positioning the most total citations at upper the end of the axis; the “Date” parameter orders by their recency, placing the most recent ones the right end of the axis. As shown in Figure 4, the paper “The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines” by Jobin et al. [38] has the greatest number of total citations in our database (1024 citations). Hence, it is represented as the topmost paper on our map. Furthermore, the paper, “Shaping the future of sustainable energy through AI-enabled circular economy policies” by Danish and Senjyu [108], is the most recent and is located at the extreme right of our map. Moreover, while [35] initially touched on AI sustainability from both AI for sustainability and the sustainability of AI perspectives, it was [18]’s advocacy for differentiating between these two perspectives that spurred an increasing number of papers to adopt this approach in their studies on AI sustainability. Besides, although [37] explored the topic with all three dimensions as early as 2018, it was not until 2021 that several papers followed suit, potentially influenced by [52], the second most cited paper in the field. Remarkably, the map illustrates that only a very small fraction of papers in the field comprehensively address AI sustainability with both perspectives and all dimensions—only five papers [70,71,77,82,98] achieve this, leading to what we called a “non-holistic” approach.
To assess the maturity of the field of “AI Sustainability”, we adopted the framework proposed by Keathley-Herring et al. [115]. The assessment of maturity in any research field is inherently challenging and often involves subjective evaluation, particularly given that research domains do not follow predictable maturation patterns. Nevertheless, many researchers incorporate maturity analysis into their assessments, recognizing its potential to offer valuable insights and assess the developmental stage of the research field’s literature [115]. To address RQ2, we base our analysis mainly on five elements: publication years, contribution types, citations, authorship and breadth of methods. These factors collectively contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the landscape and evolution of this research field.

4.2.1. Publication Years: When Did Research on AI Sustainability Become Active in the Artificial Intelligence Field?

As depicted in Figure 5, within the corpus of 88 papers constituting our data set, only a small portion was published before 2019. The year 2020 witnessed a substantial surge in research on AI sustainability, and this trend persisted with a continued increase in the number of publications in 2021. It is important to note that the lower count of papers published in the year 2023 is attributed to our cut-off in the first half of 2023 and also procedural delays in the review and publication processes.

4.2.2. Contribution Types: What Are the Different Approaches in the Existing Literature?

In pursuit of answering this query, we employ a classification scheme based on the contribution types of the papers. This classification scheme draws upon the comprehensive framework originally propounded by Wieringa et al. [116], which provides a robust conceptual underpinning. Additionally, we integrate the explicit evaluation criteria summarized by Petersen et al. [114] in Table 3. Adopting both perspectives, we divide all included papers into six categories.
This classification framework is chosen for its interpretability and applicability. Papers are categorized in one or more types provided they meet the criteria. The primary aim is to facilitate a comprehensive depiction of each paper’s contribution within the landscape of this research domain. Within the AI sustainability research field, validation and evaluation research are considered more mature due to their reliance on empirical evidence and data-driven analysis. They involve conducting experiments, surveys, or collecting data to test hypotheses and validate their findings. This empirical foundation lends them a higher level of credibility and maturity. On the other hand, solution proposal, philosophical, opinion, and experience papers might have a lower maturity level because these papers may involve personal opinions, viewpoints, or experiences that are inherently subjective and not as grounded in empirical evidence.
Based on our findings, the existing literature on AI sustainability predominantly encompasses three types of studies: evaluation research, solution proposal, and philosophical papers. As depicted in Figure 6, out of the 88 papers examined in this review, the most prevalent category is philosophical papers, accounting for 29 entries, followed by evaluation research with 23 entries, and solution proposal with 21 entries.
In Figure 7, we illustrate the contribution types by year. Analyzing the evolution of contribution types reveals that “Solution Proposals”, a relatively mature research category, emerged in 2019 and onward. Additionally, there is a noticeable uptick in the frequency of “Evaluation Research” and “Validation Research”. The rise in the visibility of these three categories signifies a positive contribution toward the maturity of this research field.

4.2.3. Authorship Analysis

To further consolidate our maturity analysis of this research field, we took inspiration from the maturity analysis framework provided by Keathley-Herring et al. [115], focusing on analyzes related to “Authorship” and “Breadth of Research Methods”. Authorship analysis is commonly used in literature reviews, and according to Maloni et al. [117], a growing number of diverse authors in a field is a positive sign of maturity. Additionally, examining the Breadth of Research Methods, the prevalence of diverse research methods, mixed methods, and empirical analysis, especially statistical hypothesis testing, acts as another indicator of a research field’s maturity [115].
Manually going through the background entries for all 317 authors from the mapped papers, we found that the relevant research fields are as follows:
  • Banking and Finance: This field consists of backgrounds such as finance, accounting, banking, etc.
  • Business Administration: The authors in this field have backgrounds related to economics, business administration, management, entrepreneurship, etc.
  • Engineering and Technology: This field comprises backgrounds such as software engineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, information technology, civil engineering, environmental engineering, biomedical engineering, etc.
  • Health Science: This field consists of authors from backgrounds like health labs, medical institutes, health research centers, Doctor of Medicine candidates, life sciences, etc.
  • Information Systems: The authors in this field have backgrounds related to artificial intelligence, machine learning, data science, etc. Furthermore, some authors had job titles more suited to the research field of “Engineering and Technology”. However, their work profiles were more suited to information systems. Hence, they have been placed in this field.
  • Law: Authors in this research field are predominantly associated with law faculties or departments.
  • Natural Science: This field comprises backgrounds such as sustainability, freshwater ecology, energy, climate change, etc.
  • Social Sciences: The authors in this field have backgrounds related to philosophy, theology, religion and culture, public affairs, social studies, internal and regional studies, etc.
From Table 4, it is evident that the majority of authors possess backgrounds in either “Information Systems (40%)” or “Engineering and Technology (22%)”. However, the data also reveals a notable diversity in author backgrounds, with contributions from individuals in fields such as “Social Sciences (13%)” and “Business Administration (11%)”. Additionally, authors from varied domains, including “Healthcare, Natural Science, Law, and Banking and Finance” are actively engaged with the topic. This broad spectrum of author backgrounds suggests a keen interest and active participation from researchers across diverse fields, contributing positively to the maturity of the research field [115].

4.2.4. Breadth of Methods Analysis

Conducting the Breadth of Methods Analysis, we systematically examined the presence of empirical studies in our chosen literature, adhering to the methodology proposed by Keathley-Herring et al. [115]. We meticulously reviewed all 88 selected papers, categorizing each as either empirical or non-empirical. Upon completion, we identified 17 papers, or approximately 19% of the selected literature, as empirical studies.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of empirical papers over the years in our selected literature. The first appearance of an empirical paper in our dataset was in 2018, indicating an initial absence in prior years. Subsequently, there has been a consistent rise in the number of empirical papers in the following years, with a slight dip in 2020, possibly attributed to the manual literature synthesis process. As previously noted, the majority of literature on this topic emerged in 2019 and onward, coinciding with the increasing presence of empirical studies. Considering the presence of empirical papers as another indicator for maturity, the result of this analysis further signifies the positive trajectory and rapid development of this research field since 2019.
In summary, the comprehensive analysis integrating publication trends, contribution types and citations, along with the maturity assessment framework involving authorship and the prevalence of empirical papers, indicates that the research field of AI sustainability was relatively nascent around 2019. However, it has subsequently experienced swift maturation and rapid development in the years that followed.

4.3. RQ3: What Is the Future Research Agenda of the Research Field of AI Sustainability?

When looking at the field of AI sustainability, we can see it evolving from a more fragmented one towards a more integrated and holistic field. Approaches of authors evolved, trying to address the full complexity of the topic, and not only restricting it to a niche sub-field. Earlier papers in the field tended to focus on one aspect of AI sustainability, though no single approach was significantly more prominent than the other. As shown in Figure 9, there was a notable surge in research volume around 2019. Importantly, this period also witnessed an emergence of new papers starting to incorporate both approaches.
The prevalence of papers adopting this integrated approach experienced a notable increase in 2021, and despite a slight decrease in 2022, they continued to represent a significant portion of the papers within our library. Given the current trajectory, it is anticipated that more papers following this approach will be published in the near future. As this approach gains increasing popularity, researchers should be attentive to both perspectives. Overlooking this dual consideration might lead to inaccurate conclusions about AI sustainability, echoing the notion that AI for Sustainability is not possible without the Sustainability of AI [118]. Examining the sustainability dimensions reveals a parallel trend, as depicted in Figure 10. Initially, papers primarily focused on a single dimension. However, around 2019, a shift towards a more comprehensive approach has emerged. From 2021 on, papers considering more than one sustainability dimension start to constitute the most substantial category of published papers.
Future researchers can go beyond the simple comprehension of the potential impacts of AI only within a specific field and comprehend both the positive and negative consequences of social, environmental, and economic dimensions. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) could serve as a comprehensive framework to steer this evaluation, offering a multidisciplinary perspective to inform this discourse.
Addressing RQ1 reveals a notable research gap concerning the economic dimension of AI sustainability as there is only little research on AI sustainability from an economic perspective. The interests of the stakeholders propelling the development of AI applications and markets will significantly influence whether and how much AI can contribute to sustainable development. Nonetheless, safeguarding the interests and well-being of consumers is simultaneously imperative. Challenges in tracking potentially problematic decisions made by AI systems may hinder consumers from accessing essential evidence for legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for comprehensive policymaking and regulation of market power and monopolies in AI development [72].
From the insights derived from RQ2, it is evident that the field of AI sustainability is experiencing rapid maturation. Nevertheless, achieving a higher maturity level in the future necessitates the fulfillment of several additional conditions by upcoming research endeavors. The selected literature in our research consists of various types of research papers, as covered in the section contribution types, ranging from philosophical and opinion papers to evaluation research, validation research, and solution proposals. To sustain the maturation of the field in the future, there should be a notable increase in the number of research papers for each research type, coupled with an elevation in the contribution type per year. Moreover, we have observed a rise in the number of empirical papers in recent years. This positive trend should persist, accompanied by an increase in the number of papers conducting analyzes using statistical hypothesis testing and variable testing. These factors can further contribute positively to the field’s maturity [115]. On observing the authorship analysis in RQ2, we observe diversity in the background of authors, with authors writing from research fields such as Banking and Finance, Law, Social Sciences, and Health Science. To head in the direction of more maturity, the diversity in author backgrounds should increase along with an increase in the number of authors in various research fields. This evolution is expected in the future research agenda as the field grows.

5. Discussion and Limitations

In this section, we will discuss the limitations of our paper. We mainly consider two types of validity that are potentially affected: construct validity and conclusion validity.

5.1. Construct Validity

Quality of papers: An important consideration in this paper is the quality and depth of the academic papers selected and analyzed. Given that the field of AI sustainability is relatively new, we observed a scarcity of research papers in this field before 2019. This factor posed a limitation to our research, restricting the possibility to capture a comprehensive historical perspective on the development of this field. Further, it made it difficult to analyze long-term trends. Moreover, we observed a relatively smaller percentage of empirical research papers in comparison to the total volume of research publications. This factor limited our ability to capture a diverse range of research methods. Additionally, a selective emphasis on fewer empirical studies could disproportionately represent certain perspectives and introduce biased interpretations. As a result, there may be a lack of in-depth analysis or exploration of certain critical aspects within the research.
Depth of Analysis: Compared to SLR, which involves a more detailed analysis of each included paper, including quality assessment and synthesis of findings, our approach to SMS, on the other hand, may provide a more high-level overview without delving deeply into each study. This could mean that while it covers a larger breadth of literature, our analysis of each individual paper might be less extensive.
Strict and focused analysis: To maintain external validity, a relatively wider inclusion of papers would be more powerful. However, due to limited time and research capacity, the inclusion and exclusion criteria we employed while selecting the papers are strict, e.g., E1: Contents only on a specific niche sub-field of research regarding AI sustainability. While this approach enhances the rigor of the study, it might also limit the generalizability of findings to the broader field of AI sustainability. Another limitation is the necessary and strict cut-off date for our systematic study. For example, a very recent study [119] that proposed a systematic comparison of inference costs of various categories of ML systems, covering both task-specific and general-purpose models with a focus on Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Computer Vision (CV), could not be included in our main Results Section (Section 4 ).
Qualitative assessment: The process of categorizing papers based on their content involves a certain degree of impreciseness. The absence of explicit criteria and bounded expertise in the specific sub-field of AI sustainability may introduce some bias into the categorization process.
Limited Synthesis of Findings: Since SMS prioritizes breadth over depth, synthesizing findings across studies may be more challenging. While we are able to identify trends, gaps, and themes in the literature, we might not be able to provide as comprehensive a synthesis of research findings compared to an SLR.

5.2. Conclusion Validity

Subjectivity of Authorship Analysis: The assessment of the maturity of the research field of AI sustainability within the included papers involves a certain degree of subjectivity. While efforts were made to maintain objectivity, variations in interpretation might affect the accuracy of conclusions drawn. Within the frame of Authorship Analysis, one debate that we also had during the writing process was whether there is a correlation between popularity and maturity, i.e., whether a higher number and interdisciplinarity of authors and their backgrounds are an indicator of the maturity level of the research field. Despite that, after consulting other similar studies about such assessment, we adopted the framework by Keathley-Herring et al. [115].
Despite the above-mentioned limitations, this research contributes to a broader understanding of AI sustainability and highlights areas for future exploration in this field.

6. Conclusions

The goal of our research was to construct a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) for a comprehensive analysis of “AI Sustainability”. Addressing the limitations observed in current review studies that often present limited perspectives, our study embraced viewpoints from both the sustainability of AI and AI for sustainability, encompassing all three dimensions: environmental, social, and economic. Our exploration of AI sustainability has uncovered a dynamic landscape marked by an increasing trend toward holistic studies, rapid maturation, and a promising research agenda. According to our analysis, the field has matured significantly since 2019, with a surge in publications, diverse contribution types, and empirical studies contributing to its growth. Our findings illuminate a balanced perspective in the field, highlighting equal weighting between sustainability of AI and AI for sustainability. In addition to the perspectives of AI sustainability, more and more recent papers have started to incorporate multiple dimensions in their work. Instead of concentrating solely on one of the three dimensions, such as the environment, these studies now explore a broader spectrum, encompassing multiple dimensions. It is noteworthy, however, that the economic dimension remains relatively under-explored in comparison to the others. This discernible trend is anticipated to persist and gain prominence, aligning with recent research that introduces the Sustainability Criteria and Indicators for Artificial Intelligence Systems (SCAIS) framework as an assessment approach for sustainable AI, explicitly addressing all three dimensions in their work [120]. Future research endeavors are therefore encouraged to delve more into the economic dimension, aligning their goals with the United Nations’ SDGs, thereby providing promising avenues for further exploration and contributing to the holistic development of the field. Moreover, it is imperative to acknowledge and address concerns raised by [72] regarding the potential influence of stakeholders on AI development and its implications for sustainable contributions. Safeguarding consumers’ interests and safety is of high importance, especially given the challenges in tracking potentially problematic AI decisions and the potential lack of access to evidence for affected individuals.
As the field continues to mature, collaboration, diversity in authorship, and an unwavering commitment to sustainability will propel AI research toward a more inclusive, impactful, and sustainable future. Our SMS lays the foundation for continued advancements in understanding and promoting AI sustainability, setting the stage for ongoing interdisciplinary dialogues and collaborative efforts in this vital research domain.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.D., S.M., Y.W. and S.-C.M.; methodology, R.D., S.M., Y.W. and S.-C.M.; software, R.D., S.M. and Y.W.; validation, S.-C.M., R.A. and B.F.; writing—original draft preparation, R.D., S.M. and Y.W.; writing—review and editing, S.-C.M., R.A. and B.F.; supervision, S.-C.M. and B.F.; project administration, S.-C.M., R.A. and B.F.; funding acquisition, R.A. and B.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


The pro_digital European Digital Innovation Hub (EDIH) has received co-funding from the European Union’s DIGITAL EUROPE Programme research and innovation programme grant agreement No. 101083754.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIArtificial Intelligence
CVComputer Vision
FSSDFramework for Strategic Sustainable Development
IoTInternet of Things
LLMsLarge Language Models
MLMachine Learning
NLPNatural Language Processing
SCAISSustainability Criteria and Indicators for Artificial Intelligence Systems
SDGsSustainable Development Goals
SLRSystematic Literature Review
SMSSystematic Mapping Study


  1. Russell, S.; Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Oxford, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Davenport, T.H.; Ronanki, R. Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2018, 96, 108–116. [Google Scholar]
  3. Enholm, I.M.; Papagiannidis, E.; Mikalef, P.; Krogstie, J. Artificial Intelligence and Business Value: A Literature Review. Inf. Syst. Front. 2022, 24, 1709–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lee, D.; Yoon, S.N. Application of Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies in the Healthcare Industry: Opportunities and Challenges. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Abduljabbar, R.; Dia, H.; Liyanage, S.; Bagloee, S.A. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Transport: An Overview. Sustainability 2019, 11, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jha, K.; Doshi, A.; Patel, P.; Shah, M. A comprehensive review on automation in agriculture using artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2019, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ahmad, T.; Zhang, D.; Huang, C.; Zhang, H.; Dai, N.; Song, Y.; Chen, H. Artificial intelligence in sustainable energy industry: Status Quo, challenges and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chan-Olmsted, S.M. A Review of Artificial Intelligence Adoptions in the Media Industry. Int. J. Media Manag. 2019, 21, 193–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sætra, H.S. AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Strubell, E.; Ganesh, A.; McCallum, A. Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 28 July–2 August 2019; pp. 3645–3650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Santor, E. The Impact of Digitalization on the Economy: A Review Article on the NBER Volume “Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda”. Int. Product. Monit. 2020, 39, 81–90. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dastin, J. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. In Ethics of Data and Analytics; Auerbach Publications: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 296–299. [Google Scholar]
  13. Larson, J.; Angwin, J.; Kirchner, L.; Mattu, S. Machine Bias: There’s Software Used across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. And Its Biased against Blacks. Fed. Probat. 2016, 80, 38. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jin, Z.; Cao, J.; Guo, H.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Luo, J. Detection and analysis of 2016 us presidential election related rumors on twitter. In Proceedings of the Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling: 10th International Conference, SBP-BRiMS 2017, Washington, DC, USA, 5–8 July 2017; Proceedings 10. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 14–24. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bovet, A.; Makse, H.A. Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Krittanawong, C.; Narasimhan, B.; Virk, H.U.H.; Narasimhan, H.; Hahn, J.; Wang, Z.; Tang, W.W. Misinformation dissemination in twitter in the COVID-19 era. Am. J. Med. 2020, 133, 1367–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three Pillars of Sustainability: In Search of Conceptual Origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van Wynsberghe, A. Sustainable AI: AI for Sustainability and the Sustainability of AI. AI Ethics 2021, 1, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McCarthy, J. What is Artificial Intelligence? 2007. Available online: (accessed on 31 August 2023).
  20. Chen, Z.; Wu, M.; Chan, A.; Li, X.; Ong, Y.S. Survey on AI Sustainability: Emerging Trends on Learning Algorithms and Research Challenges [Review Article]. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 2023, 18, 60–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Larsson, S.; Anneroth, M.; Felländer, A.; Felländer-Tsai, L.; Heintz, F.; Ångström, R. Sustainable AI: An Inventory of the State of Knowledge of Ethical, Social, and Legal Challenges Related to Artificial Intelligence. AI Sustainability Center. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 31 August 2023).
  22. Nishant, R.; Kennedy, M.; Corbett, J. Artificial intelligence for sustainability: Challenges, opportunities, and a research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53, 102104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kar, A.K.; Choudhary, S.K.; Singh, V.K. How Can Artificial Intelligence Impact Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Verdecchia, R.; Sallou, J.; Cruz, L. A Systematic Review of Green AI. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2301.11047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Natarajan, H.K.; de Paula, D.; Dremel, C.; Uebernickel, F. A Theoretical Review on AI Affordances for Sustainability. In Proceedings of the AMCIS 2022, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 10–14 August 2022; Available online: (accessed on 31 August 2023).
  26. Wearn, O.R.; Freeman, R.; Jacoby, D.M.P. Responsible AI for Conservation. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2019, 1, 72–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Galaz, V.; Mouazen, A.M. ‘New Wilderness’ Requires Algorithmic Transparency: A Response to Cantrell et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2017, 32, 628–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Joppa, L.N. The Case for Technology Investments in the Environment. Nature 2017, 552, 325–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Galaz, V.; Centeno, M.A.; Callahan, P.W.; Causevic, A.; Patterson, T.; Brass, I.; Baum, S.; Farber, D.; Fischer, J.; Garcia, D.; et al. Artificial Intelligence, Systemic Risks, and Sustainability. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gonçales, L.J.; Farias, K.; Da Silva, B.C. Measuring the Cognitive Load of Software Developers: An Extended Systematic Mapping Study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2021, 136, 106563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Levy, Y.; Ellis, T.J. A Systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of Information Systems Research. Informing Sci. Int. J. Emerg. Transdiscip. 2006, 9, 181–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Strubell, E.; Ganesh, A.; McCallum, A. Energy and Policy Considerations for Modern Deep Learning Research. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 2020, 34, 13693–13696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Heilinger, J.C.; Kempt, H.; Nagel, S. Beware of Sustainable AI! Uses and Abuses of a Worthy Goal. AI Ethics 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bostrom, N.; Yudkowsky, E. The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. In The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, 1st ed.; Frankish, K., Ramsey, W.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 316–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zeng, D. AI Ethics: Science Fiction Meets Technological Reality. IEEE Intell. Syst. 2015, 30, 2–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aghion, P.; Jones, B.; Jones, C. Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth; Technical Report w23928; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khakurel, J.; Penzenstadler, B.; Porras, J.; Knutas, A.; Zhang, W. The Rise of Artificial Intelligence under the Lens of Sustainability. Technologies 2018, 6, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jobin, A.; Ienca, M.; Vayena, E. The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2019, 1, 389–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mittelstadt, B. Principles Alone Cannot Guarantee Ethical AI. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2019, 1, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vakkuri, V.; Kemell, K.K.; Abrahamsson, P. AI Ethics in Industry: A Research Framework. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1910.12695. [Google Scholar]
  41. Van der Loeff, A.S.; Bassi, I.; Kapila, S.; Gamper, J. AI Ethics for Systemic Issues: A Structural Approach. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1911.03216. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kennedy, M.L. What Do Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Ethics of AI Mean in the Context of Research Libraries? Res. Libr. Issues 2019, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Johnson, S.A. Technology Innovation and AI Ethics. Res. Libr. Issues 2019, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thwal, C.M.; Thar, K.; Hong, C. Edge AI Based Waste Management System for Smart City 1. In Proceedings of the 2019 Korean Computer Science Conference of the Korean Society of Information Scientists and Engineers, Jeju, Republic of Korea, 26 June 2019; pp. 403–405. [Google Scholar]
  45. Szczepanski, M. Economic Impacts of Artificial Intelligence (AI). European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 637.967. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 31 August 2023).
  46. Morley, J.; Floridi, L.; Kinsey, L.; Elhalal, A. From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2019, 26, 2141–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Siau, K.; Wang, W. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics: Ethics of AI and Ethical AI. J. Database Manag. 2020, 31, 74–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bruneault, F.; Laflamme, A.S. AI Ethics: How Can Information Ethics Provide a Framework to Avoid Usual Conceptual Pitfalls? An Overview. AI Soc. 2021, 36, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lawrence-Archer, A. AI Ethics: A Strategic Communications Challenge. Def. Strateg. Commun. 2020, 8, 189–202. [Google Scholar]
  50. Morley, J.; Machado, C.C.; Burr, C.; Cowls, J.; Joshi, I.; Taddeo, M.; Floridi, L. The Ethics of AI in Health Care: A Mapping Review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2020, 260, 113172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Ahmed, A.A.A.; Asadullah, A. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Waste Management and Recycling. Eng. Int. 2020, 8, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vinuesa, R.; Azizpour, H.; Leite, I.; Balaam, M.; Dignum, V.; Domisch, S.; Felländer, A.; Langhans, S.D.; Tegmark, M.; Fuso Nerini, F. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Lahsen, M. Should AI Be Designed to Save Us From Ourselves?: Artificial Intelligence for Sustainability. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 2020, 39, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tanveer, M.; Hassan, S.; Bhaumik, A. Academic Policy Regarding Sustainability and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Sustainability 2020, 12, 9435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Goralski, M.A.; Tan, T.K. Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable Development. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2020, 18, 100330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Di Vaio, A.; Palladino, R.; Hassan, R.; Escobar, O. Artificial Intelligence and Business Models in the Sustainable Development Goals Perspective: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 121, 283–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cao, L. Application of Artificial Intelligence on the CO2 Capture: A Review. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2021, 145, 1751–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, X.; Wu, X.; Lee, K.Y. The Mutual Benefits of Renewables and Carbon Capture: Achieved by an Artificial Intelligent Scheduling Strategy. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 233, 113856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nourbakhsh, I.R. AI Ethics: A Call to Faculty. Commun. ACM 2021, 64, 43–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kazim, E.; Koshiyama, A.S. A High-Level Overview of AI Ethics. Patterns 2021, 2, 100314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Nwafor, I.E. AI Ethical Bias: A Case for AI Vigilantism (AIlantism) in Shaping the Regulation of AI. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 2021, 29, eaab008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Heo, J. Ethical Review in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. AI Ethics J. 2021, 2, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ciobanu, A.C.; Meșniță, G. AI Ethics in Business—A Bibliometric Approach. Rev. Econ. Bus. Stud. 2021, 14, 169–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Corea, F. Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and social considerations. Biolaw J. Riv. Biodiritto 2021, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chen, J.; Huang, S.; BalaMurugan, S.; Tamizharasi, G. Artificial Intelligence Based E-Waste Management for Environmental Planning. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 87, 106498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Reif, S.; Herzog, B.; Hemp, J.; Schröder-Preikschat, W.; Hönig, T. AI Waste Prevention: Time and Power Estimation for Edge Tensor Processing Units: Poster. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems, Virtual Event, Torino, Italy, 28 June–2 July 2021; pp. 300–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sharma, P.; Vaid, U. Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence in Waste Management Practices. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 889, 012047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bijos, J.C.B.F.; Queiroz, L.M.; Zanta, V.M.; Oliveira-Esquerre, K.P. Towards Artificial Intelligence in Urban Waste Management: An Early Prospect for Latin America. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1196, 012030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hermann, E.; Hermann, G. Artificial Intelligence in Research and Development for Sustainability: The Centrality of Explicability and Research Data Management. AI Ethics 2022, 2, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gupta, S.; Langhans, S.D.; Domisch, S.; Fuso-Nerini, F.; Felländer, A.; Battaglini, M.; Tegmark, M.; Vinuesa, R. Assessing Whether Artificial Intelligence Is an Enabler or an Inhibitor of Sustainability at Indicator Level. Transp. Eng. 2021, 4, 100064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Owe, A.; Baum, S. The Ethics of Sustainability for Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on AI for People: Towards Sustainable AI, CAIP 2021, Bologna, Italy, 20–24 November 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rohde, F.; Gossen, M.; Wagner, J.; Santarius, T. Sustainability Challenges of Artificial Intelligence and Policy Implications. Ökologisches Wirtsch.-Fachz. 2021, 36, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wu, C.J.; Raghavendra, R.; Gupta, U.; Acun, B.; Ardalani, N.; Maeng, K.; Chang, G.; Behram, F.A.; Huang, J.; Bai, C.; et al. Sustainable AI: Environmental Implications, Challenges and Opportunities. Proc. Mach. Learn. Syst. 2022, 4, 795–813. [Google Scholar]
  74. Saheb, T.; Dehghani, M. Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Energy: A Contextual Topic Modeling and Content Analysis. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2021, 35, 100699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yigitcanlar, T. Greening the Artificial Intelligence for a Sustainable Planet: An Editorial Commentary. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Palomares, I.; Martínez-Cámara, E.; Montes, R.; García-Moral, P.; Chiachio, M.; Chiachio, J.; Alonso, S.; Melero, F.J.; Molina, D.; Fernández, B.; et al. A Panoramic View and Swot Analysis of Artificial Intelligence for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030: Progress and Prospects. Appl. Intell. 2021, 51, 6497–6527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Isensee, C.; Griese, K.M.; Teuteberg, F. Sustainable Artificial Intelligence: A Corporate Culture Perspective. Sustain. Manag. Forum Nachhalt. 2021, 29, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yigitcanlar, T.; Mehmood, R.; Corchado, J.M. Green Artificial Intelligence: Towards an Efficient, Sustainable and Equitable Technology for Smart Cities and Futures. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Manzoor, B.; Othman, I.; Durdyev, S.; Ismail, S.; Wahab, M. Influence of Artificial Intelligence in Civil Engineering toward Sustainable Development—A Systematic Literature Review. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pigola, A.; Da Costa, P.R.; Carvalho, L.C.; Silva, L.F.D.; Kniess, C.T.; Maccari, E.A. Artificial Intelligence-Driven Digital Technologies to the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals: A Perspective from Brazil and Portugal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Verma, I.; Singh, G.; Tiwar, A.; Kumar, A.; Prasad, H. Impact of AI on Environment. Turk. J. Comput. Math. Educ. (TURCOMAT) 2021, 12, 1928–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Schoormann, T.; Strobel, G.; Möller, F.; Petrik, D. Achieving sustainability with artificial intelligence—A survey of information systems research. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2021), Austin, TX, USA, 12–15 December 2021. [Google Scholar]
  83. Kumar, A.; Madaan, G.; Sharma, P.; Kumar, A. Application of Disruptive Technologies on Environmental Health: An Overview of Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Internet of Things. Asia Pac. J. Health Manag. 2021, 16, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Khan, A.A.; Badshah, S.; Liang, P.; Khan, B.; Waseem, M.; Niazi, M.; Akbar, M.A. Ethics of AI: A Systematic Literature Review of Principles and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Gothenburg, Sweden, 13–15 June 2022; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Christoforaki, M.; Beyan, O. AI Ethics—A Bird’s Eye View. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hallamaa, J.; Kalliokoski, T. AI Ethics as Applied Ethics. Front. Comput. Sci. 2022, 4, 776837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Andeobu, L.; Wibowo, S.; Grandhi, S. Artificial Intelligence Applications for Sustainable Solid Waste Management Practices in Australia: A Systematic Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 834, 155389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Rajalakshmi, J.; Sumangali, K.; Jayanthi, J.; Muthulakshmi, K. Artificial Intelligence with Earthworm Optimization Assisted Waste Management System for Smart Cities. Glob. NEST J. 2023, 25, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hang, H.; Chen, Z. How to Realize the Full Potentials of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Digital Economy? A Literature Review. J. Digit. Econ. 2022, 1, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Budennyy, S.; Lazarev, V.; Zakharenko, N.; Korovin, A.; Plosskaya, O.; Dimitrov, D.; Arkhipkin, V.; Oseledets, I.; Barsola, I.; Egorov, I.; et al. Eco2AI: Carbon Emissions Tracking of Machine Learning Models as the First Step towards Sustainable AI. In Doklady Mathematics; Pleiades Publishing: Moscow, Russia, 2022; Volume 106, pp. S118–S128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Perucica, N.; Andjelkovic, K. Is the Future of AI Sustainable? A Case Study of the European Union. Transform. Gov. People Process. Policy 2022, 16, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wilson, C.; Van Der Velden, M. Sustainable AI: An Integrated Model to Guide Public Sector Decision-Making. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mill, E.; Garn, W.; Ryman-Tubb, N. Managing Sustainability Tensions in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from Paradox Theory. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Oxford, UK, 1–3 August 2022; pp. 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Spezzatti, A.; Kheradmand, E.; Gupta, K.; Peras, M.; Zaminpeyma, R. Note: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Build a Data Catalog and Support Research on the Sustainable Development Goals. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS), Seattle, WA, USA, 29 June–1 July 2022; pp. 579–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pachot, A.; Patissier, C. Towards Sustainable Artificial Intelligence: An Overview of Environmental Protection Uses and Issues. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2212.11738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Salas, J.; Patterson, G.; De Barros Vidal, F. A Systematic Mapping of Artificial Intelligence Solutions for Sustainability Challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean. IEEE Lat. Am. Trans. 2022, 20, 2312–2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Si, D. A Framework to Analyze the Impacts of AI with the Sustainable Development Goals. Highlights Sci. Eng. Technol. 2022, 17, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Robbins, S.; Van Wynsberghe, A. Our New Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure: Becoming Locked into an Unsustainable Future. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Van Wynsberghe, A.; Vandemeulebroucke, T.; Bolte, L.; Nachid, J. Special Issue “Towards the Sustainability of AI; Multi-Disciplinary Approaches to Investigate the Hidden Costs of AI”. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Goralski, M.A.; Tan, T.K. Artificial Intelligence and Poverty Alleviation: Emerging Innovations and Their Implications for Management Education and Sustainable Development. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2022, 20, 100662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Isabelle, D.A.; Westerlund, M. A Review and Categorization of Artificial Intelligence-Based Opportunities in Wildlife, Ocean and Land Conservation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Skiter, N.N.; Rogachev, A.F.; Ketko, N.V.; Simonov, A.B.; Tarasova, I.A. Sustainable Development of Enterprises in Conditions of Smart Ecology: Analysis of The Main Problems and Development of Ways to Solve Them, Based on Artificial Intelligence Methods and Innovative Technologies. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 892222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Baqi, A.; Abdeldayem, M.M.; Aldulaimi, S.H. Embedding Artificial Intelligence and Green Ideology in Formulating Corporate and Marketing Strategies. In Proceedings of the 2022 ASU International Conference in Emerging Technologies for Sustainability and Intelligent Systems (ICETSIS), Manama, Bahrain, 22–23 June 2022; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kopka, A.; Grashof, N. Artificial Intelligence: Catalyst or Barrier on the Path to Sustainability? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 175, 121318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Solos, W.K.; Leonard, J. On the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Economy. Sci. Insights 2022, 41, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sanderson, C.; Douglas, D.; Lu, Q.; Schleiger, E.; Whittle, J.; Lacey, J.; Newnham, G.; Hajkowicz, S.; Robinson, C.; Hansen, D. AI Ethics Principles in Practice: Perspectives of Designers and Developers. IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc. 2023, 4, 171–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Nasir, I.; Aziz Al-Talib, G.A. Waste Classification Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques: Literature Review. Tech. Rom. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2023, 5, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Danish, M.S.S.; Senjyu, T. Shaping the Future of Sustainable Energy through AI-enabled Circular Economy Policies. Circ. Econ. 2023, 2, 100040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Fang, B.; Yu, J.; Chen, Z.; Osman, A.I.; Farghali, M.; Ihara, I.; Hamza, E.H.; Rooney, D.W.; Yap, P.S. Artificial Intelligence for Waste Management in Smart Cities: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 1959–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Leal Filho, W.; Yang, P.; Eustachio, J.H.P.P.; Azul, A.M.; Gellers, J.C.; Gielczyk, A.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Kozlova, V. Deploying Digitalisation and Artificial Intelligence in Sustainable Development Research. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 4957–4988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Farahani, M.S. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Social Science Issues: A Case Study on Predicting Population Change. J. Knowl. Econ. 2023, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Piya, S.; Lennerz, J.K. Sustainable Development Goals Applied to Digital Pathology and Artificial Intelligence Applications in Low- to Middle-Income Countries. Front. Med. 2023, 10, 1146075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zhang, Z. Research on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence Technology on Green Innovation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Information Engineering and Computer Communication (EIECC 2021), Nanchang, China, 17–19 December 2021; Zhu, Z., Cen, F., Eds.; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2022; p. 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Petersen, K.; Feldt, R.; Mujtaba, S.; Mattsson, M. Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), Bari, Italy, 26–27 June 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Keathley-Herring, H.; Gonzalez Aleu, F.; Orlandini, P.; Van Aken, E.; Deschamps, F.; Leite, L. Proposed Maturity Assessment Framework for a Research Field. In Proceedings of the 2013 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 18–22 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
  116. Wieringa, R.; Maiden, N.; Mead, N.; Rolland, C. Requirements Engineering Paper Classification and Evaluation Criteria: A Proposal and a Discussion. Requir. Eng. 2006, 11, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Maloni, M.J.; Carter, C.R.; Carr, A.S. Assessing Logistics Maturation through Author Concentration. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2009, 39, 250–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Falk, S.; van Wynsberghe, A. Challenging AI for Sustainability: What ought it mean? AI Ethics 2023, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Luccioni, A.S.; Jernite, Y.; Strubell, E. Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment? arXiv 2023, arXiv:2311.16863. [Google Scholar]
  120. Rohde, F.; Wagner, J.; Meyer, A.; Reinhard, P.; Voss, M.; Petschow, U.; Mollen, A. Broadening the perspective for sustainable artificial intelligence: Sustainability criteria and indicators for Artificial Intelligence systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2024, 66, 101411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Research Methodology Framework.
Figure 1. Research Methodology Framework.
Analytics 03 00008 g001
Figure 2. Sustainability of AI vs. AI for Sustainability.
Figure 2. Sustainability of AI vs. AI for Sustainability.
Analytics 03 00008 g002
Figure 3. Literature survey on AI Sustainability.
Figure 3. Literature survey on AI Sustainability.
Analytics 03 00008 g003
Figure 4. Litmaps Analysis.
Figure 4. Litmaps Analysis.
Analytics 03 00008 g004
Figure 5. Publications by Year (cut-off at the first half of 2023).
Figure 5. Publications by Year (cut-off at the first half of 2023).
Analytics 03 00008 g005
Figure 6. Contribution Types.
Figure 6. Contribution Types.
Analytics 03 00008 g006
Figure 7. Contribution Type by Year.
Figure 7. Contribution Type by Year.
Analytics 03 00008 g007
Figure 8. Distribution of Empirical Papers by Year.
Figure 8. Distribution of Empirical Papers by Year.
Analytics 03 00008 g008
Figure 9. Number of Papers by Year per Approach.
Figure 9. Number of Papers by Year per Approach.
Analytics 03 00008 g009
Figure 10. Number of Papers by Year per Dimension.
Figure 10. Number of Papers by Year per Dimension.
Analytics 03 00008 g010
Table 1. List of Selected Literature.
Table 1. List of Selected Literature.
1The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence2014Bostrom and Yudkowsky [34]
2AI Ethics: Science Fiction Meets Technological Reality2015Zeng [35]
3Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth2017Aghion et al. [36]
4The Rise of Artificial Intelligence under the Lens of Sustainability2018Khakurel et al. [37]
5Artificial Intelligence: the Global Landscape of Ethics Guidelines2019Jobin et al. [38]
6Principles Alone Cannot Guarantee Ethical AI2019Mittelstadt [39]
7AI Ethics in Industry: A Research Framework2019Vakkuri et al. [40]
8AI Ethics for Systemic Issues: A Structural Approach2019van der Loeff et al. [41]
9What Do Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Ethics of AI Mean in the Context of Research Libraries?2019Kennedy [42]
10Technology Innovation and AI Ethics2019Johnson [43]
11Edge AI based Waste Management System for Smart City2019Thwal et al. [44]
12Economic impacts of artificial intelligence2019Szczepanski [45]
13From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices2019Morley et al. [46]
14Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics: Ethics of AI and Ethical AI2020Siau and Wang [47]
15AI Ethics: How Can Information Ethics Provide A Framework To Avoid Usual Conceptual Pitfalls? An Overview2021Bruneault and Laflamme [48]
16AI Ethics: A Strategic Communications Challenge2020Lawrence-Archer [49]
17The Ethics Of AI In Health Care: A Mapping Review.2020Morley et al. [50]
18Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Waste Management and Recycling2020Ahmed and Asadullah [51]
19Artificial Intelligence For Sustainability: Challenges, Opportunities, And A Research Agenda2020Nishant et al. [22]
20The Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Achieving The Sustainable Development Goals2020Vinuesa et al. [52]
21Should AI Be Designed To Save Us From Ourselves?2020Lahsen [53]
22Academic Policy Regarding Sustainability and Artificial Intelligence (AI)2020Tanveer et al. [54]
23Artificial Intelligence And Sustainable Development2020Goralski and Tan [55]
24Artificial Intelligence And Business Models In The Sustainable Development Goals Perspective: A Systematic Literature Review2020Di Vaio et al. [56]
25The Impact of Digitalization on the Economy: A Review Article on the NBER Volume “Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda”2020Santor [11]
26Application Of Artificial Intelligence On The CO2 Capture: A Review2021Cao [57]
27The Mutual Benefits Of Renewables And Carbon Capture: Achieved By An Artificial Intelligent Scheduling Strategy2021Chen et al. [58]
28AI Ethics: A Call To Faculty2021Nourbakhsh [59]
29A High-Level Overview of AI Ethics2021Kazim and Koshiyama [60]
30AI Ethical Bias: A Case For AI Vigilantism (Ailantism) In Shaping The Regulation of AI2021Nwafor [61]
31Ethical Review in The Age of Artificial Intelligence2021Heo [62]
32AI Ethics In Business—A Bibliometric Approach2021Ciobanu and Meșniță [63]
33Artificial Intelligence: Ethical And Social Considerations2021Corea [64]
34Artificial Intelligence Based E-Waste Management For Environmental Planning2021Chen et al. [65]
35AI Waste Prevention: Time and Power Estimation for Edge Tensor Processing Units2021Reif et al. [66]
36Emerging Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Waste Management Practices2021Sharma and Vaid [67]
37Towards Artificial Intelligence In Urban Waste Management: An Early Prospect For Latin America2021Bijos et al. [68]
38Sustainable AI: AI for Sustainability And The Sustainability Of AI2021Van Wynsberghe [18]
39Artificial Intelligence, Systemic Risks, And Sustainability2021Galaz et al. [29]
40Artificial Intelligence In Research And Development For Sustainability: The Centrality Of Explicability And Research Data Management2022Hermann and Hermann [69]
41AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System2021Sætra [9]
42Assessing Whether Artificial Intelligence Is An Enabler Or An Inhibitor Of Sustainability At Indicator Level2021Gupta et al. [70]
43The Ethics of Sustainability for Artificial Intelligence2021Owe and Baum [71]
44Sustainability Challenges of Artificial Intelligence and Policy Implications2021Rohde et al. [72]
45Sustainable AI: Environmental Implications, Challenges and Opportunities2022Wu et al. [73]
46Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Energy: A Contextual Topic Modeling and Content Analysis2021Saheb and Dehghani [74]
47Greening the Artificial Intelligence for a Sustainable Planet: An Editorial Commentary2021Yigitcanlar [75]
48A Panoramic View And Swot Analysis Of Artificial Intelligence For Achieving The Sustainable Development Goals By 2030: Progress And Prospects2021Palomares et al. [76]
49Sustainable Artificial Intelligence: A Corporate Culture Perspective2021Isensee et al. [77]
50Green Artificial Intelligence: Towards an Efficient, Sustainable and Equitable Technology for Smart Cities and Futures2021Yigitcanlar et al. [78]
51Influence of Artificial Intelligence in Civil Engineering toward Sustainable Development—A Systematic Literature Review2021Manzoor et al. [79]
52Artificial Intelligence-Driven Digital Technologies to the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals: A Perspective from Brazil and Portugal2021Pigola et al. [80]
53Impact of AI on Environment2021Verma et al. [81]
54Achieving Sustainability with Artificial Intelligence—A Survey of Information Systems Research2021Schoormann et al. [82]
55Application of Disruptive Technologies on Environmental Health: An overview of artificial intelligence, blockchain and internet of things2021Kumar et al. [83]
56Ethics of AI: A Systematic Literature Review of Principles and Challenges2021Khan et al. [84]
57AI Ethics—A Bird’s Eye View2022Christoforaki and Beyan [85]
58AI Ethics as Applied Ethics2022Hallamaa and Kalliokoski [86]
59Artificial Intelligence Applications For Sustainable Solid Waste Management Practices In Australia: A Systematic Review.2022Andeobu et al. [87]
60Artificial Intelligence with Earthworm Optimization Assisted Waste Management System for Smart Cities2023Rajalakshmi et al. [88]
61How Can Artificial Intelligence Impact Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review2022Kar et al. [23]
62How To Realize The Full Potentials Of Artificial Intelligence (AI) In Digital Economy? A Literature Review2022Hang and Chen [89]
63ECO2AI: Carbon Emissions Tracking Of Machine Learning Models As The First Step Towards Sustainable AI2022Budennyy et al. [90]
64Is the future of AI Sustainable? A Case Study of the European Union2022Perucica and Andjelkovic [91]
65A Survey on AI Sustainability: Emerging Trends on Learning Algorithms and Research Challenges2022Chen et al. [20]
66Sustainable AI: An Integrated Model to Guide Public Sector Decision-Making2022Wilson and Van Der Velden [92]
67Managing Sustainability Tensions in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from Paradox Theory2022Mill et al. [93]
68Note: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence To Build A Data Catalog And Support Research On The Sustainable Development Goals2022Spezzatti et al. [94]
69Towards Sustainable Artificial Intelligence: An Overview of Environmental Protection Uses and Issues2022Pachot and Patissier [95]
70A Systematic Mapping of Artificial Intelligence Solutions for Sustainability Challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean2022Salas et al. [96]
71A Framework to Analyze the Impacts of AI with the Sustainable Development Goals2022Si [97]
72Our New Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure: Becoming Locked into an Unsustainable Future2022Robbins and Van Wynsberghe [98]
73Special Issue “Towards the Sustainability of AI; Multi-Disciplinary Approaches to Investigate the Hidden Costs of AI”2022Van Wynsberghe et al. [99]
74Artificial Intelligence and Poverty Alleviation: Emerging Innovations and Their Implications for Management Education and Sustainable Development2022Goralski and Tan [100]
75A Review and Categorization of Artificial Intelligence-Based Opportunities in Wildlife, Ocean and Land Conservation2022Isabelle and Westerlund [101]
76Sustainable Development of Enterprises in Conditions of Smart Ecology: Analysis of The Main Problems and Development of Ways to Solve Them, Based on Artificial Intelligence Methods and Innovative Technologies2022Skiter et al. [102]
77Embedding Artificial Intelligence and Green Ideology in Formulating Corporate and Marketing Strategies2022Baqi et al. [103]
78Artificial intelligence: Catalyst or Barrier on the Path to Sustainability?2022Kopka and Grashof [104]
79On the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Economy2022Solos and Leonard [105]
80A Systematic Review of Green AI2023Verdecchia et al. [24]
81AI Ethics Principles in Practice: Perspectives of Designers and Developers2023Sanderson et al. [106]
82Waste Classification Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques:Literature Review2023Nasir and Aziz Al-Talib [107]
83Shaping the Future of Sustainable Energy through AI-Enabled Circular Economy Policies2023Danish and Senjyu [108]
84Artificial Intelligence for Waste Management in Smart Cities: A Review2023Fang et al. [109]
85Deploying Digitalisation and Artificial Intelligence in Sustainable Development Research2023Leal Filho et al. [110]
86Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Social Science Issues: A Case Study on Predicting Population Change2023Farahani [111]
87Sustainable Development Goals Applied to Digital Pathology and Artificial Intelligence Applications in Low- to Middle-Income Countries2023Piya and Lennerz [112]
88Research on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence Technology on Green Innovation2022Zhang [113]
Table 2. Overview of Papers on AI Sustainability.
Table 2. Overview of Papers on AI Sustainability.
AI for SustainabilitySustainability of AIBothTotal
Table 3. Categorization Framework by Petersen et al. [114].
Table 3. Categorization Framework by Petersen et al. [114].
Validation ResearchTechniques investigated are novel and have not yet been implemented in practice. Techniques used are, for example, experiments, i.e., work done in the lab.
Evaluation ResearchTechniques are implemented in practice and an evaluation of the technique is conducted. That means it is shown how the technique is implemented in practice (solution implementation) and what are the consequences of the implementation in terms of benefits and drawbacks (implementation evaluation). This also includes identifying problems in the industry.
Solution ProposalA solution to a problem is proposed. The solution can be either novel or a significant extension of an existing technique. The potential benefits and the applicability of the solution are shown by a small example or a good line of argumentation.
Philosophical PapersThese papers sketch a new way of looking at existing things by structuring the field in the form of a taxonomy or conceptual framework.
Opinion PapersThese papers express the personal opinion of somebody on whether a certain technique is good or bad, or how things should be done. They do not rely on related work and research methodologies.
Experience PapersExperience papers explain what and how something has been done in practice. It has to be the personal experience of the author.
Table 4. Distribution of Authors in Different Fields.
Table 4. Distribution of Authors in Different Fields.
Research FieldsCount of AuthorPercentage
Information Systems12639.75%
Engineering & Technology7122.40%
Social Science4012.62%
Business Administration3511.04%
Health Science154.73%
Natural Science134.10%
Not Available82.52%
Banking & Finance30.95%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dhiman, R.; Miteff, S.; Wang, Y.; Ma, S.-C.; Amirikas, R.; Fabian, B. Artificial Intelligence and Sustainability—A Review. Analytics 2024, 3, 140-164.

AMA Style

Dhiman R, Miteff S, Wang Y, Ma S-C, Amirikas R, Fabian B. Artificial Intelligence and Sustainability—A Review. Analytics. 2024; 3(1):140-164.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dhiman, Rachit, Sofia Miteff, Yuancheng Wang, Shih-Chi Ma, Ramila Amirikas, and Benjamin Fabian. 2024. "Artificial Intelligence and Sustainability—A Review" Analytics 3, no. 1: 140-164.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop