A Unified ESG–Cybersecurity Framework for AI Governance: Managing Sustainability, Social, and Security Risks in Enterprise AI Adoption

Enterprise adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) creates sustainability, social and security risks that firms typically govern through separate ESG and cybersecurity structures. This study asks whether, and under what conditions, large U.S. firms disclose an integrated approach to governing AI across the three domains. It uses a configurational, text-as-data design: the latest Form 10-K of each S&P 500 registrant (N = 500; analysis sample, n = 488) was converted into dictionary-based measures of AI, AI-governance, environmental, social and cybersecurity disclosure, sentence-level co-mention of AI with each risk domain, and an eleven-element score of the Form 10-K Item 1C cybersecurity-governance disclosure. Latent Dirichlet allocation of 9,444 AI-context sentences recovered six themes. Latent profile analysis identified four overlapping disclosure profiles (sustainability-led and AI-light, social-led with weak cyber governance, AI-intensive integrators, and security-anchored moderates) that differ by sector and by year-on-year growth in AI-governance language. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis showed two equifinal paths to integrated AI-governance disclosure: social-risk framing combined with intensive AI use, which was retained in every robustness specification, and a narrower path combining environmental framing, AI use and large size. Item 1C cybersecurity governance did not enter either main path, but its role is uncertain because the score varies little across firms. AI was mentioned within Item 1C by 24.8% of firms, and 8-K Item 1.05 incident disclosures did not distinguish profiles. Because all measures come from automated coding of disclosure, the findings describe reported rather than verified governance, and the cross-sectional design does not support causal claims. The findings motivate a Unified ESG–Cybersecurity Framework for AI Governance that applies the four NIST AI RMF functions jointly across the three domains through one AI inventory, one risk taxonomy, one reporting line and one disclosure narrative.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Engineering Research and Reports
Published
2026-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.9734/jerr/2026/v28i112036
Primary Topic
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Unified ESG–Cybersecurity Framework for AI Governance: Managing Sustainability, Social, and Security Risks in Enterprise AI Adoption

Oluwadayo Mafolasere Olaniyi, Valerie Ojinika Ejiofor, Pelumi Damola Adeyinka, Busola Motunrayo Olawale et al.
Journal of Engineering Research and Reports
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
article

A Unified ESG–Cybersecurity Framework for AI Governance: Managing Sustainability, Social, and Security Risks in Enterprise AI Adoption

Oluwadayo Mafolasere Olaniyi, Valerie Ojinika Ejiofor, Pelumi Damola Adeyinka, Busola Motunrayo Olawale, Fidelia I. Ahiante
article en

Abstract

Enterprise adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) creates sustainability, social and security risks that firms typically govern through separate ESG and cybersecurity structures. This study asks whether, and under what conditions, large U.S. firms disclose an integrated approach to governing AI across the three domains. It uses a configurational, text-as-data design: the latest Form 10-K of each S&P 500 registrant (N = 500; analysis sample, n = 488) was converted into dictionary-based measures of AI, AI-governance, environmental, social and cybersecurity disclosure, sentence-level co-mention of AI with each risk domain, and an eleven-element score of the Form 10-K Item 1C cybersecurity-governance disclosure. Latent Dirichlet allocation of 9,444 AI-context sentences recovered six themes. Latent profile analysis identified four overlapping disclosure profiles (sustainability-led and AI-light, social-led with weak cyber governance, AI-intensive integrators, and security-anchored moderates) that differ by sector and by year-on-year growth in AI-governance language. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis showed two equifinal paths to integrated AI-governance disclosure: social-risk framing combined with intensive AI use, which was retained in every robustness specification, and a narrower path combining environmental framing, AI use and large size. Item 1C cybersecurity governance did not enter either main path, but its role is uncertain because the score varies little across firms. AI was mentioned within Item 1C by 24.8% of firms, and 8-K Item 1.05 incident disclosures did not distinguish profiles. Because all measures come from automated coding of disclosure, the findings describe reported rather than verified governance, and the cross-sectional design does not support causal claims. The findings motivate a Unified ESG–Cybersecurity Framework for AI Governance that applies the four NIST AI RMF functions jointly across the three domains through one AI inventory, one risk taxonomy, one reporting line and one disclosure narrative.

Journal of Engineering Research and ReportsVol. 28(11)
Prairie View A&M University (US), University of the Cumberlands (US), Ladoke Akintola University of Technology (NG), Obafemi Awolowo University (NG), University of Tampa (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon