Artificial Intelligence in Regulating Production Volumes for Sustainable Development: Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2025.08.01(3)Keywords:
artificial intelligence; neural network; sustainable development; regulating; Pareto principle.Abstract
This study explores the intersection of artificial intelligence and economic modeling by extending the classical Cobb–Douglas production function into a custom neural network architecture implemented in TensorFlow. Motivated by the growing emphasis on sustainable development and its often ambiguous role in economic performance, the research addresses a gap in existing literature: the lack of integrated models that quantify the effect of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within production functions. While previous studies have assessed SDGs and productivity separately, few have embedded sustainability metrics directly into core economic frameworks alongside traditional inputs like capital and labor. To fill this gap, the proposed model features trainable subcomponents for total factor productivity (TFP), physical capital, human capital, and SDG-related factors. Key coefficients—including capital elasticity (α), labor elasticity (β), and an SDG penalty term (γ)—are optimized using gradient descent. Experimental results reveal that while SDG constraints can initially appear to limit economic output, the model identifies conditions under which specific SDG factors contribute positively to productivity. To manage this duality, a three-level AI-based regulatory mechanism is introduced: (1) post-training SDG weighting based on their marginal output contribution, (2) filtering of influential SDG indicators via the Pareto principle, and (3) architectural separation of SDG pathways with controlled activation. These innovations enhance the interpretability and efficiency of sustainability-aware economic forecasting. The findings not only challenge the assumption of a trade-off between growth and sustainability but also suggest that targeted regulation of sustainability inputs can optimize outcomes. Future work may expand this framework to sector-specific models or broader macroeconomic simulations.
Downloads
References
1. Zeifman, Z., Hertog, S., Kantorova, V., & Wilmoth, J. (2022). World of 8 Billion. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/PB_140.pdf
2. United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/e nglish_paris_agreement.pdf
3. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
4. Leimbach, M., Kriegler, E., Roming, N., & Schwanitz, J. (2017). Future growth patterns of world regions – A GDP scenario approach. Global Environmental Change, 42, 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.005
5. Akalpler, E. (2024). Energy dynamics affecting the US economy; natural energy investments, carbon emissions, production, exports and GDP per capita. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 50595–50613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-34603-0
6. Testik, M. C., & Sarikulak, O. (2021). Change points of real GDP per capita time series corresponding to the periods of industrial revolutions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120911
7. Melnychenko, O. (2021). The Prospects of Retail Payment Developments in the Metaverse. Virtual Economics, 4(4), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2021.04.04(4)
8. Cobb, C. W., & Douglas, P. H. (1928). A Theory of Production. The American Economic Review, 18(1), 139–165. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811556
9. Sun, Y.-C., Sun, Y.-C., Cosgun, Ö., Sharman, R., Mulgund, P., & Delen, D. (2024). A stochastic production frontier model for evaluating the performance efficiency of artificial intelligence investment worldwide. Decision Analytics Journal, 12, Article 100504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2024.100504
10. Anser, M. K., Khan, M. A., Nassani, A. A., Aldakhil, A. M., Voo, X. H., & Zaman, K. (2020). Relationship of environment with technological innovation, carbon pricing, renewable energy, and global food production. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 31(4), 231–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2020.1792607
11. Maldonado, S., López, J., & Carrasco, M. (2022). The Cobb-Douglas Learning Machine. Pattern Recognition, 128, Article 108701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2022.108701
12. Igna, I., & Venturini, F. (2023). The determinants of AI innovation across European firms. Research Policy, 52(2), Article 104661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104661
13. Ding, M., & Gao, Q. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence technology application on total factor productivity in agricultural enterprises: Evidence from China. Economic Analysis and Policy, 86, 399-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2025.03.032
14. Novakova, L. (2020). The impact of technology development on the future of the labour market in the Slovak Republic. Technology in Society, 62, 101256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101256
15. Czarnitzki, D., Fernández, G. P., Rammer, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence and firm-level productivity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 211, 188-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.05.008
16. Handler, A., Larsen, K. R., Hackathorn, R. (2024). Large language models present new questions for decision support. International Journal of Information Management, 79, Article 102811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102811
17. Ray, D., & Mookherjee, D. (2022). Growth, automation, and the long-run share of labor. Review of Economic Dynamics, 46, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2021.09.003
18. Schweikl, S., & Obermaier, R. (2020). Lessons from three decades of IT productivity research: Towards a better understanding of IT-induced productivity effects. Management Review Quarterly, 70, 461–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00173-6
19. Baseer, M. A., Kumar, P., & Sperandio Nascimento, E.G. (2025). Advancements in hydrogen production through the integration of renewable energy sources with AI techniques: A comprehensive literature review. Applied Energy, 383, Article 125354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125354
20. Leutert, F., Bohlig, D., Kempf, F., Schilling, K., Mühlbauer, M., Ayan, B., Hulin, T., Stulp, F., Albu-Schäffer, A., Kutscher, V., Plesker, C., Dasbach, T., Damm, S., Anderl, R., & Schleich, B. (2024). AI-enabled cyber–physical in-orbit factory: AI approaches based on digital twin technology for robotic small satellite production. Acta Astronautica, 217, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.01.019
21. Berndt, R., Cobârzan, D., & Eggeling, E. (2024). A Platform Architecture for Data- and AI-supported human-centred Zero Defect Manufacturing for Sustainable Production. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 58(19), 622-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.09.231
22. Mana, A. A. (2024). Sustainable AI-based production agriculture: Exploring AI applications and implications in agricultural practices. Smart Agricultural Technology, 7, Article 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2024.100416
23. Melnychenko, O. (2019). Application of artificial intelligence in control systems of economic activity. Virtual Economics, 2(3), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2019.02.03(3)
24. Melnychenko, O. (2020). Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Assess an Enterprise’s Financial Security? Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(9), 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13090191
25. Korol, T. (2024). Artificial Neural Networks in Forecasting the Consumer Bankruptcy Risk with Innovative Ratios. Contemporary Economics, 18, 391-407. https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.545
26. Korol, T., & Fotiadis, A. (2022). Implementing artificial intelligence in forecasting the risk of personal bankruptcies in Poland and Taiwan. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13, 407-438. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2022.013
27. Prusak, B., & Potrykus, M. (2021). Short-Term Price Reaction to Filing for Bankruptcy and Restructuring Proceedings – The Case of Poland. Risks, 9(3), Article 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9030056
28. Melnychenko, O. (2024). Utilising AI Models to Analyse the Relationship between Battlefield Developments in the Russian-Ukrainian War and Fluctuations in Stock Market Values. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 12(4), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL12_NO4_5
29. Melnychenko, O., Osadcha, T., Kovalyov, A., & Matskul, V. (2022). Consequences of Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine for Polish-Ukrainian trade relations. Journal of International Studies, 15(4), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2022/15-4/8
30. Melnychenko, O., Matskul, V., & Osadcha, T. (2022). The Dynamics of Trade Relations between Ukraine and Romania: Modelling and Forecasting. Virtual Economics, 5(2), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2022.05.02(1)
31. WHO European Centre for Environment and Health. (2023). How coronavirus disease has changed the environment and health landscape. https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289060189
32. Pareto, V. (1897). The New Theories of Economics. Journal of Political Economy, 5(4), 485–502.
33. Sanders, R. (1987). The Pareto principle: Its use and abuse. Journal of Services Marketing, 1(2), 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/EB024706
34. Shabrawy, A. (1986). The application of Pareto distribution principle to quality control in repair workshops. In The International Conference on Applied Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering. Volume 1, 2nd Conference on Applied Mechanical Engineering (pp. 31-39). The Military Technical College. https://doi.org/10.21608/amme.1986.52558
35. Kwilinski, A., & Kardas, M. (2024). Efficiency of Full and Fractional Factorial Designs in Quality Management: A Case Study on Identifying Key Adhesion Factors. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 12(3), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL12_NO3_7
36. Kwilinski, A., & Kardas, M. (2024). The Role of the Pareto Principle in Quality Management within Industry 4.0: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis. Virtual Economics, 7(3), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2024.07.03(1)
37. Vlădescu, M. I., Gheorghe, C.-A., Oprea, M.G., & De Los Rios Carmenado, I. (2024). Econometric Analysis on the Interdependence Between the Size of the Population, Level of CO2 Emissions and Evolution of GDP. In L. Chivu, V. Ioan-Franc, G. Georgescu, I. De Los Ríos Carmenado, and J.V. Andrei (Eds.), Europe in the New World Economy: Opportunities and Challenges (pp. 155–182). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71329-3_9
38. Fakhrullah, Xiao, D., Jan, N., Khan, S., & Suplata, M. (2024). Environmental stewardship and economic prosperity: A comprehensive assessment of CO₂ emissions and Sustainable Development Goals in European countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16, 5572–5593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02169-4
39. World Bank. (n.d.). World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/
40. Magazzino, C., & Zoundi Z. (2025). Enhancing climate action evaluation using artificial neural networks: An analysis of SDG 13. Sustainable Futures, 9, Article 100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100439
41. Kim, K. (2025). The promise and peril of deploying artificial intelligence for climate security. Peace and Sustainability, 1(1), Article 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nerpsj.2025.100002
42. González-Sendino, R., Serrano, E., & Bajo, J. (2025). Quantifying algorithmic discrimination: A two-dimensional approach to fairness in artificial intelligence. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 144, Article 109979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109979
43. Hanna, M. G., Pantanowitz, L., Jackson, B., Palmer, O., Visweswaran, S., Pantanowitz, J., Deebajah, M., & Rashidi, H. H. (2025). Ethical and bias considerations in artificial intelligence/machine learning. Modern Pathology, 38(3), Article 100686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.modpat.2024.100686
44. Preda, V., Ong, Z., Wijeweera, C., Carney, T., Clay-Williams, R., Kankanamge, D., Preda, T., Kopsidas, I., & Wilson, M. K. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) use for personal protective equipment training, remediation, and education in health care. American Journal of Infection Control, 53(6), 678 – 684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2025.03.020
45. Jesus Dias, S. A., & Sátiro, R.M. (2024). Artificial intelligence in the judiciary: A critical view. Futures, 164, Article 103493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103493
46. Potrykus, M. (2024). Dot-com and AI bubbles: Can data from the past be helpful to match the price bubble euphoria phase using dynamic time warping? Finance Research Letters, 67, Article 105799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105799
47. Skare, M., Ozturk, I., Porada-Rochoń, M., & Stjepanovic, S. (2024). Energy as the new frontier: Dynamic panel data analysis revealing energy's transformative role in economic growth and technological progress. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, Article 123175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123175
48. Eygu, H., & Soğukpınar, F. (2023). Investigation of the relationship between renewable energy, natural gas, and coal consumption with economic growth in Turkey: Evidence from augmented ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 58213–58225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26551-y
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
