IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2606.05667.html

Revisiting Sustainability by Design in AI Protocol Governance: An Empirical Review of Comparative DAO and Corporate-Led Standards for the SDGs

Author

Listed:
  • Yutian Wang
  • Luyao Zhang

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) agents enter production infrastructure, interoperability protocols shape its governance and sustainability. This paper revisits our comparative study of two AI-agent interoperability standards, Ethereum Request for Comments 8004 (ERC-8004), governed by a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), and Google's Agent2Agent (A2A), governed by a corporate consortium, through a Sustainability by Design (SbD) lens. Using an LLM-powered pipeline combining automated annotation, neural topic modeling, and multi-layer network analysis, we identify contrasting governance and innovation architectures. ERC-8004 relies on permissionless participation, rough consensus, and decoupled deployment, while A2A assigns binding authority to an eight-seat Technology Steering Committee. The DAO concentrates on constitutive questions of trust and security, including what to build and why, whereas the consortium distributes attention across executive engineering questions of how to implement, document, and deliver the protocol. Both show high participation inequality, while corporate contributors span roughly twice as many themes as DAO contributors. We ask how these architectures produce distinct SDG-relevant signatures and what design principles they suggest for sustainable AI governance. We interpret institutional, discursive, and network patterns through SDGs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, and 17, identifying capacities for transparency, participation, contestability, and cross-protocol coordination. We argue that sustainable AI infrastructure requires a corrective feedback loop between designed charters and governance in practice, advancing SDG 16 on strong institutions. By integrating computational evidence, organizational research, and sustainable development, this review derives actionable design principles for sustainable AI governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Yutian Wang & Luyao Zhang, 2026. "Revisiting Sustainability by Design in AI Protocol Governance: An Empirical Review of Comparative DAO and Corporate-Led Standards for the SDGs," Papers 2606.05667, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2026.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2606.05667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.05667
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He & Jiasun Li & Wei Jiang, 2021. "Decentralized Mining in Centralized Pools [Concentrating on the fall of the labor share]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 1191-1235.
    2. Vijayakumar Bharathi S & Arif Perdana & T S Vivekanand & V G Venkatesh & Yang Cheng & Yangyan Shi, 2024. "From ocean to table: examining the potential of Blockchain for responsible sourcing and sustainable seafood supply chains," Post-Print hal-04737690, HAL.
    3. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    4. Kouhizadeh, Mahtab & Saberi, Sara & Sarkis, Joseph, 2021. "Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    5. Ziqiao Ao & Lin William Cong & Gergely Horvath & Luyao Zhang, 2022. "Is Decentralized Finance Actually Decentralized? An Interdisciplinary Framework Integrating Network Theory, Agent-Based Simulation, and Longitudinal Evidence from Aave, GHO Issuance, and Cross-Chain Expansion," Papers 2206.08401, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2026.
    6. David Rozas & Antonio Tenorio-Fornés & Silvia Díaz-Molina & Samer Hassan, 2021. "When Ostrom Meets Blockchain: Exploring the Potentials of Blockchain for Commons Governance," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    7. Linus Dahlander & Siobhan O'Mahony, 2011. "Progressing to the Center: Coordinating Project Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 961-979, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abida Hafeez & Karim Bux Shah Syed & Fiza Qureshi, 2019. "Exploring the Relationship between Government R & D Expenditures and Economic Growth in a Global Perspective: A PMG Estimation Approach," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(4), pages 163-174, April.
    2. Lai, Kee-hung & Feng, Yunting & Zhu, Qinghua, 2023. "Digital transformation for green supply chain innovation in manufacturing operations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2016. "Unions, innovation and cross-country wage inequality," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 104-118.
    4. Heijs, Joost, 2003. "Freerider behaviour and the public finance of R&D activities in enterprises: the case of the Spanish low interest credits for R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 445-461, March.
    5. Boucekkine, Raouf & del Rio, Fernando & Licandro, Omar, 2005. "Obsolescence and modernization in the growth process," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 153-171, June.
    6. Kawalec Paweł, 2020. "The dynamics of theories of economic growth: An impact of Unified Growth Theory," Economics and Business Review, Paradigm, vol. 6(2), pages 19-44, June.
    7. Kar, Sabyasachi & Pritchett, Lant & Raihan, Selim & Sen, Kunal, 2013. "Looking for a break: Identifying transitions in growth regimes," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 38(PB), pages 151-166.
    8. Gilberto Tadeu Lima, 2000. "Market concentration and technological innovation in a dynamic model of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 447-475.
    9. Tao Chen & Shuwen Pi & Qing Sophie Wang, 2025. "Artificial Intelligence and Corporate Investment Efficiency: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies," Working Papers in Economics 25/05, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    10. Schreiner, Lena & Madlener, Reinhard, 2022. "Investing in power grid infrastructure as a flexibility option: A DSGE assessment for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Loebbing, Jonas, 2018. "An Elementary Theory of Endogenous Technical Change and Wage Inequality," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181603, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. Grimaud, Andre & Rouge, Luc, 2003. "Non-renewable resources and growth with vertical innovations: optimum, equilibrium and economic policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 433-453, March.
    13. Liliana Meza-González & Jaime Marie Sepulveda, 2019. "The impact of competition with China in the US market on innovation in Mexican manufacturing firms," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 28(1), pages 1-21, December.
    14. van de Klundert, T.C.M.J. & Smulders, J.A., 1991. "Reconstructing growth theory : A survey," Other publications TiSEM 19355c51-17eb-4d5d-aa66-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Bergeaud, Antonin & Schmidt, Julia & Zago, Riccardo, 2026. "Innovation, Technology Standardization and the Value of the Firm," HEC Research Papers Series 1613, HEC Paris.
    16. Patrick Mellacher, 2021. "Growth, Inequality and Declining Business Dynamism in a Unified Schumpeter Mark I + II Model," Papers 2111.09407, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    17. Patrick Legros & Andrew F. Newman & Eugenio Proto, 2014. "Smithian Growth through Creative Organization," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(5), pages 796-811, December.
    18. Tung Liu & Kui-Wai Li, 2008. "Revisiting Solow’s Decomposition of Economic and Productivity Growth," Working Papers 200805, Ball State University, Department of Economics, revised Dec 2008.
    19. Shanchao Wang & Julian M. Alston & Philip G. Pardey, 2025. "R&D lags in economic models," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(6), pages 842-862, August.
    20. Carine Nourry, 2012. "Dasgupta, D.: Modern growth theory," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 105(1), pages 97-100, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2606.05667. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.