Manage green AI as a portfolio, not a patent tally: IP strategy should be triggered when a solution attains independent intellectual value and guided by separate environmental and economic evaluations that feed back into iterative development.

Intellectual Property Management in the Environmental Management System

Tetiana Pokshevnytska, Andrii Pokshevnytskyi, Inessa Rutkovska · September 05, 2026 · Economic sustainability and business practices

openalex theoretical n/a evidence 7/10 relevance Summary only summary available; pdf_status=paywall DOI Source PDF

Structured author observations

Linked only from stored provider relations; the raw author line above is never matched by name.

OpenAlex

Latest observation: September 11, 2026

Tetiana Pokshevnytska provider ID
Andrii Pokshevnytskyi provider ID
Inessa Rutkovska provider ID

The paper proposes a six-stage cyclical model embedding IP management into environmental management, arguing that IP strategy should begin when a result acquires independent intellectual value and be driven by separate environmental and economic evaluations rather than patent counts.

Citation observations

Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.

0 cumulative citations

OpenAlex · Observed September 11, 2026

View corpus context

0 cumulative citations

Semantic Scholar · Observed September 11, 2026

View corpus context

This study aims to substantiate the place of intellectual property management within the environmental management system and to define the relationships between the creation of environmental innovations, their legal protection, use, and transfer. A conceptual and functional analysis of recent research on green innovation, intellectual property strategies, technology transfer, digital transformation, and environmental monitoring was applied to identify recurring management decisions and their sequence. The main contribution is a six-stage cyclical model that connects two management domains: environmental need, development or adaptation of a solution, identification of an intellectual property object, selection of the method of legal protection, use or transfer, and evaluation of environmental and economic results. The scientific novelty lies in defining the entry point of intellectual property management into the environmental management system, which is not the completion of a development or the acquisition of a protection document, but the emergence of a result with independent intellectual value. Green intellectual property is interpreted more broadly than green patents and may include technical, technological, or software results protected through different legal mechanisms, so the number of patents cannot serve as a sufficient indicator of management effectiveness. The environmental and economic results of use are proposed to be assessed separately, since a development may have a high environmental effect without direct income or, conversely, commercial value without a proportional environmental improvement. Evaluation is linked to the subsequent decision by a feedback relationship, so that its results become the input for the next management action. The logic of the model is illustrated by the example of digital monitoring of protected areas, which separates the routine use of ready-made digital tools from their adaptation into a new solution that requires legal protection. The practical significance of the model is that it links decisions on legal protection and use with the environmental purpose for which a result was created, providing a basis for managing green intellectual property as a portfolio evaluated by technical, economic, and environmental value rather than by quantity.

Summary

Main Finding

The paper proposes a six-stage cyclical model that embeds intellectual property (IP) management into environmental management. The model identifies the entry point for IP management as the emergence of a result with independent intellectual value (not completion of a development or issuance of an IP document). It treats "green IP" broadly (technical, technological, software results under multiple legal regimes), separates environmental and economic outcome assessment, and uses feedback from evaluation to drive subsequent management decisions. Patent counts alone are insufficient to evaluate green IP management effectiveness.

Key Points

Six-stage cyclical model linking two domains:
Environmental need
Development or adaptation of a solution
Identification of an intellectual property object
Selection of legal protection method
Use or transfer
Evaluation of environmental and economic results (feeds back into next cycle)
Entry point for IP management: emergence of an independently valuable result (not issuance of protection).
Broad definition of green IP: includes patents, processes, technologies, and software protected by various legal mechanisms.
Management implication: evaluate IP as a portfolio by technical, economic, and environmental value, not by counts of protections.
Separate assessment of environmental vs economic outcomes—high environmental effect may produce little income and vice versa.
Feedback/evaluation drives next management action (adaptive cycle).
Example: digital monitoring of protected areas distinguishes between routine use of ready-made tools and adapting tools into new solutions that warrant legal protection.

Data & Methods

Methodological approach: conceptual and functional analysis (literature synthesis).
Sources reviewed: recent research on green innovation, IP strategies, technology transfer, digital transformation, and environmental monitoring.
Analytical goal: identify recurring management decisions and their sequence to build a functional, cyclical model.
Nature of evidence: theoretical/model-building rather than primary empirical testing; illustrated by a domain example (digital monitoring).

Implications for AI Economics

AI artefacts as green IP: AI models, software, and algorithmic adaptations used for environmental purposes fit the paper’s broad IP concept; legal protection choices (copyright, trade secret, patents, licensing) shape commercialization and diffusion.
Timing of IP decisions: AI teams and firms should treat the moment an AI-enabled result achieves independent intellectual value as the trigger for IP strategy, not only after formal protection—affects incentives and coordination between R&D and IP/legal teams.
Metrics and valuation: economic analysis and investment decisions should use multi-dimensional valuation (technical performance, environmental impact, market potential) rather than patent counts; this changes firm valuation, portfolio management, and policy evaluation of subsidies.
Technology transfer and diffusion: choosing between open deployment, licensing, or proprietary control influences environmental effectiveness vs revenue; models of technology diffusion in AI-for-environment need to incorporate these tradeoffs.
Policy and public goods: public support for AI-driven environmental tools should consider separate environmental outcome metrics (to reward impact) and economic incentives (to enable scaling), and structure IP policies to balance diffusion and commercial sustainability.
Monitoring & feedback: AI systems used for environmental monitoring should be managed as evolving assets—evaluation data should feed back to R&D/IP strategy to encourage iterative improvements and re-assessment of protection/use.
Market structure & incentives: managing green AI as portfolios could favor firms with cross-disciplinary valuation capabilities (tech + environmental metrics), affecting competition and specialization in AI-for-environment markets.

Assessment

Paper Typetheoretical Evidence Strengthn/a — The paper develops a conceptual cyclical model and synthesizes literature rather than presenting empirical causal tests or quasi-experimental identification; therefore there is no empirical causal evidence to rate. Methods Rigormedium — The paper uses systematic conceptual and functional analysis and literature synthesis to derive a clear six-stage model; the reasoning appears coherent and grounded in existing scholarship but lacks empirical validation, formal modeling, or robustness checks that would increase rigor. SampleNo empirical sample; the paper is based on literature synthesis of recent research on green innovation, IP strategies, technology transfer, digital transformation, and environmental monitoring, and is illustrated by a domain example (digital monitoring of protected areas). Themesgovernance innovation adoption GeneralizabilityModel is conceptual and not empirically validated across industries or jurisdictions., Applicability varies with differences in national IP regimes and enforcement capacities., Assumes firms and policymakers can measure environmental outcomes reliably, which may not hold in many contexts., May not capture heterogeneity by firm size, sector, or market structure (startups vs incumbents)., Dynamic characteristics of AI (rapid iteration, model-reuse, open-source ecosystems) could complicate some model stages in practice.

Claims (10)

Claim	Direction	Outcome	Confidence & Evidence	Details
The paper proposes a six-stage cyclical model that integrates intellectual-property management into environmental management. Organizational Efficiency	positive	Effectiveness of integrated environmental and IP management	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06
The model identifies the emergence of a result with independent intellectual value as the entry point for IP management, rather than completion of development or issuance of an IP document. Task Allocation	positive	Timing of IP-management decisions	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06
The model contains six stages: environmental need; development or adaptation of a solution; identification of an IP object; selection of a legal protection method; use or transfer; and evaluation of environmental and economic results. Organizational Efficiency	positive	Sequence and completeness of environmental-IP management activities	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06
The paper defines green IP broadly to include technical, technological, and software results protected through multiple legal regimes. Adoption Rate	positive	Scope of assets included in green-IP management	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06
Patent counts alone are insufficient for evaluating the effectiveness of green-IP management. Organizational Efficiency	negative	Validity of patent counts as a measure of green-IP management effectiveness	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06
Green-IP portfolios should be assessed using technical, economic, and environmental value rather than only the number of legal protections obtained. Organizational Efficiency	positive	Multidimensional valuation of green-IP portfolios	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06
Environmental and economic outcomes of green-IP management should be assessed separately because strong environmental effects may generate little income, and strong income may occur with limited environmental effect. Firm Productivity	mixed	Environmental impact and economic returns from green-IP use or transfer	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06
Evaluation results feed back into the management process and determine subsequent development, protection, use, or transfer decisions. Organizational Efficiency	positive	Adaptiveness of environmental and IP-management decisions	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06
In digital monitoring of protected areas, adapting ready-made tools into new solutions can create an IP object requiring legal-protection decisions, whereas routine use of existing tools does not necessarily do so. Innovation Output	positive	Identification of protectable results in environmental monitoring	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06
The paper's evidence is theoretical and model-building rather than based on primary empirical testing. Other	null_result	Empirical validation of the proposed management model	Reading fidelity high Study strength low	not reported 0.06