Society 5.0

Overcoming Societal Challenges and Co-creating the FutureThrough Digitalisation and Unity in Diversity

Analysis of the Japanese Concept “Society 5.0” and ItsApplicability in Germany

www.sap.com/contactsap

© 2020 SAP SE or an SAP affiliate company. All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without the express permission of SAP SE or an SAP affiliate company.

The information contained herein may be changed without prior notice. Some software products marketed by SAP SE and its distributors contain proprietary software components of other software vendors.National product specifications may vary.

These materials are provided by SAP SE or an SAP affiliate company for informational purposes only, without representation or warranty of any kind, and SAP or its affiliated companies shall not be liablefor errors or omissions with respect to the materials. The only warranties for SAP or SAP affiliate company products and services are those that are set forth in the express warranty statementsaccompanying such products and services, if any. Nothing herein should be construed as constituting an additional warranty.

In particular, SAP SE or its affiliated companies have no obligation to pursue any course of business outlined in this document or any related presentation, or to develop or release any functionalitymentioned therein. This document, or any related presentation, and SAP SE’s or its affiliated companies’ strategy and possible future developments, products, and/or platform directions and functionality areall subject to change and may be changed by SAP SE or its affiliated companies at any time for any reason without notice. The information in this document is not a commitment, promise, or legal obligationto deliver any material, code, or functionality. All forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations. Readers arecautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, and they should not be relied upon in making purchasing decisions.

SAP and other SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP SE (or an SAP affiliate company) in Germany and othercountries. All other product and service names mentioned are the trademarks of their respective companies. See www.sap.com/copyright for additional trademark information and notices.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTSPREFACE ................................................................................................................................................... 4EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 42. LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................................................112.1 Social Issues as Key Drivers for Societal Change ............................................................................112.1.1 Global and National Social Issues ...................................................................................................112.1.2 Demographic Ageing and Coping ...................................................................................................122.2 The Japanese Concept “Society 5.0” .................................................................................................152.2.1 Society 5.0 and Its Definition, Origin and Liberations ....................................................................152.2.2 Society 5.0 and Its Realisation by Breaking Down the Five Walls .................................................182.3 Applicability of Society 5.0 .................................................................................................................212.3.1 Cultural Factors and Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory.......................................................212.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Cultural and Economic Setting ........................................232.4 Social Acceptance in Society 5.0 .......................................................................................................262.4.1 The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology ...........................................................262.4.2 Social Acceptance and Trust in Present Societies .........................................................................283. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................303.1 Research Design .................................................................................................................................303.2 Research Sample ................................................................................................................................313.3 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................323.4 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................................323.5 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................................323.6 Limitations...........................................................................................................................................334. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................364.1 Perception and Comparison ...............................................................................................................364.1.1 Society 5.0 and Its Perception .........................................................................................................364.1.2 Society 5.0 Compared to Industry 4.0 .............................................................................................374.1.3 Society 5.0 and Happiness ..............................................................................................................384.2 Opportunities, Challenges and Risks.................................................................................................394.2.1 Society 5.0 and Its Opportunities ....................................................................................................394.2.2 Society 5.0 and Its Challenges and Risks .......................................................................................414.2.3 Technological Singularities as Key Risk .........................................................................................444.3 Realisation and Applicability ..............................................................................................................454.3.1 Society 5.0 and Its Realisation and Current State in Japan ...........................................................454.3.2 Society 5.0 and Its Applicability in Germany ..................................................................................474.4 Social Acceptance, Media & Cultural Differences .............................................................................504.4.1 Society 5.0 and Social Acceptance .................................................................................................504.4.2 Social Acceptance and Its Role of The Media .................................................................................534.4.3 Society 5.0 and Its Cultural Factors ................................................................................................544.4.4 Society 5.0 and Its Implication of the COVID-19 Crisis...................................................................575. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................595.1 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................61REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................63FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................69Appendix A - Consent Form .....................................................................................................................77Appendix B - Research Outline ................................................................................................................78Appendix C - Interview Questions............................................................................................................79

4

PREFACEThis research has been done as a graduation report for the Breda University of Applied Sciences

in conjunction with SAP SE. During the process of my research, when I was engaging with the broader

literature of digital sociology, humanities, information technology, arts and social science, I often felt

as though I was puzzled by gradually discovering how different elements connect. I would like to thank

all my advisers, participants and colleagues for their involvement, feedback and encouragement

throughout the entire process of writing this paper. Most notably, my academic supervisor Raphael Velt,

my corporate supervisor Ian Ryan, my manager Simone Maienfisch as well as my brother Gerrit

Wiezoreck and my friend Hannah Loetterle. Besides them, I would like to thank SAP SE for this unique

graduation opportunity and the great learning experience. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge all my

friends and my family for their support throughout my entire studies.

Keywords: Digital Sociology, Society 5.0, Industry 4.0, Digital Transformation, Automation,

Robotics, AI, IoT, Big Data, Digital Media, Social Science, Cultural Differences, Germany, Japan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAs a global provider of business systems to governments and corporations, SAP SE requested

a research-based analysis of Society 5.0 and its applicability in other countries, in particular in Germany,

due to a lack of academic knowledge, global awareness and a rightful degree of uncertainty about it.

Thus, the research investigated: “What is Society 5.0 and to what extent can it be applied outside of

Japan, in particular in Germany?” To address the research objective, the study firstly executed an

extensive and exploratory research of existing literature, and secondly conducted qualitative interviews

with digital experts, which leads to the following conclusion of the research at hand:

Society 5.0 is a human-centred society that balances economic progress and solves social issues,

for instance, income disparity, climate change, infectious diseases such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and

a vastly shrinking labour force in upcoming decades, which is a new societal threat for developed

countries and expected to shrink by 30% until 2050 in Japan. Its goal is to tightly converge the physical

and cyber space into a “cyber-physical system” (CPS), in order to become a fully technology

transformed and interconnected “Super-Smart Society”, or “Imagination Society”, that can overcome

its current societal challenges. Society 5.0 seems to be the natural extension of today’s fourth societal

stage, the information society. It aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), embraces

unity in diversity and value creation, and includes Germany’s Industry 4.0 vision but has more focus

on social benefits and Quality of Life (QoL) by utilising artificial intelligence (AI), internet of things

(IoT), robotics and big data analytics. Japan aims to promote a “Society 5.0 Service Platform” through

multi-stakeholder collaboration. The Japanese concept is positively viewed as a holistic, inclusive,

visionary master plan for leveraging the abovementioned digital technologies for social issues to

improve people's lives, add societal value and solve the digital divide. On the other hand, weaknesses

and risks are that the concept seems very ambitious, theoretical, yet not concretely detailed out with

many ethical, cyber security and data privacy concerns to be overcome.

To answer the second part of the research question: Based on the study findings, Society 5.0 is

applicable in Germany. On the one hand it is harder to realise Society 5.0 in Germany due to barriers

for technological adoption, a poor digital infrastructure, a lack of a national vision, higher individualism,

5

and less societal challenges, such as less fiscal pressure, fewer natural disasters and a slower, yet still,

ageing population. On the other hand, it is better applicable in Germany due to a participatory civic

society, an emphasis on social inclusion and cultural workforce diversity, experience with Industry 4.0,

and due to the COVID-19 crisis as digital accelerator. In fact, Germanys experience and strong emphasis

on social inclusion, equality, ethical matters, as well as initiatives such as “AI Made in Germany” and

the “International Data Spaces Association” (IDSA) may complete the lacking elements of Society 5.0

in fields of cybersecurity and privacy.

Indeed, Japan’s culture is the better fit for a “fast” top-down realisation of Society 5.0 due to

its collectivistic, hierarchical “Yes-Sayer” culture compared to Germany’s critical, individualistic

society. However paradoxically, Japan embodies a rather unfit culture that might not be able to sustain

it and does not live up to the core principles of unity in diversity and value creation of its own vision.

Whereas Germany’s more diverse culture seems to be better equipped to embrace the essence of Society

5.0 and to live up to its ideology in the long run, once their technological adoption issues have been

arduously overcome in the first place. A cultural balance between both nations seems to be most suitable

in order to realise and maintain the ethos of Society 5.0. Next to addressing demographic ageing, a

shrinking labour force and lower productivity through automation in Society 5.0, the Japanese

government might have realised the general flaws of its culture regarding economic sustainability in

today’s world of diversity. But changing culture is not easy and quickly accomplished, thus, Society

5.0 might be their master plan and crucial game changer to adapt Japan’s culture.

Firstly, based on the study findings the research recommends SAP SE to consider embracing

the human-centred vision of Society 5.0 as corporate vision, instead of purely focusing on Industry 4.0.

This seems more in line with SAP’s vision to “help the world run better and improve people’s lives”,

as well as the company’s culture of global thought leadership and innovativeness. Secondly, the study

recommends SAP SE to research and invest into developing a possible “Society 5.0 Service Platform”

with further differentiated sub-level concepts, such as Industry 4.0, for all domains, which the Japanese

vision appears to be lacking at present. In line with this, the research recommends SAP SE to first focus

on the Japanese healthcare system due to its very rich accumulation of high-quality data. Losing the

opportunity to be involved in the development of the “Society 5.0 Service Platform” due to unawareness

or late reaction could be critical when considering the lucrative market Industry 4.0 managed to create

in recent years. Thirdly, the German private sector as well as the public sector should take advantage of

Germany’s opportunity to be a global leader in privacy and cybersecurity matters, and to potentially

add more detail of those fields to Society 5.0, which it seems to be currently lacking. The branding of

“(AI) Made in Germany”, establishments such as the IDSA and the nations strong background in social

and ethical subjects should be valuable. Lastly, a national vision, trust based on transparency and digital

sovereignty, the media influence, and forming habits through improved UI and UX, and by positive

experiences with technology, are vital aspects to promote acceptance of technology and Society 5.0.

Irrefutably, societal development is inevitable. However, in the words of Laszlo (2003, p. 612):

“The evolution of society can be a conscious and purposeful process. Nevertheless, it will not be an

easy transition. Those taking the lead will find risks and resistance. And yet, there could be nothing

more challenging and rewarding.” Society 5.0 is the prime example of a conscious and purposeful

process in societal evolution and of co-creating the future. This research attempted to make a

6

contributing effort in thought leadership.

1. Introduction “We are at the beginning of the 5th era in human history. After Industry 4.0 comes Society 5.0,

in which everything is interconnected.” Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, said this in 2017 (Lobe,

2017, p. 1). Society 5.0, also referred to as “Super-Smart Society” or “Imagination Society”, is what

the nation of Japan has made its number one economic and societal priority for the next years to come.

At its essence, it envisions a technology-driven socio-economic societal system powered by artificial

intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), robotics, as well as big data analytics and many more

transformative technologies (UNESCO, 2019). These technologies will be embedded into every aspect

of societal life in order to support individual well-being, cope with social problems and increase

productivity. Its goal is to tightly converge the physical and cyber space into a “cyber-physical system”

(CPS), in order to become a fully technology transformed and interconnected society that can overcome

its current chronic social challenges, as described by UNESCO (2019).

Japan’s most pressing social challenge is an aging population. Thus, resulting in a shrinking

labour force and low productivity compared to similar major advanced economies (Önday, 2019).

Japan’s population peaked at 128 million in 2012, currently stagnates and is expected to fall due to a

falling birth rate and a lack of immigrations (Adachi, Ishida, & Oka, 2015). Therefore, Japan is the

first industrial country to face an aging and shrinking population leading to lower productivity levels,

as noted by Heller (2016). Society 5.0 is Japan’s response to these challenges. In fact, according to a

recent business study conducted in the Asia-Pacific region by Accenture Research, the right

combination of digital technologies, such as autonomous driving, robotics, augmented reality (AR) and

virtual reality (VR), big data, machine learning (ML) and AI, blockchain, and 3D printing, could

decrease corporate costs by up to 27% per employee and increase market value by an average of 28%

across various industries. The research report reveals a correlation between digitisation and corporate

productivity by building up a digital-ready workforce (Abood, Quilligan, Narsalay, & Cabanel, 2018).

According to another survey conducted by the Japanese Cabinet Office as cited by Fukuda,

(2020), deploying advanced technologies will not only contribute to significantly improving labour

productivity but also reversely will rise technology expenditure, adoption and thus increase its

disruptive innovation potential.

Disruptive improvements and societal changes, as aimed by the concept of Society 5.0 in Japan,

have appeared multiple times throughout the entire history of human development. When

studying society, it is remarkable to see that society has changed enormously in recent centuries. Within

the last 200 years, which accounts for 0.00000044% of Earth time, humanity brought more

change to earth than in the past billion years (Laszlo, 2003). This is due to the fact, that several stages

of societal evolution build upon one another in a compounding, almost exponential way, with

technological innovation as one of the key motors of change. According to Rosado (1997), society is notstatic, but always ever-changing. Rabie (2016) stated that various social scientists and historians

have defined four different stages of societal evolution. The first stage is the (1) hunter-gatherer stage,

the second one is the (2) agricultural stage, followed by the (3) industrial age as third phase and finally

by the (4) information age. The latter is also referred to as globalisation or knowledge age as described

by the author himself. Rabie (2016, p. 1) points out that “the two greatest revolutions in human history

7

[so far] are the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution”, which had the greatest impact on

humanity. Each stage of societal development represents periods of relative stability, yet the sometimes

long transitional phases are difficult. Such transitional periods are battle grounds for war between old

values and new values (Rabie, 2016). In the words of Laszlo (2003, p. 610), “the transitions from one

stage to another are periods of utter confusion and chaos.” Nevertheless, the fundamental difference

between nowadays transitions compared to previous transitions is the possibility to explain what is

happening while it is happening. Humans are societal evolution becoming conscious of itself with the

unprecedented opportunity and importance that all human beings take responsibility for the direction

and impact of society (Laszlo, 2003). In light of societal development, according to David S. Landes as

cited by Rabie (2016), food became dependent on agriculture and agriculture became dependent on

industry. This forms the dependency theory. Nowadays, industry vastly depends on information

technology (IT), and presumably IT will depend on advanced technologies in the future. For instance,

on IoT, AI or big data analytics. This is moving the spotlight to technology, and in particular to advanced

technologies as the new revolutionary catalyst and one of the key drivers for societal change and social

development.

One of the greatest technological projections of the 20th century and facilitator for rapid

technological advancement was Moore’s law. It predicted that the number of components on a single

chip will double every two years and thus increasing speed and computing power while gradually

becoming smaller (Lasky, 2017; Rotman, 2020). However, the prediction was known to be more or less

a self-fulfilling prophecy road map and is about to reach its physical limits. When speaking about

technology, conventional wisdom claims to trace and map the development of technologies in a single

S-shaped curve with an average period of 16 years in three key stages: (1) introduction, (2) growth and

(3) maturity. These three stages form the technology life cycle (Sood & Tellis, 2005). According

to further studies from Sood & Tellis (2007; 2005), technology advancements emerge through a series

of jumps, the frequency of technological change and the number of new technologies seem to increase

over time, and most interestingly, advancements even appear after long periods of no improvement or

stagnation of jumps. In recent history, at the macro level those jumps can be seen in the invention of

the first computer, the rise of the Internet and more recently the rapid emergence of AI and ML. This

leads various scholars and futuristic enthusiasts to emphasise on the notion of transhumanism, which

focuses on how technology will replace or change human beings. For instance, overcoming human

mortality by means of human enhancement, ML and digitising physical human brains (Lockhart, 2019).Others predict the potential rise of machines, referred to as technological singularity, where an

explosion of AI will surpass human beings at some point in the early 21st century (Petta Gomes da

Costa, 2019). Regardless of these speculations, it seems reasonable that technology will dramatically

change our society in the near future. In fact, research shows that IT can change national and corporate

cultures and vice versa, as shown by Leidner & Kayworth (2006). Such impact may be particularly

noticed in large-scale IT projects such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) projects, which form the

core of SAP SE’s product range (Leidner & Kayworth, 2006). Overall, this emphasises the catalytical

powers of technology in recent times and increases the interest and potential societal relevance of the

Japanese concept “Society 5.0”.

Gladden (2019) argues that Society 5.0 is not simply a theoretical vision but a concrete real-

8

world project and part of a non-human, technological post-humanisation process. This is nothing new,

but instead quite ancient and has always accompanied societal evolution since the birth of humankind.

For example, non-technological processes of post-humanisation were the burial of dead humans, the

domestication of animals and the creation of religious beliefs and myths. Post-humanisation

encompasses processes and things other than natural, biological human beings which play a social role

and contribute to society. In recent centuries, processes of technological post-humanisation have

gradually replaced non-technological post-humanisation elements, such as cars instead of horses or

through personal computers and first robot waiters in restaurants (Gladden, 2019).

Alongside the profound evidence for transformational impact of technologies on society, the

“infomedia process” is the most dominant driver of change in the current information society, according

to (Rabie, 2016). The media has become the strongest influence in societal transformation while having

the noble mission to form a good, multicultural society (Sharma, Sharma, & Rawat, 2015). Infomedia

has become as necessary as food in our daily lives nowadays, as it is everywhere, in particular the digital

media. Since it almost consistently affects the eyes, the ears and the mind at the same time, nothing can

overcome the influence of the media. It shapes norms, beliefs and identity-building, as stated by Sharma,

Sharma, & Rawat (2015). According to an extensive global report of the World Economic Forum,

people are spending more time online, with billions of users in a soaring, upward trend (Cocorocchia et

al., 2016). The list of positive as well as negative implications of technology and media on society is

lengthy. To name a few: increased productivity and sustainability, enabling social interaction,

satisfaction, and facilitating education and life-long learning; opposed to increased cyberbullying, lower

self-esteem, depression, hate speech, and impacting mental and physical health such as stress and

addictive behaviour in particular for young children (Cocorocchia et al., 2016; Issa, Isaías, & Kommers,

2016).

Besides the profound societal relevance of Society 5.0 for Japan and its explained linkage to

the domains of technology and media, as stated above, it may be equally relevant to Germany and its

private sector. Since Society 5.0 has some roots in Industry 4.0, which is an industry concept driven by

the German government to enhance and digitise its manufacturing economy, that has been widely

accepted and turned into a strong, lucrative global market (Gladden, 2019; Skobelev & Borovik, 2017),

it may travel a similar “success journey”. Industry 4.0 includes the same advanced technologies as

Society 5.0, predominantly IoT, robotics and AI. German Chancellor Angela Merkel aims to make

Germany and Europe the worldwide leaders in the field of AI and claims that the nation’s prosperity

largely depends on these new technologies. Germany will invest three billion Euros in implementing

its “Artificial Intelligence Strategy” until 2025 (Press and Information Office of the Federal

Government, n.d.).

The gravitas of new technologies in German politics and in Industry 4.0 is clear. However,

some critics argue that the German concept is solely focused on the technological and economic aspects

and not considering society as a whole (Serpa & Ferreira, 2018). On the other hand, Society 5.0 does

encompass the whole picture and tackles urgent social challenges, among others; a shrinking

population, climate change, poverty, inequality and health concerns, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Successful coping of societal challenges has been decisive for the survival of civilizations. Only a few

of them successfully solved their challenges while most of the major 23 human civilisations failed at

9

some point (Sackmann, 2015). It is dangerous to believe to remain successful simply by doing the same

thing that once brought success. A lack of adapting to disruptive changes has also led to the failure of

large enterprises: Kodak, Nokia, Myspace and many more. According to Virakul, (2015), Companies

are severely affected by global issues and play a vital role in addressing them, for example through

implementing “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) strategies. Which in turn can even enhance

long-term performance and maintain the company’s societal image. Consequently, it is imperative for

Germany as a country, which also gradually faces an ageing population (Sackmann & Jonda, 2015;

Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-a), as well as for corporations as SAP SE, which promise to

“help the world run better and improve people’s lives” (SAP SE, n.d.-b), to shift its focus towards

Society 5.0. The topic gains even more significance when considering that there is a lack of strategic

foresight in demographic change in Germany and that the nation is falling behind on digital

transformation (Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-a).

Lastly, SAP SE is one of the largest multinational software companies in the world and is

accountable for nearly 100.000 employees, over 400.000 customers and 200 million users worldwide

(SAP SE, n.d.-a). Therefore, the company is expected to lead the digital transformation by example,

embody responsibility and facilitate thought leadership in making this world a better place congruent

with its corporate ethos and values. In view of this need, the renowned words of Gandhi are most fitting:

“We must live the change we desire to see in the world.”

Now, from both a corporate as well as from a societal perspective, the prevailing question is:

What is Society 5.0 and to what extent can it be applied outside of Japan, in particular in Germany?

Furthermore, the paper identifies the implications and recommendations for the German society and its

leading technology firms, such as SAP SE. Therefore, this research sets out to add academic value to

the field of digital sociology by researching and analysing the Japanese concept of Society 5.0 and its

applicability in Germany.

Since the topic is largely unknown in Germany and at SAP SE, in fact there is a lack of

academic knowledge, global awareness and a rightful degree of uncertainty about it, as cited by Önday

and Serpa & Ferreira, (2019; 2018), the study aspires to deliver insights about the implications of

Society 5.0 to SAP SE and further institutions in Germany as well as abroad. More precisely, as a global

provider of business systems to governments and corporations, SAP SE has requested a research-based

analysis of Society 5.0 and its applicability outside of Japan, in particular in Germany. Thus, the

research aims to investigate the broad, contextual background of Society 5.0. On top of that, this study

is taking up Gladden's (2019) academic recommendation of analysing the cultural underpinnings of

Society 5.0 when applying the vision to other countries outside of Japan. Essentially, this research seeks

to generate expertise and to serve as pioneering baseline for further, more specific studies and

recommendations in the future in order to address the lack of knowledge and initiate the discussion.

With the findings and conclusion of this research-based analysis of Society 5.0 and its applicability,

companies as SAP SE and nation states as Germany can better comprehend and evaluate the Japanese

concept, and to what extent it affects their strategy and perhaps even guides their path into the future.

The exploratory and formal, academic approach of the research has been aligned with the corporate’s

requirements, and due to the explorative nature of the study, the research did not extrapolate any

hypotheses or prior assumptions beforehand.

10

To address the research objective, the study firstly executes an extensive and exploratory in-

depth research of existing literature, and secondly conducts qualitative interviews with digital

experts in order to critically analyse the concept of Society 5.0 and its relevance for Germany. The

research is organised in the following: The section (2) literature review provides a detailed and

comprehensive overview of the concept of Society 5.0 and its emergence, the existing theoretical

framework, and prior empirical research from a wide area of academic literature. Subsequently, the (3)

methodology displays and explains the research design for this study aiming to answer the research

questions mentioned above. Then the (4) findings and discussion section presents and interprets the

explanatory results, based on the literature review and on the research data, and provides detailed

reflections and explanations. Finally, a comprehensive summary including recommendations is

provided in the (5) conclusion.

11

2. LITERATURE REVIEWIn this section the research executes an extensive and explorative in-depth analysis of existing

literature. As aforesaid, the literature review provides a detailed and comprehensive overview of the

concept of Society 5.0 and its emergence, the existing theoretical framework, and prior empirical

research from a wide area of academic literature in order to form the basis of knowledge and

argumentation in this paper. Furthermore, it seeks to already apply insights from theory and literature

for potential answers or solutions. The theoretical framework is comprising the following: (2.1) social

issues as key drivers for societal change, (2.2) the Japanese concept “society 5.0”, (2.3) applicability of

society 5.0, and lastly (2.4) social acceptance in Society 5.0. The theoretical framework has been aligned

with the corporate’s requirement to investigate the broad, contextual background of Society 5.0 in a

structured way and to compare Germany and Japan. Each chapter within this section finishes with a

conclusive paragraph which encapsulates the main points of the literature review and leads to the final

research questions.

2.1 Social Issues as Key Drivers for Societal Change

2.1.1 Global and National Social IssuesAccording to Ateljevic (2013), several social scientists, economists, political activists, writers,

and entrepreneurs simultaneously argue that humankind is going through a significant global mind

change and an emerging paradigm shift. She describes this global realisation as a notion of

synchronicity. Part of it and major driver for this global paradigm shift are national and global

challenges. As cited by Virakul (2015, p. 432), the United Nations (UN) define global challenges as

“any major trend, shock, or development that has the potential for serious global impacts”. Furthermore,

the World Economic Forum categorises global issues into economic, environmental, geopolitical,

societal and technological aspects. It defines the top five risks for the next years to be: income disparity,

fiscal imbalances, climate change, water supply management, and an aging population. Further danger

is caused by: pollution, organised crime, immigration, and health and infectious diseases such as the

COVID-19 pandemic (Virakul, 2015). Additionally, Rabie and Rosado (2016; 1997) speak of religious

fundamentalism and the revival of ethnic nationalism and national extremism. Others predict a geo-

political shift of the World economy’s centre from the West to the East, due to Asian countries achieving

rapid growth in the future. This increases the need to solve sustainability and social issues (Keidanren,

n.d.). The list of global issues is extensive. Most importantly, in the words of Rosado (1997, p. 2):

“There are forces already in place in our society that make change inevitable.” It is widely accepted for

decades that humankind cannot continue to deplete natural resources at the current rate else the well-

being of human civilisation might be severely endangered. To demonstrate global urgency, the UN has

developed “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, which has been adopted by all members

in 2015. The agenda includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which build on decades of

work and with a serious call for action by all countries. For instance, the SDGs encompass ending

poverty, improving health and education, reducing inequality, driving economic growth, and tackling

climate change (United Nations, n.d.).

12

Next to global issues some countries face unique national social challenges, in particular Japan.

After rapidly recuperating after World War Two and following the modern way of the United States,

Japan has been going through an economic decline, particularly from 1990 until 2010 and also within

its trademark industries in advanced manufacturing. This period is referred to as “two painful lost

decades”, as cited by Desvaux et al. (2015) in a report from the Global McKinsey Institute. This trend

is also visible in Veenhoven's (2010) findings (Figure 1). The degree of “happy life years” was nearly

identical between Japan and countries in the European Union in the mid 90’s. From then on it decreased

in Japan and the gap towards the European Union widened.

Researchers have different opinions on what first caused the Japanese superiority in the 20th

century as well as the recent financial fiasco of the “lost decades”. Some scholars argue Japan’s

stagnation has deeper roots and point out to challenges faced by the Japanese in redefining their social

or national identity after World War Two (Gonzalez-Fuentes, 2017). The fast advancement in the 20th

century is explained and widely accepted through the flying geese hypothesis (Figure 2) stating that

Japan’s improvement cannot be considered without the cooperation between the leading educator, Japan,

and its students, various East Asian countries, which follow the lead goose. Japan gradually moved on

and allocated lower manufacturing levels to their neighbouring countries which they were followed by.

This explains the catching-up process of industrialisation of latecomer economies in East Asia (Önday,

2019).

2.1.2 Demographic Ageing and CopingGiven the above-mentioned downturn in Japan, its most pressing challenge is an aging

population, thus resulting in a shrinking labour force and low productivity compared to similar major

advanced economies (Önday, 2019). This leads to fiscal instability, in particular for the pension system.

Moreover, a declining population might impact the mentality in society towards the inability to react

and lower collective effectiveness. This causes distrust among the population and forms the efficacy

hypothesis, as defined by Sackmann (2015). Japan is the first industrial country to face an ageing and

shrinking population (Heller, 2016). As claimed by Sackmann & Jonda (2015, p. 7), demographic

ageing and population decline are new challenges to our society. “Demographic ageing describes a

situation in which the age distribution […] changes such that older age groups become more numerous

whereas the percentage of younger people declines”. Japan has one of the world’s longest life

expectancies, 85.5 years compared to Germany with 80.9 years as of 2018 (CIA Factbook, n.d.), and a

low fertility rate (Desvaux et al., 2015). These two forces are the key drivers for demographic change.

Furthermore, population decline is a regional feature and persists primarily or more widely in countries

with immigration barriers. For instance, conservative immigration policies or cultures, or in countries

which are considered unattractive destinations (Sackmann & Jonda, 2015). Japan’s population peaked

at 128 million in 2012, but is expected to fall due to a falling birth rate and hardly any immigrations, as

reported by Adachi et al. (2015). According to the UN Statistics Division, as cited by Fukuda (2020),

the population of Japan is expected to decline by 22.1 million people in 2050. Thus, the current Japanese

labour force, which comprises of around 77 million people, being 15-64 years old, is forecasted to

shrink by 30% to 53 million people in 2050 (Desvaux et al., 2015; Önday, 2019). In 2011, Japans labour

13

work in advanced manufacturing, such as automotive, consumer electronics, and machine tools, was

already 30% less productive compared to Germany and the United States (Desvaux et al., 2015). In

addition to that, the mature population is increasing public debts according to Adachi et al. (2015) and

is expected to increase social security obligations from US$1.1 trillion in 2015 to US$1.4 trillion in

2025, as noted by Önday (2019). Also, much of Japan’s basic infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and

water pipes, were built during Japan’s high economic growth phase after World War Two, which over

fifty years later start deteriorating (Fukuyama, 2018). Replacing the aging infrastructure is expected to

cost over US$2.5 trillion from 2011 until 2060 while at the same time it is recommended “to switch to

an infrastructure suitable for a smaller population rather than maintaining the existing infrastructure as

the population decreases”, according to Önday (2019, p. 10). Thus, in order to overcome or at least

mitigate these challenges, the need for a new societal paradigm with strong political, economic and

societal measures becomes clear.

Germany too, shows low fertility rates, and demographic change poses increasing danger

(Sackmann & Jonda, 2015; Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-a). But its significantly different,

however partly inconsistent, immigration policies equalised population decline until 2000. Due to

changes in immigration policies in 1993 German’s population declined in 2000, but Germany reopened

its doors to immigrants again since 2011. Germany’s migration is procyclical as immigration increases

in times of high economic growth, but decreases in periods of recession (Sackmann & Jonda, 2015).

Overall, Germany has also experienced demographical ageing and population decline at a fast pace for

several decades, but there is clear success on immigration integration coping with it partially. However,

the fiscal stability is expected to become a more pressing issue toward 2030, with the retirement of the

baby boomer generation and a further ageing population in Germany (Sackmann & Jonda, 2015;

Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-a; n.d.-b). And there is an alarming lack of policy interest and

of strategic foresight in demographic change in Germany (Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-a).

Traditionally, there are different ways of addressing demographic challenges. Sackmann (2015)

theorises them as demographic coping and non-demographic coping. Demographic coping responses

attempt to increase fertility rates, restructure life-courses, or reduce immigration barriers. For example,

data suggests that increasing family policy expenditures could increase fertility rates in Japan, which

currently does not invest much in family policies compared to Germany where this instrument cannot

increase fertility rates any further. Also, migration is an important part of population dynamics and

some states such as the United States and Germany developed routines in coping with immigration,

whereas other nations such as Japan and China avoided immigration entirely (Sackmann, 2015). But

often demographic coping takes too long or only provides a window of opportunity that societies either

take advantage of or not, and “countries differ in many ways as they transition to a low fertility, high

longevity environment” (Heller, 2016, p. 93). In some cases, it is not feasible, or the direct cause cannot

be influenced. For instance, it is not feasible to force people to raise more children. This is similar to

other coping situations. It is not feasible to prevent earthquakes from happening, but instead to increase

the resilience of buildings. Thus, non-demographic coping needs to be considered in an ageing

population as well. Sackmann (2015) identifies four of them, which are linked to social psychology

models; expansion, reduction, reorganisation and threat rigidity. Expansion tries to acquire more

resources by shifting the focus to new areas of activities, services or products. Reduction tries to adapt

14

aspirations to the shrinking level of resources by reducing activities, such as cutting costs or employees.

Or by reducing resource dependence and cultivating diversity, since a higher diversity of resources

reduces the vulnerability of societies. Reorganisation replaces people or reshapes organisations. And

threat rigidity means no reaction, neither adapting resources nor expectations. When considering

Sackmann's (2015) four coping strategies in today's context, the question of the role of digitisation and

new technologies emerges.

Regardless of demographic or non-demographic coping there are some general

recommendations and a few more specific, technology focused proposals. Heller (2016) claims that it

is essential to keep the ratio of public debt to GDP down, before reaching the status of an aged

population. Furthermore, according to Sackmann (2015), the dual labour market hypothesis, where

long-term contracts would not be changed while hiring would turn to fixed-term contracts, would

maintain flexibility and innovation in case of a declining population. He also theorises the valuable

division of labour hypothesis as a coping strategy, in which a declining population increases de-

differentiation, for example specialists becoming generalists, and multi-dimensional professionalisation,

for instance combining different specialisations in order to be more successful.

In addition to that, there are further concrete counter measures which emphasise more on

technology, digitisation, immigration and cultural aspects, that might help. Firstly, and most importantly

Japan hopes to recover its poor economy by incorporating robotics technology for repetitive tasks to fill

the labour force gap and to free up more time for employees to focus on less repetitive high-value tasks

(Zanni & Rios, 2018). However, according to Adachi et al. (2015, p. 5), “technology will help meet the

demand but will not completely fill the gap”. Thus, secondly, it is necessary to include women into the

workforce with an initiative called “womenomics” (Rich, 2019). Raising the female labour-force

participation in the 25-44 age range to 80% in 2040 by bringing two million additional women into the

workforce could reduce the gap as predicted by McKinsey & Company (Adachi et al., 2015). Thirdly,

Desvaux et al. (2015) claim that a greater presence of foreign workers could further reduce the gap in

Japan’s shrinking population, and also facilitate a boost of new energy, diverse ideas and best practices

from abroad. However, language barriers would need to be overcome. And fourthly, according to

Adachi et al. (2015), increasing workforce participation by seniors would further help narrowing the

gap. In Japan only 20% of 65+ years old work, but in a national survey 66% of respondents expressed

an interest in continuing to work beyond the age of 65. However, there is general resistance by

companies, such as cutting payroll costs, a lacking system to manage elderly, lower physical strength

and less motivation among old employees, but some initiatives already exist (Adachi et al. 2015). Most

of the abovementioned coping strategies demonstrate diversification of the labour force or

professionalisation. Which leads to the conclusion that diversity plays a key role in addressing a

shrinking labour force. This belief is similar to Rosado's (1997) assumption that the apparent solution

for some global issues is unity in diversity. Respecting diversity while working for unity. In particular,

this also functions as counteraction against the revival of ethnic nationalism and national extremism.

However, regardless of any coping measures, Heller (2016) decisively accentuates to not delay a

national response even for countries that are decades away. Because “time is one of the scarcest

resources confronting countries approaching an aged society […] and for industrial countries closer to

the threshold adaptation will be harder” (Heller 2016, p. 93). Time is already running out in Japan,

15

according to the Sustainable Governance Indicators (n.d.-c). This leads to the prevailing question of the

role of technology and digitisation as supportive coping measure as well as “time-saviour” for

potentially indirectly affecting the other coping strategies in a positive manner.

This first chapter highlighted the recent global paradigm shift in society, which is driven by

global and national social issues, mainly: income disparity, climate change, an ageing population and

infectious diseases such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The UN have established 17 SDG’s to tackle those

challenges. After decades of prosperity as the “lead goose”, Japan has been struggling with lower

productivity and thus ached from a fiscal decline during the “lost decades” since the 90s. It is the first

industrial state that is facing demographic ageing which is a new societal threat. Japan’s labour force is

expected to shrink by 30% until 2050. Germany, too, faces an ageing population, but its migration

policy has mostly offset it. Yet, there is a lack of foresight. There are various coping strategies to

increase productivity, notably: digitisation, automation, and integrating women, migrants, or seniors

into the workforce. Lastly, it is vital to not delay a national response, since time is running out and it is

yet to analyse what role digitisation and new technologies will play as direct coping measure and

indirect supporter of the abovementioned diverse coping strategies.

2.2 The Japanese Concept “Society 5.0”

2.2.1 Society 5.0 and Its Definition, Origin and LiberationsThe Japanese concept of Society 5.0 serves as a self-proclaimed vision to solve several of the

abovementioned global social issues and economic challenges, such as an ageing population in Japan.

When investigating new concepts and systems as Society 5.0, it is important to be aware of the notion

that “most things, beings, relationships and processes exist and operate within a system” and that

systems are an evolutionary process, according to the systems theory of Bertalanffy, Banathy and

Rapoport, as cited by Kemp et al. (2006, p. 22). The systems theory originated in the hard sciences but

has adapted to social sciences and humanities as well, since systems can be biological, mechanical,

social or other. Designing a new system is a dynamic, creative and iterative process that begins with a

holistic, but fuzzy and often vague vision of the new system, and then gradually progresses over time

to more detail and clarity for all parts of the vision (Kemp et al., 2006). Banathy, as cited by Kemp et

al. (2006, p. 22), defines a system as “an assemblage of inter-related elements comprising a unified

whole, consisting of components or elements which are connected together in order to facilitate the

flow of information, matter or energy.”

Society 5.0 is a cyber-physical system (CPS), according to Skobelev & Borovik (2017) and

UNESCO (2019). “A human-centred society that balances economic advancement with the resolution

of social problems by a system that highly integrates cyberspace and physical space” (Council for

Science Technology and Innovation, n.d.). It is a government-wide national vision of Japan and a key

goal of the economic policy reform termed “Abenomics”, which is named after Japan’s prime minister

Shinzo Abe (Cabinet Public Relations Office, n.d.-a), with the goal to revitalise productivity and growth

(Fukuda, 2020), as already stated in the introduction of this paper. Society 5.0 is a new prospective

concept based on very recent publications, thus there is still a lack of knowledge and global awareness

and a degree of rightful uncertainty about it (Önday, 2019; Serpa & Ferreira, 2018). The concept of

16

Society 5.0 was first introduced in the 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan in 2016 as a future society

that Japan should aspire to. The Japanese Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI)

publishes basic plans every five years since 1996, following the enactment of the Science and

Technology Basic Law in 1995. These plans focus on enhancing science, technology and innovation

(STI) measures and policy (Council for Science Technology and Innovation, 2016; Fukuda, 2020).

Society 5.0 became part of the cabinet’s growth strategy in 2017 (UNESCO, 2019). The concept is

named Society 5.0 as it follows the chronological path of societal evolution and its societal stages

(Figure 3), as previously defined by Rabie (2016). Proclaimed by the Japanese government, Society 5.0

is the natural extension of today’s fourth societal stage, the information society, and it includes

Germany’s Industry 4.0 vision, as cited by Arsovski (2019).

Industry 4.0, the digital transformation of manufacturing industries through advanced

technologies, was first publicly introduced in 2011 in Germany, and according to researchers of PwC,

as quoted by Skobelev & Borovik (2017, p. 307), ”the annual volume of investment into digital

technologies within Industry 4.0 will exceed 900 billion US dollars by 2020”. Although the umbrella

term remains foggy, it caught global momentum in less than a decade as it has been adopted as a useful

business concept far beyond its place of origin in Germany (Gladden, 2019). However, major

achievements cannot be expected earlier than 2020-2025. Overall, the concept of Industry 4.0 is widely

accepted in the field of scientific knowledge and similar initiatives such as “Made in China 2025” and

“Industrial Internet” co-exist (Fukuyama, 2018; Serpa & Ferreira, 2018). The naming of Industry 4.0 is

based on the fourth industrial revolution (Figure 3). All four industrial revolutions are situated within

the industrial and information stage (Council for Science Technology and Innovation, 2016; Keidanren,

n.d.). In short, Industry 4.0 is a part of Society 5.0. Or Society 5.0 is Industry 4.0 applied to all of society

with much more depth and focus on social benefits as it is not purely limited to manufacturing and

industries. In fact, Müller, Kiel, & Voigt, as cited by Serpa & Ferreira (2018), argue that Industry 4.0

is focused too much on the technological and economic aspects, and Morrar, Arman, & Mousa claim

that social and technological innovation actually positively affect each other and thus only together

unlock its true potential. They claim businesses who offer social benefits combined with economic

progress will succeed in Industry 4.0 and beyond (Serpa & Ferreira, 2018).

According to the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (n.d.), Society 5.0 offers a

high degree of convergence between cyber space (virtual space) and physical space (real space). Finding

the necessary insights from overflowing information and analysing them was and partly still is a burden

nowadays. In Society 5.0 a huge amount of information is collected from sensors in physical space,

which is often linked to the IoT, and subsequently stored and analysed in cyberspace by means of AI.

The analysis results are channelled back and applied to humans in physical space in various forms, for

instance in form of autonomous driving or robotic process automation (RPA). Through analysis,

Arsovski (2019) has defined four characteristics of Society 5.0: (1) optimising society as a whole by

integration of cyber space and physical space, (2) utilising data as a new resource, (3) realising in an

environment with change and constraints, and (4) solving complex social and living issues. All of them,

and particularly the last one, are related to improved quality of life (QoL), as claimed by Arsovski

(2019). Furthermore, Keidanren (n.d.), which groups the nation’s biggest companies as the “Japan

Business Federation”, describes, that the key technologies leveraged in Society 5.0 are IoT, AI, robotics

17

and distributed ledger technologies such as blockchain, all within the framework of big data analytics.

By means of this conflation between the real world and the virtual world, Society 5.0 aims to achieve

economic development and solve social issues at the same time. A balance that has proven to be difficult

in the present system and will continue in the future. But Japan is determined to be the first country,

once again as “lead goose”, to face and solve these issues and to present a model of the future society

while sharing their vision of the future with the world. Additionally, “it is necessary to aim at

systemisation of services and businesses, system advancement, and coordination between multiple

systems” in a harmonised way, according to Council for Science Technology and Innovation (2016).

Thus, Japan promotes the development of a common platform, through collaboration between industry,

academia, and government, called “Society 5.0 Service Platform”. This would include standardised data

such as in smart food chain systems, manufacturing systems and many more (Council for Science

Technology and Innovation, 2016).

As a human-centred society the focus on humans is fundamental. Society 5.0 aims to free

humans from repetitive, burdensome and physically heavy tasks that they are not very good at. This is

similar to how humans have been liberated from other restrictions in the historical context of societal

evolution. For example, the liberation from hunger when moving from the hunting society to the

agrarian society. The limitation of mobility freed by the industrial revolution and the increased freedom

to access information and communication in the information society (Keidanren, n.d.). Society 5.0 tries

to facilitate human prosperity by focusing on individuals through customised services and products for

people that need them precisely at the time they are needed which depicts a data-driven, human-centred,

“Super-Smart Society” (Cabinet Public Relations Office, n.d.-b; Council for Science Technology and

Innovation, n.d., 2016), and not a future controlled by AI and robots as earlier briefly described in the

concept of the technological singularity. Keidanren (n.d.) further outlined a policy proposal in which it

argues that transitioning from Society 4.0 to Society 5.0 will free humans from five restrictions (Figure

4), which focus on problem solving and value creation, diversity, decentralisation, resilience, and

sustainability and environmental harmony. Firstly, (1) liberation from economies of scale transforming

to problem solving and value creation. This frees humans from focusing on standardised processes in

pursuit of efficiency to a society where value is created with emphasis on satisfying individual needs.

Secondly, (2) liberation from uniformity transforming to diversity. Which frees humans from

suppression of individuality and living uniform lives in conformity with standardised processes to a

society where diverse people will exercise diverse abilities to pursue diverse values in society regardless

of gender, race, nationality and alienation. Thirdly, (3) liberation from concentration transforming to

decentralisation. Which frees humans from disparity and limited concentration of wealth and

information to a society where wealth and information will be distributed and decentralised throughout

society and where anyone can get opportunities anytime, anywhere. Fourthly, (4) liberation from

vulnerabilities transforming to resilience. This frees humans from anxiety about infrastructural

deterioration, earthquakes, floods, public security, terrorism, and cyber-attacks to a society where

people can live and pursue challenges in security. Here, safety nets for unemployment and poverty will

be strengthened with a high level of medical care regardless of location. And finally, (5) liberation from

environmental impact and resources transforming to sustainability and environmental harmony. This

frees humans from models with high environmental constraints and mass consumption of resources to

18

a society where humankind lives in harmony with nature, not only in big cities, but also in a diversity

of regions with decentralised energy networks and advanced water, food and waste management.

Altogether, in Society 5.0 “anyone can create value anytime, anywhere, with security and in harmony

with nature”, as noted by Keidanren (n.d., p. 15).

According to Keidanren (n.d.), Society 5.0 will transform lives and industries which enables all

people to pursue their own happiness and lifestyles, “mak[ing] life more meaningful and enjoyable”

(Gladden, 2019, p. 2), while resolving social issues in harmony with nature. Moreover, the concept

aligns with the aforementioned 17 SDGs adopted by the UN and will contribute to delivering on them

as both reforms share the same direction according to UNESCO (2019). Society 5.0 aligns with the

SDGs in each industry. For instance, realising Society 5.0 in the agriculture industry links to four SDGs:

zero hunger (No. 2), responsible consumption and production (No. 12), life below water (No. 14), and

life on land (No. 15). Each SDG includes more detailed objectives. To give an example, the SDG zero

hunger (No. 2) aims to “end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote

sustainable agriculture”, as cited by United Nations (n.d.). In the words of Keidanren (n.d., p. 16),

“Society 5.0 is a prerequisite for many of the SDGs” […] “while some goals can be achieved directly

by developing Society 5.0, others will benefit from diverse solutions devised on the basis of Society

5.0” and its diverse and creative problem-solving framework (Keidanren, n.d.). The proposal from the

Japan Business Federation accentuates that Society 5.0 is nothing to come, but something to co-create

and cannot be accomplished by one nation or company.

As aforementioned in this chapter, innovation and value creation through diversity is a key

aspect of Society 5.0. “Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual is receptive to new ideas and

makes innovation decisions independently” (Venkatesh, L. Thong, & Xu, 2012, p. 14). According to

the following studies it becomes clear why. Firstly, a study in the Havard Business Review by Hewlett,

Marshall, & Sherbin (2013), shows a strong correlation between companies with leaders who exhibit

diversity and improved innovation and performance of their team. Secondly, another report provides

support for claims that diversity facilitates economic benefits in a way that “companies with diverse

management are more likely to introduce new product innovations than are those with homogeneous

top teams”, according to Nathan & Lee (2013, p. 367). The same study also found that immigration has

positive links to entrepreneurship. Thirdly and lastly, a study, cited by the McKinsey Global Institute,

shows that in the United States every 1%-point increase in the share of immigrant college graduates in

the population increases patents per person by six percent. It also reveals that 44% of the technology

2.2.2 Society 5.0 and Its Realisation by Breaking Down the Five WallsAccording to an outline from the Japanese Cabinet Public Relations Office (n.d.-b), there are

various concrete realisations of Society 5.0. For instance, in remote medical health care, where elderly

people no longer need to frequently visit hospitals as one can monitor and analyse their health data,

such as their heart rate, while at home. Or transforming mobility and logistics through autonomous

vehicles which will make it easier for people in rural areas, without access to public transport, to visit

stores and hospitals while drones will enable them to receive goods. Also, AI and robots will be used

to maintain roads, bridges, dams and tunnels as sensors detect deteriorating infrastructure and thus

avoiding unexpected accidents while increasing safety and productivity during construction. In FinTech,

19

blockchain technology will reduce time and costs while ensuring security for global business

transactions (Cabinet Public Relations Office, n.d.-b). This level of automation through AI and

technology is required to address low productivity (Önday, 2019). On the contrary, radical robotization

and “implementing productivity improvements such as increased automation will affect jobs in many

industries and will result in further loss of business […,] but the pursuit of new growth markets in

Society 5.0 and a projected 3.7% decline in Japan’s labour force by 2025 can cushion the net impact on

employment”, as reported by Desvaux et al. (2015).

Accordingly, multi-stakeholder collaboration between government, industry and academia is

important to realise Society 5.0 and its high level of automation. Therefore, the Japan Business

Federation (Keidanren), as cited by UNESCO (2019), has published the above partly outlined policy

proposal called “Society 5.0: Co-creating the Future”. Keidanren (n.d.) has dubbed Society 5.0 as an

“Imagination Society” with focus on problem-solving, in which humans require rich imagination and

creativity of diverse people to identify and solve challenges and needs scattered through society by

making use of digital technologies and data. And thus, create value while enabling people to pursue

their dreams. The outline of the Japanese business federation also discusses the notion of a synergistical

interconnection between human abilities and AI capabilities, where humans explore and enhance their

own abilities combined with abilities of AI which is called the “Internet of Abilities” (IoA). However,

they stress the importance of real human interactions and empathy which cannot be replaced by AI,

according to Keidanren (n.d.). The business federation claims “it is difficult to accurately foresee what

kind of society the ongoing Society 5.0 revolution will create”, but that Society 5.0 is inevitable

(Keidanren, n.d., p. 6).

When looking at the realisation potential of Society 5.0, various factors need to be considered.

Another outline of the Japanese business federation stresses the fundamental imperativeness of breaking

down the “five walls” in order to realise Society 5.0 (Keidanren, 2016). The segmentation of the five

walls addresses and resolves challenges and risks of Society 5.0. For instance, security risks and privacy

issues, as argued by Fukuyama (2018). Firstly, (1) the wall of ministries and agencies: Breaking down

this wall means to formulate a national strategy and to promote a thinktank environment of public and

private sectors through multi-stakeholder collaboration. Secondly, (2) the wall of the legal system:

Which develops laws and system reforms towards the implementation of advanced technologies.

Thirdly, (3) the wall of technologies: Breaking down the third wall includes to promote advanced

technologies and to support R&D in new technologies as well as in cybersecurity. Fourthly, (4) the wall

of human resources: It provides education to foster creativity, to improve digital literacy and to

encourage dynamic engagement and value creation of all citizens. And finally, (5) the wall of social

acceptance: The fifth wall integrates advanced technologies in society and builds social consensus

among all stakeholders including citizens. Furthermore, it examines social implications and ethical

issues from a philosophical perspective about the relationship between humans and machines, happiness

and humanity (Keidanren, 2016).

Besides the challenges that are identified in the five walls. Inside the journal article “Society

5.0 and Social Development: Contributions to a Discussion” by Serpa & Ferreira (2018), several authors

address further challenges that need to be overcome. For example, the interoperability of old and new

systems as well as cyber security, privacy, social and safety issues. According to Gladden (2019, p. 3),

20

the Japanese government expects “a significant likelihood that some attempts to develop and implement

Society 5.0 technologies will end in costly failure, […] cyberattacks might have direct and catastrophic

effects on people’s lives.” Furthermore, they foresee that advanced technologies can create societal

improvement as well as societal confusion. It might also cause some legacy industries to disappear

while new industries emerge to take their place (Gladden, 2019). On the other hand, Desvaux et al.,

2015, p. 113) claim that competition drives productivity and that “the birth of new firms and the closure

of failing companies are signs of a healthy economy”. Moreover, Takahashi argues that Society 5.0

might create new forms of internet, video game and smartphone addictions. Yet, simultaneously it might

also offer new approaches for preventing or treating addictions (Gladden, 2019).

In light of breaking down the aforesaid five walls, Keidanren (2016) has proposed various

industry initiatives. Firstly, they propose to establish a non-competitive area around Society 5.0 between

domestic and foreign companies to improve cooperation. Also, according to UNESCO (2019), one of

the abovementioned required multi-stakeholder collaborations, that are already established, is the

Growth Strategy Council which is composed of ministers, company executives and academics.

Secondly, and again in line with multi-stakeholder collaboration, they plan to conduct large-scale joint

studies through the cooperation between government, industry and academia. Thirdly, they proclaim to

foster a diverse corporate ecosystem which supports start-ups and small and medium businesses as well.

And fourthly, Keidanren (2016) intents to promote women’s participation, accept skilled immigrants to

improve diversity, and revise the overall treatment of employees in companies. Alongside the forming

of the Growth Strategy Council, various other activities have begun in Japanese academic circles as

well as in industry to accelerate the implementation of Society 5.0, as reported by Fukuyama (2018).

Also, SAP SE has concrete ideas and use cases of how to contribute to solving social issues and

delivering value to society which are linked to the Japanese concept. For instance, the implementation

of SIDG (SAP Institute for Digital Government) which is a thought-leadership think tank that is aimed

at increasing the value of government by using digital technology to distribute public services that meet

public needs. According to an SAP SE paper, authored by Uchida & Fukuda (2019), multiple use cases

have already successfully demonstrated to deliver value to society in Japanese disaster preparation and

prevention. The European software giant partnered up with Hakusan Corporation and Tokyo Electric

Power Company to develop a platform that turns smartphones into simple seismometers which measure

the oscillation of several thousand buildings in Japan in real time. Such information can be utilised for

earthquake preparation and disaster prevention (Uchida & Fukuda, 2019). This might be quite valuable

under the premise that Japan annually records the most earthquakes in the world with over 1,500 seismic

occurrences yearly, and many active volcanos along the “Ring of Fire” (CIA Factbook, n.d.).

Finally, Japan as a whole seems to be increasingly committed to the vision of Society 5.0. There

seems to be an eager wish from the Japanese government and business community to seize this golden

opportunity in order to finally reverse the remaining negative trends (UNESCO, 2019). Thus, the

Japanese government is moving forward with Society 5.0 and the pace of advanced technology

development is expected to accelerate with the approach of the Olympics in Tokyo, according to

Schürmann & Glunz (2019). The EXPO 2025 in Osaka, which will be planned on the themes of the

SDGs and Society 5.0, offers Japan another opportunity to share its novel vision for the future with the

world (UNESCO, 2019). But if Society 5.0 shall “not only be a political-ideological concept, it seems

21

to be necessary to integrate several dimensions” and to truly start breaking down the earlier mentioned

five walls, according to Yousefikhah, as cited by Serpa & Ferreira (2018, p. 4). In the words of i-SCOOP,

as noted by Serpa & Ferreira, (2018, p. 5): “Whether such a vast societal change will work, and the wall

of social acceptance will be broken down is a question that will be answered in the future.”

To conclude this chapter, Society 5.0 is a human-centred society that balances economic

progress and solves social issues in a CPS environment. Unsurprisingly, the Japanese concept started

off vague, yet Society 5.0 seems to be the natural extension of today’s fourth societal stage, the

information society. It includes Germany’s Industry 4.0 vision but has more focus on social benefits

and QoL by using AI, IoT, robotics and big data analytics. Japan aims to promote a “Society 5.0 Service

Platform” through multi-stakeholder collaboration. The vision is also dubbed “Imagination Society”

which fosters prosperity and frees humans from five restrictions. In Society 5.0 anyone can create value

anytime, anywhere, with security and in harmony with nature. Innovation and value creation through

diversity are key elements of Society 5.0. Furthermore, the Japanese vision aligns with the SDGs and

requires breaking down five walls to be realised, notably the wall of social acceptance. And lastly,

Society 5.0 faces high risks in cybersecurity and privacy, but various activities have already begun as

Japan seems increasingly committed.

2.3 Applicability of Society 5.0

2.3.1 Cultural Factors and Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions TheoryAccording to the Government of Japan, as cited by Gladden (2019), naturally, the origins of

Society 5.0 lie in Japan, yet the objective is to develop Society 5.0 platforms and technologies within

an internationally open innovation system. The idea is to share and apply the concept globally as “its

motivation isn’t exclusively coordinated at the thriving of one nation” (Önday, 2019, p. 3). Ratti and

Sarif, as reported by Gladden (2019), explored how Society 5.0 can be applied to the autonomous region

of Sardinia in Italy and to Malaysia. Irrespective of such various activities, it is challenging to define at

what point what region counts as transitioning to Society 5.0, similar to the difficulty of saying what

city is smart and which not. Because there is no unified measure available for comparing cities and

stating how smart a city is, as argued by Kopackova & Komarkova (2020).

Nevertheless, despite the great interest, as of now it remains uncertain, if the vision of Society

5.0 as a whole can be applied outside of its original Japanese cultural context. Compared to Industry

4.0, which predominantly depends on technological factors, Society 5.0 “reaches much more deeply

into a society’s culture” as claimed by Gladden (2019, p. 26). This is because Industry 4.0 automation

initiatives that are implemented in a factory in Germany are likely to also prove efficient and effective

when implemented in a factory in Australia, Brazil or China. However, Society 5.0 proves to be more

complex as it does not only impact the workplace. Instead, it is intertwined with the daily routines and

domains at work and at home of all members of society, which includes education, healthcare,

entertainment, social relationships, and other aspects of life (Gladden, 2019). And although, according

to Inglehart, as cited by Zaidi (n.d.), the processes of modernisation and globalisation are assumed to

increase cultural similarities among societies, Germany and Japan have significantly different cultural

roots. Thus, the focus on cultural differences is substantial when investigating the applicability of

22

Society 5.0 in differing countries.

Culture is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs

and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”, according to Edward

Tylor, as cited by Zaidi (n.d., p. 2). Furthermore, Rabie (2016, p. 11) points out that “cultures that

viewed external forces as challenges and opportunities were able to change faster and make more

progress, such as the ones that appeared in present day Egypt, Iraq and Syria. In contrast, cultures that

viewed external challenges as threats to be avoided, such as African cultures in general, became

suspicious and conservative and thus less open to change and ill-equipped to make further progress”.

According to a study by Gonzalez-Fuentes (2017), the Japanese people believe that their culture

significantly differs to people from other countries and cultures and that it incorporates strong traditions

and national pride. For example, Japan’s anthem “Kimigayo” has the oldest anthem lyrics in the world,

dating back to the 10th century (CIA Factbook, n.d.). Japanese values strongly emphasise seniority and

loyalty with a patrilineal, primogeniture system where only one child, usually the first-born

(primogeniture), male (patrilineal) child, inherits all the property and social status while the rest of the

children have to support themselves on their own. German values focus much more on opportunities

based on self-development and self-actualisation (Zaidi, n.d.). Also, the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map

identifies a stronger emphasis on values of self-expression in Germany compared to Japan (Figure 5)

(WVS Association, n.d.). According to Lincoln et al., as cited by Zaidi (n.d.), Japanese people possess

politeness as their cultural norm and are reluctant to say “No” with firmness and finality. “Germans, in

contrast, have a reputation for being unfriendly, reclusive, rude and arrogant” (Zaidi, n.d., p. 3).

A much deeper reflection on cross-cultural differences allows Hofstede's cultural dimensions

theory (Hofstede Insights, n.d.-a; n.d.-b). The cultural framework rates the attitude of countries on a

scale from 0-100 in specific cultural dimensions. The famous Dutch social psychologist and IBM

employee Geert Hofstede theorised the following six cultural drivers: (1) power distance, (2)

individualism, (3) masculinity, (4) uncertainty avoidance, (5) long-term orientation, and (6) indulgence.

The subsequent results have been found for Germany and Japan (Figure 6) (Hofstede Insights, n.d.-a;

n.d.-b). Firstly, (1) power distance is the societal attitude towards imbalances. Germans (35) are known

for direct, participative communication, they dislike control and challenge leadership. Japan (54) is

more of a hierarchical society. Secondly, (2) individualism is about the self-image in terms of “I or we”.

Germans (67) are truly individualistic with a high degree of self-actualisation. Whereas Japanese (46)

are more collectivistic where group harmony is more important than individual expression and opinion,

and with strong company loyalty. In fact, Desvaux et al. (2015) argue that Japan’s tradition of lifetime

employment also led to the fiscal decline, since workers who rarely have to compete for new positions

have less incentives to continue gaining new skills. Thirdly, (3) masculinity is about the motivation of

people, either wanting to be the best, masculine, or liking what they do, feminine. Germans (66) highly

value strong performance, live in order to work and portray a lot of self-esteem from their job. Yet,

Japan (95) is the most masculine society with excessive workaholism and a lack of women in

management positions. Fourthly, (4) uncertainty avoidance is how threatened people feel by unknown

situations. Germans (65) are uncertainty avoidant with strong reliance on expertise, and their law system

and projects are well-thought-out and systematic. Japanese (92) are one of the most uncertainty avoidant

people. High effort is put into studying all the risk factors and the predictability of any project. This

23

links to Japan’s high exposure of natural disasters through earthquakes, volcanoes, typhoons and

tsunamis (CIA Factbook, n.d.). Fifthly, (5) long term orientation describes how societies view past,

present and future. Germans (83) tend to save and invest in a cost-cutting, far-sighted way and embody

strong drive to achieve goals. Japanese (88) see “life as a very short moment in a long history of mankind”

and firms are not meant to solely make money every quarter, but to serve society in the long run. Sixthly

and finally, (6) indulgence is “the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses”

(Hofstede Insights, n.d.-b). Germans (40) and Japanese (42) both control their emotions and tend to

pessimism with little emphasis on leisure time, since indulging themselves is rather perceived as wrong

(Hofstede Insights, n.d.-a; n.d.-b).

2.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Cultural and Economic SettingIn the past, “Japan has not presented and proposed concepts encompassing the whole world”

(Keidanren, n.d., p. 4), but Japan has long been regarded as a powerhouse and pioneer of advanced

technologies and innovation (Desvaux et al., 2015), and will continue its progress with the initiative of

Society 5.0, as argued by Abood et al. (2018). Instead of imposing its culture onto the world as many

other nations have aspired for, historically, Japan has been more proficient at adapting external

innovations and policy approaches to its unique cultural identity, as argued by Heller (2016). In fact,

the Japanese island chain is scarce in critical natural resources and has long been dependent on

importing energy and raw materials from other countries and cultures (CIA Factbook, n.d.).

Regardless, Japan has some advantages that make Society 5.0 possible. Exemplary are a very

rich accumulation of data from a universal high-quality healthcare system (Fukuyama, 2018;

Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-b), as well as from various manufacturing facilities.

Furthermore, Japan’s excellence in electrical engineering advanced technologies cultivated from

“monozukuri”, which translates to “making of things”, and years of basic research are advantageous

(Cabinet Public Relations Office, n.d.-b). Thus, Japanese people are often deemed as smart, reliable and

efficient in particular in the fields of electrical engineering and there is an immense spread of robots

and a high level of automation in Japan which leads to higher acceptance of robots and technology

compared to other countries (Bröhl, Nelles, Brandl, Mertens, & Nitsch, 2019). Gladden (2019) claims

that it might be reasonable within a Japanese culture to accept social robotics, AI, VR and other cyber-

physical technologies into intimate aspects of daily life. But it cannot be presumed that such

technologies would be embraced positively in the same way by people in other cultures and countries.

This affirmative Japanese attitude towards robots and advanced technologies is globally unique, and

differs significantly compared to other countries, which is recognised as “robophilia”, according to

Gilson and Budianto, as cited by Gladden (2019). Some scholars argue that robophilia is partly caused

due to the traumatic experience and devastation brought by atomic bombs in World War Two, with the

consequent unspoken determination that Japan would never again fall behind the world’s leaders in

technological advancement. Gladden (2019) also describes that Japan’s ancient mix of Shinto and

Buddhist worldviews naturally encourages the recognition of souls and spirits within rocks, trees and

robots and thus forms a mindset and relationship between humans and robots that differs from Western

cultures.

From a cultural perspective, the mindset embodied in the SDGs, which are part of Society 5.0,

24

is closely linked to the Japanese culture. For instance, through “mottai-nai” which means the aversion

to waste and embracing the spirit of symbiosis with nature. Equally, there seems to be a close connection

to beneficial economic activities for all of society, such as the three party satisfaction concept “sampo-

yoshi” which emphasises the benefits for the seller, the buyer, and for society (Keidanren, n.d.). Yet,

controversial to the notion of “mottai-nai”, which embraces a sustainable environment, is the reopening

of nuclear power plants, including strict new safety standards, despite the Fukushima disaster. But the

opposition to restarting nuclear power in Japan remains strong and keeps the reopening process slow

(Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-c; n.d.-d). Further Japanese advantages to realise Society 5.0

include technological expertise, a highly educated labour force and a world-class digital infrastructure.

The internet penetration surpassed 86% in 2013 and Japan has one of the fastest connection speeds in

the world, which enables a solid foundation for technological adoption in various fields, according to

Desvaux et al. (2015).

Besides Japanese advantages, this paper already elaborated on various social issues in Japan,

such as an ageing population which threatens the pensions-system viability (Sustainable Governance

Indicators (n.d.-d), low productivity and the country’s aversion to immigration, which altogether link

to deeply rooted unsustainable social issues in Japan that make societal change inescapable. As stated

earlier, immigration marks a key coping factor to Japan’s current economic challenges and needs to be

reflected upon in the light of Society 5.0. Japan already improved its immigration policies, but is still

opposed to allow immigration significantly (Rich, 2019). As an ethnic comparison, in Germany live

87% Germans as of 2017, whereas in Japan reside 98% Japanese people as of 2016 (CIA Factbook,

n.d.). Foreign workers in Japan only represent one percent of the Japanese labour force, which is far

below the 16% share in the United States and 8% in Germany (Desvaux et al., 2015).

Furthermore, The New York Times reported that “men in Japan do fewer hours of housework

and childcare than in any of the world’s richest nations. That keeps women from getting better jobs and

holds back the economy” (Rich, 2019, p. 2). According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD), as cited by Rich (2019), less than one percent of Japanese women are in

management positions, in contrast to an average of 4.6% in other developed countries. Also, Japan is

known for its workaholic’s culture, where men work brutal hours. A phenomenon called “karoshi”

which means death from overwork. Experts claim that Japan’s excessive hours of overwork are

unnecessary, leading to low productivity and inefficiencies. This also explains why men contribute so

little to housework or childcare which in turn binds women to more work at home and prevents them

from focusing on their careers (Rich, 2019). Notably, recent legislations restrict an employee’s overtime

to 45 hours per month (Zanni & Rios, 2018). Overall, although civil rights are protected, there is little

awareness about the concept of gender equality and gender discrimination remains common in Japan

(Rich, 2019; Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-d).

Additionally, the McKinsey Global Institute report reveals entrepreneurial difficulties and

challenges in early-stage funding and commercialising new ideas and cutting-edge technologies in

Japan. In 2013, Japan’s entrepreneurs accounted for 3.7% of the total labour force in contrast to 12.7%

in the United States (Desvaux et al., 2015). The report strongly suggests promoting an ecosystem that

encourages an entrepreneurial, innovative mindset and fosters a start-up culture in Japan. Further

encouragements are to develop critical thinking skills, a willingness to take risks, and a more global

25

mindset. However, a global mindset and marketplace require foreign language fluency, yet Japan has

the lowest English-proficiency levels among all OECD countries (Desvaux et al., 2015; Sustainable

Governance Indicators, n.d.-d). Indeed, Japan is making modest, yet insufficient economic progress as

the government has failed to realise major aspects of its economic and structural-reform plans

(Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-d). Public debt levels in Japan are the highest globally, at

237% of GDP in 2017 compared to a debt-to-GDP ratio of 63% for Germany in 2017 (CIA Factbook,

n.d.), and continue to rise. And although Japan is considered a trailblazer in technologies, a current

decline in various R&D indicators is weakening Japan’s status among the top technology countries

(Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-d). Recently Japan has not seen the payoffs in terms of

productivity and growth that would be expected from their heavy R&D investments (Desvaux et al.,

2015). However, the nation is still the third largest economy as of 2018, followed by Germany in fourth

place (The World Bank Group, n.d.).

In contrast to Japan, Germany has shown years of exceptional economic performance, with a

budget surplus and a reduction of the public debt-to-GDP ratio from 80% in 2010 to 59% in 2018, as

Europe’s largest economy located in the centre of the continent (CIA Factbook, n.d.; Sustainable

Governance Indicators, n.d.-b). Germany has over 3700 kilometres of shared borders, compared to

Japan with zero kilometres, with an even distribution throughout most of the country whereas in Japan

one-third of the population lives near Tokyo, which also demonstrates less diversity in urban population.

The German urban population percentage lies at 77% which is lower compared to the urban population

of 91% in Japan (CIA Factbook, n.d.). The expenditures of the successful integration of the 2015-2016

refugee wave have been lower than anticipated, but a xenophobic party, the AFD, has exploited public

concerns about migration fear and became the third-largest parliamentary group (Sustainable

Governance Indicators, n.d.-b). Germany plays a key role in international climate policy with a strong

push into renewable energy production. Nevertheless, the nation failed to meet its 2020 climate goals.

Germany’s democracy is globally seen as role model system founded on the rule of law. The legal

system is strong, and corruption is rare, but there is a lack of good policy communication with a

declining interest in political debates among younger generations as well as a rise in populism

(Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-b).

Similar to Japan’s excellence for electrical engineering, Germany is known for amazing

performance and quality in mechanical engineering (Zaidi, n.d.). However, the nation is falling behind

on digital transformation according to Sustainable Governance Indicators (n.d.-a). This is further

exemplified according to a KPMG study from Zanni & Rios (2018) about what countries show the most

promise for advanced technology breakthroughs that will have a global impact. It suggests that most

respondents see the United States with a share of 38% and China with 26% at the forefront, followed

by India with 13% and Japan and the United Kingdom each with a share of 6%. Moreover, in terms of

regions that are seen as leading technology innovation hubs in the next years after Silicon Valley, Tokyo

comes third place, while Berlin is ranked as eleventh place. Overall, the research results demonstrate a

fierce global competition and strong emphasis on national pride about leading the technological race,

yet with little impact from Germany (Zanni & Rios, 2018). Nevertheless, the report further illustrates

that Germany, in particular “Made in Germany”, stands for quality with high standards in data security

and privacy, but with less focus on innovation. However, a change of the rather conservative mind-set

26

has begun and new demands for innovations and innovative business models are being explored,

particularly in the fields of Industry 4.0, smart factories and IoT. The strong reputation of “Made in

Germany” might facilitate opportunities in German cybersecurity, according to Zanni & Rios (2018).

To encapsulate this chapter, the realisation of Society 5.0 relies heavily on cultural factors and

much more on these than other, narrower concepts as Industry 4.0. Although Japan’s goal is to share

the vision globally, it is unsure if it can be applied globally. The Japanese and German culture differ

significantly. Japan values loyalty and seniority while Germans focus on self-actualisation. Moreover,

Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory shows clear differences in power distance, individualism,

masculinity and uncertainty avoidance between both nations. Overall, Japan’s social issues make

societal change inevitable. They struggle with aversion to migration and no ethnic diversity, death from

overwork through “karoshi”, and the highest public debts globally. Furthermore, they struggle with a

lack of gender equality, globalisation and English proficiency. Yet, Japan’s culture has some advantages

in order to realise Society 5.0: rich data from a high-quality healthcare system, excellence in advanced

technologies from “monozukuri”, embracing nature through “mottai-nai” and societal benefits through

“sampo-yoshi”, and a great digital infrastructure with a “robophilia” attitude. In contrast, Germany’s

strong reputation of “Made in Germany” might facilitate opportunities in IoT cybersecurity. It has

excellence fiscal performance and successfully integrated migrants, but it lacks good policy

communication.

2.4 Social Acceptance in Society 5.0

2.4.1 The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of TechnologyAs previously explained, in order to realise Society 5.0 the wall of social acceptance, which

builds social consensus among all stakeholders in society, must be overcome (Keidanren, 2016). It is

the final and most-society-related wall of all. Since Society 5.0 is predominantly based on advanced

technologies, the wall of social acceptance primarily focuses on the acceptance of technology. Scholars

and experts are highly interested in understanding the main causes of technology acceptance and various

models have been proposed. Venkatesh et al. (2012) developed the Unified Theory of Acceptance and

Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. The theory was improved and renamed to UTAUT2 in 2012. The

model identifies seven factors impacting acceptance and use of technology: (1) performance expectancy

(PE), (2) effort expectancy (EE), (3) social influence (SI), (4) facilitating conditions (FC), (5) hedonic

motivation (HM), (6) price-value (PV) and (7) habit (HB). Those factors are influenced by age, gender

and experience (Figure 7). The applied theory has discovered several insights on technology use and

acceptance in various fields. For instance, that HM, which is considered as pleasure seeking, but also

PV and most significantly HB strongly influence technology acceptance and usage (Hanifi & Ali, 2017;

Venkatesh et al., 2012). A habit is established when a “consumer will, without thinking, react

immediately to the context of entering a subway car or taxi by pulling out his/her mobile phone and

check e-mail” and thus reflects the behaviour of previous experiences, as argued by Venkatesh et al.

(2012, p. 16). In light of launching a new technology, the study found that older men have more

difficulty in changing their existing habits and accepting new technology once they already formed a

habit by repeated use of a particular technology. This difficulty of elderly might link “to the decline in

27

cognitive and memory capabilities associated with the aging process”, as reported by Posner, and thus

elderly place greater importance on the availability of adequate support, as claimed by Hall and

Mansfield, as cited by Venkatesh et al., (2012, p. 12). Furthermore, the research reveals that older

women are more price sensitive about technology, and that younger men have a greater tendency to

seek novelty and innovativeness since they are driven more by hedonic benefits gained from using a

technology for example in video gaming. Lastly, younger women are more aware and flexible towards

new changes in the environment, which should be considered when attempting to maintain the usage of

a specific technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012)

The popular UTAUT2 model has been applied and utilised in the studies of many researchers.

For example, PE, HM, EE and SI positively correlate with the intention to adopt healthcare wearable

devices. Whereas the adoption of internet banking by elderly people is majorly influenced by EE, PV

and HB. The same factors except PV “play a crucial role in the adoption of mobile messaging

applications” (Hanifi & Ali, 2017, p. 179). Overall, according to Venkatesh, as cited by Hanifi & Ali

(2017), as aforesaid there is a strong effect of consumer’s habit on acceptance and technology

engagement.

Next to the UTAUT2 model there are many other studies that explored technology and robot

acceptance. For instance, the research from Bröhl et al. (2019) studied the cultural influence on the

acceptance of robots. The use of robots and technology is growing, particularly in industrialised

countries. Equally the interdependence between humans and robots is growing, because more

organisations let robots and humans work together. Therefore, it is essential to understand to what extent

humans accept robots. Their study found that human beings only accept an innovative assistive working

system, such as a robot, when it is perceived to be useful. They also found that cultural context has a

vital impact on human-robot interaction and acceptance. For instance, Japanese people perceive less

enjoyment and hedonic motivation when using robots compared to people in Germany and other

countries. This might be caused by a high degree of familiarisation and the immense spread of robots

in everyday life in Japan. Whereas Germans, associate robot distribution with more social implications

than Japanese people. Because Germans might fear to lose contact with colleagues due to robots in the

future (Bröhl et al., 2019). According to the “2019 Edelman: Trust Barometer”, fears of job loss remain

high on a global level due to various reasons. Yet indeed, notably 55% of employees worry about job

loss due to automation and other innovations taking their job away (Ries & Bersoff, 2019).

A similar divide is represented in the results of a recent survey in Germany about social

acceptance of technology during the COVID-19 crisis (ZDF, 2020). The survey investigated the

approval of an official smartphone application that utilises technology, without access to private data,

to trace people who are infected with the coronavirus. The results are divided. 47% of respondents

would use this app, 42% would not use the application, and 8% do not own a smartphone. Interestingly,

the far-right, conservative political party AFD covers most opponents with 70% rejecting the app (ZDF,

2020). Looking at Japan, in the words of Bröhl et al. (2019), the already high level of automation in

Japan might lead to a lower fear of losing the job due to a robot and thus to higher acceptance of

technology compared to other countries. But generally, the potential cause for differences in technology

acceptance cannot be explained in basic terms between Western and Eastern cultural differences. There

might be multicausal factors, such as the level of automation, spread and use of technology in everyday

28

life, positive connotations of automation, data protection laws and spread of video surveillance (Bröhl

et al., 2019).

2.4.2 Social Acceptance and Trust in Present SocietiesThe abovementioned studies largely focus on the acceptance level of technology from the

perspective of consumers and individuals. Although Society 5.0 does incorporate technology goods and

robots in daily life that humans individually interact with, it is equally significant to understand social

acceptance of technology and its barriers from a broader, societal perspective. A study found that the

following features increase acceptance and use of digital citizen engagement platforms: easy-to-use,

fast, straightforward, mobile solutions which are integrated in a ($100) cumulative voting prioritisation

system with direct positive feedback from the local government (Kopackova & Komarkova, 2020).

Furthermore, acceptance from a societal perspective touches upon the work of Atkins, Ryan, & Leent

(2020) in SAP SE’s data-driven government agenda which develops forward-thinking and citizen-

centric programmes. According to them, in order for governments to become more data-driven and

citizen-centric, which are aspects of Society 5.0, it is essential to overcome certain barriers: citizen data

and privacy, data sharing, traceability, cybersecurity, and managing the data. Citizen data and digital

privacy is top of mind. People want to know who has their data, who controls it, and how it is collected,

used and shared. Open data and privacy are increasingly strategic topics for governments in order to

facilitate citizen engagement and increase trust. In line with increased privacy concerns there is a need

for greater transparency and traceability, according to Gartner as cited by Atkins et al. (2020). While

also ensuring cybersecurity protection, in order to create trust in the technology itself as well as trust in

governments and organisations that control the data and the technology.

Trust is a key theme for technology acceptance. Yet, trust is at risk in the world of digital media

(Cocorocchia et al., 2016). Among many reasons this might be linked to privacy, transparency and

security concerns about data and technology (Atkins et al., 2020). Furthermore, it may be related to a

shrinking population in some countries (Sackmann, 2015). Regardless of the specific reasons, public

trust in the government remains near historically low levels across all generations in the United States

(Pew Research Center, 2019). When looking at the results of the “2019 Edelman: Trust Barometer”

report (Ries & Bersoff, 2019), the overall trust level of the general population in their respective country

decreases globally. This includes trust in NGOs, businesses, governments, and in the media. According

to Ries & Bersoff (2019), 15 out of 26 nations have a distrusting population. This also accounts for the

German population where 44% of people trust the abovementioned institutions in Germany, while Japan

is manifested as the country with the second lowest trusting population of all 26 countries. In Japan

only 39% of the population trusts its nation after Russia with 29%. Compared to China with 79%, India

with 72% and Singapore with 62%, trust in Western countries is relatively low. Globally only one in

five people believe the current system is working for them, while the rest is not sure or believes it is

failing them. In total over 70% feel a sense of injustice and a desire for change. Generally, the developed

world is quite pessimistic about the future and Japan is the most pessimistic country where only 16%

of the mass population believe they will be better off in five years’ time (Ries & Bersoff, 2019).

On the contrary, there is more optimism about Society 5.0 in Japan. A survey, conducted by

29

the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) in 2019, shows that about 36% of

Japanese respondents believe Society 5.0 will improve the quality of life in Japan (NISTEP, 2019b).

A similar study was conducted by the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Japan (AHK

Japan). “For one quarter of surveyed companies, Society 5.0 offers significant opportunities for

business”, according to Schürmann & Glunz (2019, p. 13), and already 11% of these companies have

started research activities in their company regarding Society 5.0. However, for around two thirds of

the surveyed companies, Society 5.0 has either no significance or provides only limited opportunities

for their business (Schürmann & Glunz, 2019). NISTEP also examined why people feel anxious about

the realisation of Society 5.0 in Japan. The majority of respondents, over 75%, is concerned about

personal information or data being leaked or destroyed by a computer virus and is generally anxious

about cyberattacks. Half of the surveyed people fear cyberbullying and a decline of QoL, due to AI or

robots’ taking over human jobs. While 38% worry about income level and treatment gaps due to the

lack of ICT (Information and Communications Technology) skills. Only 24% have no anxiety at all

about Society 5.0 (NISTEP, 2019a).

This chapter explored that in order to realise Society 5.0 the wall of social acceptance, with

prime focus on accepting technology, must be broken down. According to the UTAUT2 model, habit

strongly influences technology acceptance and usage. Furthermore, culture has a vital impact on

human-robot acceptance. For instance, Germans link robots to social implications and half the people

globally fear job loss due to robots. This fear is less prominent in Japan due to a larger spread of

robots with a stronger degree of familiarisation and habit. Next to habit, also easy-to-use, fast and

mobile solutions positively influence technology acceptance. However, overcoming privacy,

cybersecurity and cyberbullying concerns are essential to create trust, which is a key aspect. In

general, trust decreases globally, and Japan is one of the most distrusting and pessimistic nations. But

nevertheless, there is more optimism about Society 5.0 in Japan.

By now the question “What is Society 5.0?” has been mostly explored in this section of the

(2) literature review. Consequently, in the following section, the (3) methodology sets the foundation

for briefly revaluating this question using empirical research. However, a stronger focus will be put on

the remaining question “To what extent can Society 5.0 be applied outside of Japan, in particular in

Germany?

30

3. METHODOLOGYIn the following section of the research report, the methodological approach of the direct

research conducted is described and reasoned. This includes six academic building blocks and chapters:

(3.1) research design, (3.2) research sample, (3.3) data collection and (3.4) data analysis, (3.5) ethical

considerations, and lastly (3.6) limitations. The overall section ends with a concluding paragraph which

summarises the key points of this research section.

3.1 Research DesignGenerally, research methods can be broadly divided into two categories, quantitative and qualitative

research. A quantitative research aims to isolate specific elements and utilises statistical correlations

and numbers to measure and analyse causal relationships between variables (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998).

In contrast to a quantitative research design, qualitative methodology attempts to be interdisciplinary.

Which means to combine knowledge from various academic fields, such as sociology, technology and

economics. Qualitative research is rather interpretative (Brennen, 2013), and aims to provide an in-

depth and interpreted understanding of the social world (Ormston, Spencer, Barnard, & Snape, 2014).

In the words of Kvale (1996), “the subject matter of qualitative research is not objective data to be

quantified, but meaningful relations to be interpreted”. On the one hand, this makes qualitative methods

generally more subjective than quantitative methods. On the other hand, it more easily allows for a

multi-perspective view on a particular subject matter.

This important fact, as well as the lack of quantitative, structured data led to the decision to

investigate the stated research question using a qualitative research design. Moreover, an exploratory

approach has been aligned with the corporate’s requirements to add academic value to the field of digital

sociology by investigating the broad, contextual background of Society 5.0, to generate expertise, and

to serve as pioneering baseline for further, more specific studies and recommendations in the future in

order to address the lack of knowledge and initiate the discussion. A quantitative research approach

would not be able to provide this broad and interdisciplinary overview. Qualitative research is more

suitable to come up with adequate questions and enables the researcher to better reflect on the contextual

nuances of each participant’s experience and perception (Gill & Johnson, 2002). This is more suitable

to understand complex issues and allows participants to give more insights about their knowledge,

beliefs and feelings (Lewis & McNaughton Nicholls, 2014).

Thus, the research conducted interviews to answer the main research question at hand: “What

is Society 5.0 and to what extent can it be applied outside of Japan, in particular in Germany?” Generally,

an interplay between the extensive (2) literature review, in section two, as well as the qualitative (3)

methodology has been used to address the defined research gap. “What is Society 5.0?” has been fully

explored in the literature review. Consequently, the remaining question is “To what extent can Society

5.0 be applied outside of Japan, in particular in Germany? Additional sub-questions are: “How to build

social acceptance of Society 5.0?” and “What role do cultural differences play in realising Society 5.0?”

During the interview process, various other questions have been discussed that relate to the main

questions. For instance: “What are the opportunities, challenges and risks?” or “What role is media

playing in realising Society 5.0?”

31

Due to the exploratory nature of the study, the research did not extrapolate any hypotheses or

prior assumptions beforehand. Lastly, there are three basic types of qualitative interviews: structured,

semi-structured, as well as unstructured open-ended conversations (Brennen, 2013; Matthews & Ross,

2010). The data of this research was collected through semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured

approach of the interviews facilitated an exploratory conversation and nurtured an open discussion. It

allowed to ask further questions and to ask for clarifications when necessary, while the structured

component of it let the researcher maintain a certain framework and better identify commonalities

(Gillham, 2005). Furthermore, it allowed the interviewer to ensure all topics were covered in all

interviews and thus enabled better comparison.

3.2 Research SampleLooking firstly at the recruitment strategy, a series of interviews has been conducted with digital

experts on this subject matter in order to benefit from their in-depth knowledge and to help answering

the research question. They were partly researched online and further selected through convenience and

snowball sampling (Matthews & Ross, 2010). The choice for convenience and snowball sampling was

made due to the challenge of getting access to this target group, in particular outside of SAP SE. This

caused the sample to consist predominantly of SAP SE employees. Overall, it was challenging to

identify experts during the recruitment process, as the topic is quite unknown outside of Japan. Since

there are hardly any digital pundits with specific expertise in Society 5.0 within academia, public sector

and industry, the scope of expertise was extended to the fields of Industry 4.0, AI, digital government,

digital sociology, privacy, cybersecurity, digital policies, and technology. These are all important

concepts collaboratively defining Society 5.0. Due to the exploratory approach, the research targeted to

conduct five to 15 interviews in order uncover a variety of opinions. This range was aligned with the

academic supervisor and depended on the sample quality. A too large sample size risked having

repetitive data looking at the homogeneous expert group. During the recruitment process German and

Japanese experts were prioritised with the intention that they can best assess the concept of Society 5.0

and its applicability in Germany. Eventually, 26 approachable experts were globally identified within

those fields and contacted by email and LinkedIn. Six accepted, six declined and the majority did not

respond. The final sample consisted of four participants from SAP SE and two interviewees outside of

SAP SE, in total six people. Two participants originated from Japan, three from Germany, and one from

Australia.

Secondly, in order to provide more context to the participants that were part of the study, the

six interviewees are briefly described in the following. (1) Julia Schütze, is a German project manager

for international cyber security policy at the German think tank “Stiftung Neue Verantwortung“. She is

also regarded as an expert about Japan within her organisation. (2) Fabian Biegel is a German chief

consultant in government affairs at SAP SE and an expert in AI and Industry 4.0. His German colleague

(3) Noemi (anonymised), is working within the same department as a senior consultant in government

affairs as well. Another SAP SE employed participant is (4) Ryan van Leent. He is based in Australia

and working within the Global Public Sector department as an expert in digital government. He has

briefly engaged with the concept “Society 5.0” a few years ago. The final SAP SE interviewee is (5)

32

Hiromi Yokoyama, a Japanese-based value advisor within the public sector industry and involved in

the SAP Institute for Digital Government (SIDG). Finally, (6) Takeo (anonymised) was part of the

sampling group. He is a Japanese researcher in the fields of Industry 4.0 and technological innovations

at a Japanese multinational conglomerate company.

3.3 Data CollectionDue to the corona crisis, the research had to be conducted virtually. Thus, the research utilised

Microsoft Teams as a virtual meeting platform to conduct and record the interviews. Instead of audio

calling, the method of video calling was chosen to facilitate social bonding and to enhance the social

interaction between interviewer and interviewees. As most participants are SAP employees, it is worth

noticing that SAP’s open-minded culture facilitates the usage of video calling and participatory

engagement in team meetings. All participants agreed to conduct the interview in English to allow a

common language that is equal for all interviews. Each interview took about one hour. Next to the

consent form (Appendix A) all interviewees received a short research outline that explained the research

objective and included a list of predetermined questions (Appendix B). This was sent a few days in

advance to allow preparation. However, some questions changed during the formative interview process.

This enabled the researcher to revise questions and to improve the focus of the conversation. A

categorised list of questions was made (Appendix C), which served as a checklist of discussed topics.

The researcher followed the order of the list, but the actual course of the interview was determined by

where the participants directed the conversation towards. This as well as the time frame of maximum

one hour led to different conversations and not all questions were covered and discussed equally in the

interviews. To guarantee that the experts would talk about their experiences, attitudes and expertise in

their own words and to make sure what the participants said was understood clearly, open probing

questions were asked (Matthews & Ross, 2010).

3.4 Data AnalysisThe transcripts were automatically transcribed by advanced transcription software in order to

save time. Afterwards, they were manually edited. To analyse the transcripts, a thematic analysis has

been utilised, which allowed for a systematic interpretation considering patterns and differences, and

gave a good overview of what the interviewees have said about the various topics (Spencer, Ritchie,

O’Connor, Morrell, & Ormston, 2014).

3.5 Ethical ConsiderationsThe research was executed according to the European General Data Protection Regulation

(GDPR). In the consent form, all interviewees had the possibility to choose between various reference

options for how to be cited in the research report. They could choose, whether their name, their job role

and, or their employer name must be anonymised. Most of the experts have given consent to be cited

with their full names. However, due to privacy considerations the names of some participants have been

anonymised through a random name generator. Moreover, at the beginning of the interview and before

33

the recording started, the interviewee could ask any questions. They were also made aware, that they

could skip questions if they don’t know anything about the question content or if they feel

uncomfortable to talk about it. In addition, they were also informed about the fact that the research

utilises advanced transcription software for the recordings.

3.6 LimitationsThis study is also subject to various limitations. In the words of Price & Murnan (2004),

research limitations are defined as specific constraints or unanticipated challenges that emerge during

the study which impact or influence the interpretation of the findings from the research. Those

constraints and challenges are results of what methodology and research design have been selected to

conduct the study (Price & Murnan, 2004).

The first limitation has to do with the examined literature in the research. The literature review

is quite extensive and in-depth which increases the exploratory statistical power. It was necessary in

order to understand the overall contextual background and is a strength of this study. Yet, not all sources

that are incorporated in this research might be peer-reviewed. However, the large majority consists of

peer-reviewed, academic journals.

The second limitation is the relatively small sample size that is close to the minimum level of

the targeted size. A small sample size has predominantly less statistical power than a larger sample size.

One of the challenges to further increase the sample size and scheduling more expert interviews was

caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. A highly interested and renowned scholar in data ethics declined

because of being too busy due to the crisis but would prefer to stay in touch about the topic. Another

potential candidate reasoned the declining response with the overwhelming number of virtual meetings

and activities due to the ongoing crisis. Most candidates did not respond which might be due to the

crisis as well. To reduce the effect of the unprecedented situation the focus of the sampling technique

was further shifted to convenience and snowball sampling which resulted in a stronger sense of support

and participation.

Thirdly, another limitation to discuss, is related to the sampling technique. The snowball and

convenience sampling created a situation in which the researcher personally knew some interviewees

beforehand or knew somebody close to them, which could have influenced the interviewees answers.

To mitigate this, the researcher avoided to interview close colleagues, experts and friends. Eventually,

the researcher remotely only knew one out of six participants beforehand.

Fourthly, due to the sampling technique most participants are employed at the same company.

Thus, most interviewees have an industry background and no participant from academia was

interviewed. The closest academic linkage can be referred to the researcher from a Japanese

multinational conglomerate company. This might cause a limitation in terms of a lack of variety and

can lead to one-sided experiences and perceptions about the topic. Thus, many interview findings are

identical to the degree that although most participants identified some concerns, they expressed an open-

minded attitude towards technology and the realisation of Society 5.0. On the contrary, expertise in

technologies often goes hand in hand with enthusiasm and positive openness towards them. But the

outcomes may have differed when interviewing respondents with different backgrounds such as from

34

academia, public sector and industry from diverse companies.

Fifthly, the strong representation of industry might consequently lead to a conflict of interest

limitation as most participants work at technology companies which profit from facilitating digital

transformation and increased digital growth. Yet, the collected interview data strongly accentuates the

challenges and risks involved in technologies. Some participants even revealed aspects of their lives or

profession that undermine the abovementioned bias. Nevertheless, in order to be aware of this limitation

and embed it into the discussion, nearly all participants were asked to critically assess their own degree

of bias in terms of evaluating Society 5.0 at the end of the interview.

Sixthly, another limiting factor, and a further potential reason for the abovementioned small

sample size, might be the general lack of knowledge and digital experts about the recent concept

“Society 5.0”. For instance, a professor in digital cultures and social sciences declined due to not

knowing much about this topic and a German government authority declined due to not being involved

in Society 5.0 at all. Even though all selected participants demonstrate a strong background in advanced

technologies and were acquainted with the concept “Society 5.0”, they were not designated experts in

Society 5.0 per se. This might also reflect on the interview data and in the findings of the research. On

the other hand, this study might eventually increase awareness and thus facilitate expertise development

among participants as well as readers. Moreover, to answer the research question, proficiency about the

technological, social and cultural background of Germany was just as essential as expertise in Society

5.0. Nonetheless, the researcher attempted to reduce the abovementioned limitation by expanding the

scope of expertise to the fields of Industry 4.0, AI, digital government, digital sociology, privacy,

cybersecurity, digital policies, and technology. And further by sending a manuscript to all participants,

including pre-determined questions and literature about Society 5.0 for possible preparation in advance.

In addition to that, a set of short definitions of technical terms was prepared to briefly explain during

the interview if necessary.

The seventh limitation to take into consideration has to do with the fact that the interviews were

recorded. This might have impacted the response of the participants. Although there are still no clear

answers if recordings have a significant impact on the quality of the obtained data, some scholars argue

that participants might become less comfortable and more formal in their answers when being recorded,

as reported by Al-Yateem (2012). To mitigate this effect, as aforementioned, all interviewees have

received a short manuscript that explained the research objective and included a list of predetermined

questions a few days in advance in order to allow for preparation and making them feel more

comfortable with the topic and what to expect. Some interviewees even demanded it in advance.

Furthermore, the video camera of the interviewer and the interviewee was turned on in order to allow

better social bonding and interaction. However, all participants were told beforehand that for the

analysis of the data, the video track will be cut out and disregarded in order to make them feel more

comfortable and less concerned about the video recording.

Eighthly, all but one participant were non-native English speakers. The degree of English

fluency varied among the interviewees. Thus, the impact of language barrier might be another limiting

aspect to take into account. This may have influenced the ability of the respondents to express

themselves freely and to be understood clearly by the interviewer. In order to reduce this effect, the

researcher made sure to speak slowly and clearly while taking use of echo questions to reconfirm the

35

answers. Also, one participant sent predetermined answers before the interview to mitigate any potential

language barriers during the interview. Furthermore, foreign accents complicated the process of

automatic transcription and subsequently lead to minor transcription errors. To avoid this, the

transcription process was revised and partly edited manually by the researcher.

Lastly, the final limitation conveys a potential confirmation bias of the researcher during the

study. The researcher also has a background in various technology companies with a strong interest in

technological advancement. As aforementioned, the nature of qualitative research is rather subjective.

The researcher might have had the tendency to become too subjectively immersed, for example too

“positive”, in the subject matter when interpreting the results. To reduce the effect of confirmation bias,

the researcher was aware of this potential bias and aimed to maintain an academically objective and

critical perspective about the data and the full research at hand.

To summarise the section (3) methodology, this section predominantly assessed the different

research methods and explained the chosen qualitative research design. Semi-structured interviews were

conducted with six digital experts, who were mostly identified through convenience and snowball

sampling. The interview data was transcribed and analysed by means of a thematic analysis.

Furthermore, the research was executed according to the European General Data Protection Regulation

(GDPR). The major limitations are confined to a relatively small sample size due to the impact of the

COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of experts, a potential conflict of interest among some participants, as

well as the researcher being vulnerable to confirmation bias. The study actively attempted to mitigate

these limitations if possible.

36

4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONIn this section the research presents and interprets the explanatory findings which were

extracted from the interview data and combines it with some key results of the literature review.

Furthermore, the exploratory discussion with detailed reflections and explanations is embedded into the

findings. This makes it easier to directly discuss, interpret and explain the various results of the study

while relating them to the scientific concepts and discoveries from the literature review. Through

thematic analysis the following four categories have been identified: (1) perception and comparison,

(2) opportunities, challenges and risks, (3) realisation and applicability, and lastly, (4) social acceptance,

media and cultural differences. Each of them is further divided into multiple sub-chapters. Certain new,

yet minor, literature elements and methods, such as SWOT analysis, are introduced in order to better

analyse the findings. Across all four theme categories, not only the SWOT analysis collects strength,

weaknesses, threats and opportunities of the concept “Society 5.0”, but also Germany-specific

application “Enablers” and application “Disablers” are identified in order to be finally integrated in the

(5) conclusion.

4.1 Perception and Comparison

4.1.1 Society 5.0 and Its PerceptionLooking at the interviews at hand, all participants show strong sympathy and interest towards

Society 5.0, but there are reasonable doubts as well. Hiromi thinks that one of the best parts is the

possibility to achieve economic growth even in a society with a shrinking and ageing population. This

is particularly important from a Japanese perspective, which is the first industrial country to face

demographic ageing and population decline (Heller, 2016). It is a new challenge to the modern society,

according to Sackmann & Jonda (2015). According to the findings from the literature review, Japan is

facing extremely strong fiscal challenges due to its ageing population and low productivity output and

time is running out in Japan (Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-c). Hiromi explains the centre is

the awareness of the social issue and the value technology can provide to society. According to Hiromi,

the use of advanced technology itself is not a goal, but “advanced technology is a means to achieve a

goal”. This is similar to Ryan’s impression: “It’s about enabling technology for the good of society” in

order to improve people’s lives. He adds: “I really like the concept”, it is a more holistic approach. Also,

for Noemi Society 5.0 triggers positive emotion since it reflects on a wider number of groups in society

and seems more inclusive. But she has observed that the Japanese experts are “trying to analyse

sociological challenges with an engineering lens”. Which makes the implementation seem less inclusive

than the idea behind it, according to Noemi. However, a broader perspective and diverse people from

different academic fields are required to solve societal challenges. Yet, she thinks it can be resolved in

the process. Furthermore, she believes it is very ambitious. This is congruent with Takeo’s perception

who thinks the concept is still far from the current state. He claims: “I think the Japanese government

should know more details about our current realistic problem”. Takeo also suggests that Industry 4.0 is

perhaps the better, more detailed and focused model, particularly in manufacturing and he first thought

that the concept of Society 5.0 is too late since Germany’s Industry 4.0 already exists. Takeo’s comment

might link to the long tradition and expectation of Japan being the Asian “lead goose”, as explored by

the flying geese hypothesis in the literature review (Önday, 2019). Regardless of an underlying

37

competition, the technological race should facilitate societal advancement and prosperity for humankind

in a good way. The abovementioned two-sided doubts are also reflected in Fabian’s opinion about the

vision. He suggests technology should not sneak into people’s lives and take over roles it’s not supposed

to have. On the other hand, he evaluates Society 5.0 as a very positive and tempting idea to use

technology to improve people’s lives. He is convinced it is possible that technology can improve our

lives, yet it is an ethical question whether or to what degree it should do so. Finally, Noemi claims that

in the policy world you need to be ambitious and “come up with disruptive ideas that maybe seem a bit

crazy today”. Only if you continue to work on those ideas, they will normalise, and people will get used

to it. Her remark is congruent with the notion of an iterative process when establishing a new system.

According to Kemp et al. (2006), designing a new system begins with a holistic yet fuzzy and often

vague vision, which then gradually progresses over time to more detail and clarity.

The findings in this discussion lead to the conclusion that, people view the benefits of Society

5.0 from different angels based on their national situation. This can be the perspective of a strong

economic benefit, which might be more prevalent in Japan due to its fiscal challenges, as articulated

through Hiromi. Or this can be the viewpoint of social benefits with focus on societal inclusion and

improving people’s lives, as expressed through Noemi and Fabian from Germany. Since the general

perception about Society 5.0 of all experts interviewed is rather positive, the key difference emerges in

the societal challenges the concept aims solving and whether this is precisely analysed in a differential

manner.

To summarise this sub-chapter, the Japanese concept mainly triggers positive emotions

accompanied by some doubts. Naturally, the vision begins vague, and the beneficial perspectives might

be viewed differently from various nations, such as a rather economic perspective in Japan compared

to a potentially more socially inclusive angle in Germany. The concept of Society 5.0 is only as “good”

as it solves the underlying societal challenges in a sustainable way.

4.1.2 Society 5.0 Compared to Industry 4.0At first the research identifies the similarities and differences between Society 5.0 and Industry

4.0. When comparing Society 5.0 to Industry 4.0 nearly all participants agree that both concepts are

driven by digitisation and automation. Ryan says: “I think that many of the technology capabilities and

its core are similar.” Both concepts are cyber-physical systems and are based on the same technological

trends such as AI and IoT. However, companies that follow an Industry 4.0 agenda focus on making

profit in a B2B or B2C context, whereas Society 5.0 is directly related to the citizens and people. It does

not only focus on industry, is much more encompassing and has a societal focus that tackles social

problems. It aims to create an enjoyable life for people. In the words of Noemi: “that’s a very emotional

term, in contrast to the literature you see on Industry 4.0”.

Interestingly, Fabian states it is questionable whether you can compare both concepts. He

argues: “An IoT system that helps you to improve your production line, I don’t know whether you can

compare that directly to anything people do. […] The legal framework is very different.” There is a

clear difference in the field of application. But overall, “Society 5.0 includes Industry 4.0”, according

to Takeo. The findings are consistent with Arsovski (2019) explanation that Japan’s concept of Society

5.0 includes Germany’s “Industry 4.0” vision. Society 5.0 is based on Industry 4.0. But it has more

38

focus on social benefits as it is not purely limited to industries. A journal authored by Serpa & Ferreira

(2018) even claims that Industry 4.0 is too focused on economic aspects. According to the journal,

social and technological innovation positively affect each other and should not be isolated. Thus,

businesses who offer societal benefits as well as economic and technological progress will succeed

(Serpa & Ferreira, 2018). Interestingly, the vision of SAP SE, (n.d.) to “help the world run better and

improve people’s lives” is emotionally well-aligned with the goal of Society 5.0. This links to Noemi’s

comment on the much more emotive connotation of the Japanese vision compared to Industry 4.0.

Although companies primarily focus on making profit, from the perspective of the discussion above,

Society 5.0 might be the more promising and better fitting concept for businesses to adhere to. In its

essence, the Japanese vision fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration between government, industry and

academia (Council for Science Technology and Innovation, 2016; Keidanren, 2016) with a fundamental

focus on people in a human-centred Society 5.0 (Keidanren, n.d.). It thus, differs from the concept of

Industry 4.0. in terms of its broader focus. It can be stated that the concept of Industry 4.0 serves as a

differentiated and focused sub-level concept for the industry, in particular in production, and feeds into

the broader vision of Society 5.0. On the other hand, this reveals that more differentiated sub-levels are

needed to further detail out the concept of Society 5.0. This links to Japan’s idea to promote the

development of a common platform called “Society 5.0 Service Platform”, which includes standardised

data and connects various systems (Council for Science Technology and Innovation, 2016). The

platform could manage and connect the differing sub-levels, such as Industry 4.0. Developing the

“Society 5.0 Service Platform” might be an opportunity for SAP SE.

To sum up this sub-chapter, Society 5.0 includes Industry 4.0, but there is a clear difference in

the field of application. The Japanese vision does not only focus on industry, it is much more

encompassing and has a societal focus that tackles social problems with a fundamental focus on people.

Eventually, it might be the more promising and better fitting concept for businesses, such as SAP SE,

to adhere to. Industry 4.0 may serve as a differentiated sub-level concept of Society 5.0 which leads to

the suggestion that more differentiated sub-level concepts are needed to further detail out the broader

vision of Society 5.0. This could be managed and connected through the “Society 5.0 Service Platform”.

Developing this platform might be an opportunity for SAP SE.

4.1.3 Society 5.0 and HappinessIn this part of the findings the research investigates the degree of happiness and enjoyment in

Society 5.0. Julia and Noemi both think that Society 5.0 has the potential to increase enjoyment and

happiness in life. But there is scepticism. “If it’s connecting us more with the things that are important

to us. […] And if it makes our lives easier”, then Julia expects the Japanese vision to increase happiness

and enjoyment in life. The examined literature shows that about 36% of Japanese respondents believe

that Society 5.0 will improve the QoL in Japan (NISTEP, 2019b). There is a relatively high amount of

trust in Society 5.0 when considering that 38% of firms expect the Japanese economy to decline within

the next year (Schürmann & Glunz, 2019) and that Japan is currently one of the most distrusting and

pessimistic countries in the world (Ries & Bersoff, 2019).

On the contrary, Fabian suggests that enjoyment and happiness will not be much higher in

Society 5.0 than now. He links his estimation on the psychological effect of humans adapting to changes

39

and getting used to the new norm. “If I give you a 100,000 Euros right now, you will have that moment

of happiness, but at least after a year you get used to it and it decreases.” Similar to Julia’s prediction,

Noemi also believes that there is definitely potential for increased happiness, yet “that is not done by

machines. But by the way machines enable us to connect more as humans.” This outlook resonates well

with Keidanren (n.d.) fundamental focus on people in a human-centred Society 5.0 and the significance

of real human interactions and empathy which cannot be replaced by AI.

The discussion touches upon the work of renowned sociologist Ruut Veenhoven who

investigated QoL and happiness in societies. According to Veenhoven (2010) the positive or optimistic

view argues humans live better now than earlier generations, while the negative or pessimistic view

believes that life is getting worse. The negative view is particularly represented by many renowned

social theorists such as Marx, Braverman, Durkheim and Freud. Also, the media tends to highlight a

negative view on this matter. However, Veenhoven developed a matrix (Figure 8) that measures the

concept of QoL in society, which is analogous to the concept of biology (Figure 9). And although

scholars will probably never know how happy people truly were in the past since survey research is a

recent invention, he found scientific evidence for humans living longer, healthier and happier now than

ever before (Figure 10), mainly as result of a reduction in the number of very unhappy people in the

population. Hence, there are good reasons to believe that this trend will continue in the near future,

according to Veenhoven (2010). Accordingly, the transition from undeveloped countries to developed

nations might have the greatest impact on reducing the amount of very unhappy people. And perhaps

not necessarily the shift from developed countries to Society 5.0. In fact, Veenhoven’s (2010) findings

even show that the degree of happy years lived decreased in the technologically highly advanced Japan

during the lost decades (Figure 1), and furthermore, advancement does not always count for happiness

since people in the agricultural age were significantly unhappier than in the hunter-gatherer or industrial

age (Figure 10). This might indicate that technological advancement alone is not necessarily the holy

grail of happiness. It might be rather linked to the overall economic situation.

To conclude this sub-chapter, there are good reasons to believe that Society 5.0 will increase

happiness for more people, if done right, due to less unhappy people. Yet, technology is not the holy

grail of happiness and reasonable scepticism remains strong as people get used to changes and accept

it as new “normal”. Overall, the quite pessimistic Japanese nation is rather optimistic about Society 5.0

improving QoL.

4.2 Opportunities, Challenges and Risks

4.2.1 Society 5.0 and Its OpportunitiesBesides the possibility of increased happiness in Society 5.0, the interview data reveals several

opportunities. One would be Julia’s wish of better understanding each other. Julia refers to the idea that

language would not be a barrier anymore. In a farsighted scenario, the idea could link to the notion of

a synergistic interconnection between human abilities and AI capabilities, where humans explore and

enhance their own abilities, such as language, combined with abilities of AI. According to Keidanren,

(n.d.) it is called the “Internet of Abilities” (IoA). In Ryan’s words the main opportunity of Society 5.0

is that it could guide, coordinate and accelerate human’s transition into the future. Making it more

40

deliberate with less uncertain outcomes, for instance in terms of privacy. He argues: “There’s fewer

unintended consequences as a result of having a meta plan.” This opportunity clearly relates to the intent

of the Japanese business federation. The evolutionary path of digital transformation is inevitable, but

the vision of Society 5.0 gives the opportunity to indicate direction and to co-create the future which

cannot be accomplished by one nation or one company (Fukuyama, 2018; Keidanren, n.d.). Finally,

Fabian further emphasises that it’s inevitable that technology will lead us to some kind of new

generation of society. “You can’t stop AI. If Germany, France or Japan is not doing it, then the US will

do it or South Korea. […] It’s not country specific at all.” According to him the important question is

how do you control and manage that change in a way that it helps people rather than to put them at risk?

It makes sense to believe that a well-established framework, concept, vision, “meta-plan” such as

Society 5.0 is the best way to steer the inevitable path of digital evolution into the right direction.

Ryan further envisions that the Japanese concept could make us more appreciative of multi-

culturalism and different perspectives with a better sense of being part of a global community. The

opportunity for globalisation, in particular in Japan, is highlighted by Hiromi as well. The literature

review revealed that Japan has a long tradition of not cultivating ethnical diversity (CIA Factbook, n.d.;

Desvaux et al., 2015). However, further literature showed that companies that are more diverse are

usually more successful (Hewlett et al., 2013; Nathan & Lee, 2013). This is identical with SAP’s mantra

of cultivating diversity as an important source of innovation (Kagermann & Nonaka, 2019; Uchida &

Fukuda, 2019). For instance, people with autism have outstanding skills which significantly contribute

to software development. Such as extraordinary skills to recognise patterns and irregularities, analytical

and logical thinking, and remarkable focus. SAP SE has developed a model called “Autism at Work

Program” (Kagermann & Nonaka, 2019). This is comparable to Noemi’s believe that “societies that are

more diverse are usually also more successful and then everyone is better off.” The impact of diversity

is bilateral. On the one hand it can lead to more challenges and it is harder to find common ground since

people are different. Yet, on the other hand, if treated right, diverse perspectives from diverse people

with diverse mindsets and cultures, offer a wider range of tackling a problem with a broader and more

diverse spectrum of possible solutions and innovations. Which leads to unity in diversity. This aligns

with Rosado's (1997) opinion that the apparent solution for various challenges in this world is a balanced

tension of unity in diversity. Respecting diversity while working for unity.

One way of facilitating diversity is through embracing open-mindedness towards external

cultural values, for instance brought by immigrants. There are historical similarities as well. Rabie

(2016, p. 11) claims that “cultures that viewed external forces as challenges and opportunities were able

to change faster and make more progress”. In contrast, cultures that viewed external challenges as

threats to be avoided were ill-equipped to adapt. It seems apparent, that the Japanese aversion of

diversity in its workforce, through a lack of women and migrants, is also partly responsible for the

country’s economic downturn in the last decades. Japan could not cushion its ageing population. Other

industrial countries seem to be better equipped. Furthermore, Japan has not seen the payoffs in terms of

productivity and growth that would be expected from their heavy R&D investments (Desvaux et al.,

2015). This also might lead to the conclusion that Japan lacks innovation driven by diversity. However,

since diversity is a key aspect of Society 5.0, there is paradoxical tension between the essence of Society

5.0 and one of the least diverse nations in the world. In comparison to Germany, with its diverse

41

workforce which serves as a clear enabler. Thus, Society 5.0 wants to liberate humans from uniformity

and suppression of individuality. Japan aims to transform into a society where diverse people will

exercise diverse abilities to pursue diverse values regardless of gender, race or nationality (Keidanren,

n.d.).

The above described opportunity of embracing multi-culturalism and diversity in Society 5.0,

not only leads to apparent economic growth, but also encourages the inclusion of different social groups.

Noemi sees a true chance in better social inclusion, since everyone would be connected and hopefully

not left behind, such as including the elderly. She hopes Society 5.0 “increases social chances and

creates a fairer playing field for people from different socio-economic backgrounds.” In fact, according

to Takeo: “The concept of Society 5.0 in my opinion solves the digital divide, because humans, ordinary

people, don’t need any digital skills.” He as well as Hiromi think that the digital divide is not a large

issue in Japan anymore. Hiromi adds: “In the past, the digital divide was a huge problem. […] ten years

ago, the government was very concerned about it.” However, since smartphones and the Internet have

become widespread it no longer is a major concern in Japan. Hiromi shares how her 75 years old mother

is using smart home assistance to switch the lights on or off but struggled with using a traditional

keyboard before. Indeed, the literature states that Japan has a world-class digital infrastructure. The

internet penetration already surpassed 86% in 2013 and Japan has one of the fastest connection speeds

in the world (Desvaux et al., 2015). However, countries that do not have the same digital infrastructure

might struggle more with solving the digital divide. For instance, Germany is falling behind on digital

transformation, according to the Sustainable Governance Indicators, (n.d.-a). This might further explain

the aforementioned more social inclusive angle of Society 5.0 in Germany with a concern of not leaving

any social group behind through the digital divide.

To sum up, Society 5.0 could help humans to understand each other better, for instance through

IoA. It manages and co-creates the inevitable future by coordinating a more deliberate transition into

the future with less uncertain outcomes. There is an opportunity to better appreciate global

multiculturalism through unity in diversity, while Society 5.0 fosters economic growth and social

inclusion by potentially overcoming the digital divide, if right digital infrastructure is given.

4.2.2 Society 5.0 and Its Challenges and RisksLikewise, to opportunities, the study also determines the challenges and risks of Society 5.0. In

fact, there is a risk that Society 5.0 is seen as a mere problem-solver, according to Noemi. Yet, it is

imperative to think about the consequences of digitisation in certain fields. The same applies to Industry

4.0. Consequently, all participants have expressed various concerns about challenges and risks on the

potential road to Society 5.0. A commonly named issue is cybersecurity. Hiromi and Julia both stress

the very high cybersecurity risks. Julia adds: “Most of the attacks that Japan is seeing is on the Internet

of Things.” Next to cybersecurity, privacy is a major issue. Regulations like GDPR need to ensure that

privacy is well handled, according to Ryan and Hiromi. The literature found that in the context of

Society 5.0 the Japanese people are quite anxious about privacy and cyber-attacks as well (NISTEP,

2019a). Also, other reports illuminate extreme concerns and barriers in cybersecurity and privacy

(Atkins et al., 2020; Serpa & Ferreira, 2018). According to Gladden (2019, p. 3), “cyberattacks might

have direct and catastrophic effects on people’s lives”. Both challenges are referred to as contextual

42

barriers from an institutional perspective, according to Falco & Kleinhans (2018).

Although there are undeniably high concerns about cybersecurity and privacy in Society 5.0,

they are hardly covered in the official documents of the Japanese Government that were examined in

this research. The closest linkage to cybersecurity is found in a manuscript by the Cabinet Public

Relations Office (n.d.-b) stating: “Blockchain technology will reduce time and costs while ensuring

safety for global business transactions.” The Japanese business federation highlights cybersecurity

aspects slightly more detailed. They speak of freeing humans from anxiety about cyber-attacks

(Keidanren, n.d.), and breaking down the third wall of technologies which includes R&D in

cybersecurity. Protecting personal data is not mentioned at all. There seems to be a misalignment

between the priorities of the government and the citizens. Compared to the German concept Industry

4.0, where cybersecurity plays an important role, cybersecurity concerns should be equally treated in

Society 5.0. Yet, the privacy issue is more amplified in Society 5.0.

Besides the already discussed personal data concerns, Noemi predicts a risk about an

established data elite. “There's a risk that there will be a certain elite who controls most of the data flows

and data storage systems.” She speaks about a shift of power to organisations that were not

democratically elected. For example, a certain group of technology companies or governments with

access to vast amounts of data. According to her, decentralised data strategies and a diversified data

landscape with different data storage systems from diverse companies will be significant. The

International Data Spaces Association (IDSA) is working on such prototypes in Germany, as reported

by Noemi. Not well-established regulations of power over data and of data privacy might lead to bad

consequences and ethical issues. For instance, in predictive policing. Julia explains that “you might be

flagged as someone who has done something, but you haven't. […] You shouldn't be judged unless you

actually committed a crime”. Yet, predictive policing is deemed to be more commonly utilised in

surveillance states such as China than in Germany or Japan.

As aforementioned Society 5.0 might solve the digital divide. But some countries might

struggle more with the digital divide than Japan. According to Noemi and Ryan, the digital divide is a

true challenge for Society 5.0. In fact, Ryan claims: “Depending on how you implement Society 5.0,

AI and IoT the digital divide might be exacerbated by Society 5.0.” He clearly adds that it is the role of

the government to avoid it. As previously discussed, Japan seems less concerned about the digital divide

and has a strong digital infrastructure. However, Noemi argues the digital divide does not only relate to

having fast internet access. It also relates to acquiring digital skills and digital media literacy,

particularly in a world surrounded by misinformation. Digital literacy and digital access go hand in

hand. Yet, a strong digital infrastructure seems to be the basis, which Germany is lacking compared to

Japan. Overall, there is tension and disagreement whether Society 5.0 increases or decreases the digital

divide. Most likely a too fast realisation of Society 5.0 increases the digital divide, whereas a gradual

step by step process decreases it. That gives people time to adapt. Opposed to the lack of digital access,

there is also the risk of too much digital contact leading to digital fatigue in Society 5.0. Ryan says:

“We can experience already during the corona crisis isolation time, that people are feeling a lot of digital

fatigue, because digital engagement is just constant.” People start putting their digital devices away or

leave them at home. There might be long-term ramifications regarding excessive exposure of digital

devices and digital fatigue which need to be researched and discussed. Society 5.0 must find a good

43

balance between digital illiteracy and digital fatigue.

In addition to digital fatigue there might be further negative implications. Takeo argues that the

emotional interaction between robots and humans is very important and a big challenge. He states: “Too

strong robot support for humans lacks the opportunity for humans’ capabilities to grow. We need to

grow both sides, human and robot. We need to carefully discuss this.” This clinical brain science

phenomenon is referred to as “Learned Non-Use” in several case studies Kagermann & Nonaka (2019).

The possible excessive use and aid of advanced technologies, such as AI and robot technology, might

lead to a decline in human abilities, a lack of growth opportunities for workers and ultimately in lower

motivation. Humans might become comfortable that they do not need to learn or do a specific skill

anymore. Based on the scientific model, this can lead to a vicious cycle of decline in human skills and

might make them incapable of dealing with unexpected issues. Instead, The University of Tokyo

proposes a virtuous cycle (Figure 11) (Hitachi Ltd., n.d.; Kagermann & Nonaka, 2019). Alongside the

potential risk of increasing the gap of the digital divide, Julia further questions to what degree Society

5.0 truly does solve social issues, such as inequality. Instead, it might even increase the gap. She sees a

risk that the Japanese concept cannot benefit everyone. It is specifically difficult to envision the benefit

for blue-collar workers and for industries which can only be digitised to a certain extent, for instance

agriculture. There is a risk of only taking half of the society along. However, Society 5.0 requires the

effort, openness and willingness of the entire society. It cannot be realised in an isolated environment,

according to Fabian. This aligns with Takeo’s belief that social consensus is essential, but not there yet.

Only among specialists in prestigious companies and universities. According to Takeo, ordinary people

might not understand Society 5.0 yet. Based on this discussion, there seems to be a potential paradox

that Society 5.0 might not benefit everyone but requires everyone’s effort to be realised.

Apart from the overshadowing, major privacy and cybersecurity risks, the interview

participants identified further challenges and risks. According to the Cabinet Public Relations Office,

(n.d.-b), Society 5.0 aims to focus on customised services and products for people that need them at the

time they are needed. The world becomes more and more customised. In light of this trend, Julia says:

“I feel like it’s hard to know what you need. I don’t know, if every individual only does the things that

he or she needs. There is a risk that more targeted and customised products and information might lead

to unequal access and the absence of a common knowledge base.” Furthermore, the literature further

identified an increased risk of internet addiction, online video game addiction and smart addiction

(Gladden, 2019). On the other hand, Society 5.0 might facilitate new ways of preventing and treating

addictions. It is a two-way road. Another presumed challenge is that the government goal is very high

and far away from the current situation, as reported by Hiromi and Takeo. Hiromi expects that “it will

take ten years or more to achieve this goal” And because the concept is such a wide meta theme, at the

end of the day it risks ending up meaning everything and nothing. In the words of Ryan, “we need to

put some flesh on the bones” and add some detail to make it real. This could be an opportunity to

develop and incorporate further sub-level concepts as Industry 4.0 which flow into the overarching

vision of Industry 5.0.

In summary, this sub-chapter has given detailed information about potential consequences in

various fields. Foremost, Society 5.0 must solve privacy and cybersecurity issues to gain trust. It risks

increasing the digital divide and inequality and needs to find a good balance between digital illiteracy

44

and digital fatigue or “Learned Non-Use”. Moreover, the wide meta theme might be its own fall and

Society 5.0 needs to add further detailed sub-level concepts such as Industry 4.0.

4.2.3 Technological Singularities as Key RiskApart from the previously identified risks the research further evaluates the notion of a possible

technological singularity. The inspected literature explains the technological singularity as a

controversial idea of a potential rise of uncontrolled machines, where an explosion of AI will surpass

human beings (Petta Gomes da Costa, 2019). The prediction is similar to the notion of transhumanism

where new technology will change or replace the concept of being human (Lockhart, 2019). Ray

Kurzweil predicts the technological singularity to unfold in the early 21st century (Petta Gomes da

Costa, 2019). Some people might perceive the prediction as a high risk and threat. Therefore, they might

develop hostility towards new technologies, such as AI, and subsequently towards Society 5.0.

Almost all interview participants clearly stated that they do not think a general technological

singularity, as predicted by Ray Kurzweil, will happen. Ryan predicts robots, machines and AI to take

over repetitive task and processes with a high degree of automation in society. Or to potentially serve

humans as trusted advisors. For instance, in financial investments or in legal strategies. But he does not

“see it like a blade runner scenario where it becomes very hard to distinguish robots from people”. He

further adds that a total technological singularity requires to “hand over whole complex decision-

making processes to AI across a whole range of topics and domains”, which is unrealistic according to

him. Nevertheless, various interviewees suggest that technological singularity might happen within

specific services and domains, such as in manufacturing. Fabian states: “I think that in a lot of fields

it’s very reasonable.” For instance, machines might create better versions of themselves and might

create other machines. However, jumping from this scenario to “taking over the government and

launching nuclear missiles, I think that is a little far-fetched at this point”, as cited by Ryan. Yet, Fabian

believes that it is realistic that some machines will be out of control to a certain extent. Interestingly, he

argues: “It doesn’t need to be a negative thing. It can also be very positive that it can’t be controlled.”

This is an interesting ethical viewpoint which needs to be further explored and use cases need to be

identified. In fact, to a degree machines might already be out of control, for example in autonomous

driving. Yet, it is a philosophical debate about when machines count as controlled, out of control and

deliberately uncontrolled.

From an academic perspective the aforesaid hypothesis of an impending technological

singularity has been denied by various scholars. Petta Gomes da Costa (2019, p. 128) claims in his

journal of “Nano Ethics: Studies of New and Emerging Technologies” that “the internet, AI and many

other new technologies are, in fact, the result of the last technological singularity. In other words,

technological singularity is not imminent because it has already happened”. He accounts the

abovementioned technologies as derivations of the large-scale automation caused by the industrial

revolution. Based on several characteristics, four major historical advancements have been identified

as technological singularities, according to Petta Gomes da Costa (2019). Firstly, the control and

manipulation of fire. Secondly, mass food production triggered by farming. Thirdly, the ability to pass

on knowledge through writing. And finally, automated mass production caused by the industrial

revolution, which we are still experiencing. Also, other scholars and critics argue that various

45

technological singularities have already occurred several times including fire, the printing press and the

wheel (Lockhart 2019). These “positive” technological singularities are the foundation of human and

societal evolution (Petta Gomes da Costa, 2019). Furthermore, the fear of developmental and

technological change and its impact on society is nothing new and troubled the most intellectual humans.

When writing was introduced into the education of Greece, the renowned philosopher Plato wrote a

dialogue, called “Phaedrus”, criticising this new imported innovation from Egypt. He argued it posed a

threat to the quality of thought and education resulting in devastating ramifications for the future of

Greece (Kemp et al., 2006). In reality, writing turned out to be utmost crucial for the accumulation of

knowledge and the enlightenment and development of humankind.

In summary, technological singularities are the foundation of societal evolution and occurred

multiple times. Moreover, fear of technological change has always accompanied societal evolution.

Overall, it is unlikely that machines and AI will replace humans, yet unpredictable. It might positively

unfold in some realms, which might not be negative. In fact, it seems to be happening already.

4.3 Realisation and Applicability

4.3.1 Society 5.0 and Its Realisation and Current State in JapanThe interview data reveals different opinions on the realisation of Society 5.0 in Japan.

Surprisingly, the Japanese researcher Takeo believes it is not realistic and currently very far away from

the desired future state. According to him, many Japanese factories have poor IT systems or still do

handwork. Handwork might not necessarily contradict digital transformation. In reality, it seems there

is a strong handwork movement that can coexist in a digitised world. In particular, in the consumer

segment of high-quality products in clothing or furniture. Yet, most of the time these are small firms.

And utilising a digital infrastructure on which the handwork business is based on for ecommerce and

supply chain management seems unescapable nowadays. Takeo further adds that Society 5.0 is “just a

concept and has not enough structural approach”. Also, Noemi agrees that Society 5.0 still seems very

theoretical. Perhaps after the COVID-19 pandemic, Japan reaches the realistic stage of Society 4.0 in

IT and it could be used to start talking about Society 5.0, according to Takeo.

Nevertheless, the majority of the participants considers the vision as very applicable and

likely to be realised in Japan. According to Julia, the openness, willingness and the vision are there. In

fact, “they’re pretty determined to do it. And they have actually already started”. She elaborates that

Toyota just announced to build a smart city project outside of Tokyo. It is a 175-acre prototype city

named “Woven City” that was announced at the Consumer Electronics Show in 2020. Construction is

planned to begin in 2021 and nearly 2000 people will start living in it (Toyota Motor Corporation,

2020; Toyota UK, 2020; Toyota Woven City, n.d.). Although it seems obvious that the concept of

Society 5.0 is integrated into the Woven City, oddly the project is publicly not associated with it.

However, both visions seem aligned. Further examined literature shows that various activities have

already begun to accelerate the implementation of Society 5.0 (Fukuyama, 2018). Such as the multi-

stakeholder formation of the Growth Strategy Council (UNESCO, 2019). And according to a survey

conducted by the Germany Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Japan, 11% of surveyed

companies have already begun with research activities in their business regarding Society 5.0

46

(Schürmann & Glunz, 2019) However, when Julia was in Japan, she was surprised by the large

amount of paper stacks and non-digitised processes in Japan’s ministries. It seems contradictive to the

fact that Japan has one of the best digital infrastructures in the world. But this is culturally explained

through a high level of trust in paper in Japan, according to Hiromi. Another signal which shows that

Japan is taking the realisation of Society 5.0 serious, is the governmental “Cloud-by-Default

Principle” which was determined in 2018. Hiromi argues: “Almost all government systems are on-

premise, but the use of the new Cloud-by-Default policy will accelerate the realisation.” On top of

that, Japan is addressing the high risk of cyber-attacks. Society 5.0 “drives anything that they’re doing

in cybersecurity policy”, as stated by Julia. They also consider the aspects of cyber-physical systems

when constructing new buildings for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. For instance, smart fire alarms and

incident response systems inside the buildings. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the 2020 Summer

Olympics are postponed to 2021.

Furthermore, the examined literature reveals national advantages that make the realisation of

Society 5.0 more likely in Japan. For instance, world-class digital infrastructure (Desvaux et al., 2015),

a very rich accumulation of data from a universal high-quality healthcare system (Fukuyama, 2018;

Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-b), and from various manufacturing facilities (Cabinet Public

Relations Office, n.d.-b). The latter contradicts with Takeo’s perception that many Japanese companies

have a poor IT system. The Japanese government might have a different perception or prefers not to

focus on this seeming issue when attempting to rally people behind their vision. Most likely, there are

many manufacturing companies that provide rich data and several that do not. But perhaps with the help

of realising Society 5.0 they will be a more prevalent digital transformation.

Another factor that should promote the determined realisation of Society 5.0 in Japan are the

fiscal issues which force the country to act. The ageing population which threatens the viability of the

Japanese pension-system (Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-d), and the low productivity (Önday,

2019), are highly unsustainable issues that make change inevitable. In fact, these core issues might very

well be the root and the main reason why the Japanese government developed the vision of Society 5.0.

Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, hopes to recover the poor economy by incorporating robotics

technology (Zanni & Rios, 2018). This links to the emphasis on embracing automation in Society 5.0.

The resulting impact on the economy due to the loss of jobs because of automation can be cushioned

by the shrinking labour force and the pursuit of new growth markets (Desvaux et al., 2015). Overall,

the automation in Society 5.0 has a double effect. It replaces humans with machines in low-value tasks

and most likely executes this task in a faster, more efficient and more reliable manner. While at the

same time it frees humans from such jobs and allows them to purely focus on value creation in high-

value tasks. The literature review shows that various initiatives exist to partly fil the labour gap, such

as the continuous employment of elderly (Adachi et al., 2015). In fact, the potential of value creation

through knowledge and experience should rise with age opposed to the drop of physical strength which

forces elderly into early retirement in an age of low-value tasks and physical labour. Thus, particularly

seniors with vast work experience may contribute to value creation when doing high-value tasks in

Society 5.0.

Finally, also Ryan is convinced that the vision of Society 5.0 will be realised. He claims: “I

think that the vision is almost certain to be realised. The question really is when?” A few years after the

47

start of Industry 4.0, PwC researchers predicted that ”the annual volume of investment into digital

technologies within Industry 4.0 will exceed 900 billion US dollars by 2020” (Skobelev & Borovik,

2017, p. 307). It leads to the conclusion that the concept “Industry 4.0” has successfully evolved in the

last decade. This timeframe is similar to Hiromi’s aforementioned prediction that Society 5.0 will take

ten years or more to further evolve or to be achieved. Ryan wonders if digital transformation will

accelerate when labelling it as Society 5.0. In fact, did labelling Industry 4.0 with that common term

accelerate its success? Most likely, Industry 4.0 would have also evolved without labelling it Industry

4.0. Yet, it must have been important to give it a name. Or potentially there would have been other

names instead. Would democracy or the Internet have evolved faster or slower without giving it a name?

It helps to agree on a common terminology as with nearly all things in life. In particular for goal setting.

Overall, it is quite certain that Society 5.0 will be realised in Japan. But the question is when and to

what extent? The country might not even have a choice due to its issues, as time is running out in Japan

(Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-c). And the other urging question is, to what extent can Society

5.0 be realised and applied to countries outside of Japan? This, and in particular the applicability in

Germany, is something the research aims to further unravel.

In summary, Society 5.0 is still very far from the desired situation but almost certain to be

realised in Japan. The question is when and to what extent? Nevertheless, it partly did start already in

certain domains, such as the Government’s “Cloud-By-Default Principle” or Toyota’s “Woven City”.

Japan has various advantages to realise Society 5.0, such as a world-class digital infrastructure and a

very rich accumulation of data. Moreover, the nation seems very determined and may not even have a

choice due to its fiscal misery and ageing population. Automation in Society 5.0 seems to be the only

option in the long run.

4.3.2 Society 5.0 and Its Applicability in GermanyIn this sub-chapter the interview data reveals to what extent Society 5.0 can be applied to other

countries and to Germany. Hiromi and Ryan have a similar opinion on the applicability of Society 5.0

outside of Japan. Hiromi explains: “In Japan, we call it Society 5.0. I think all countries are taking

similar IT measures to varying degrees and follow this trend.” And Ryan argues that governments across

the globe independently might develop similar visions but won’t be branded in the same way.

The studied literature discloses that minor attempts were made to apply Society 5.0 in Italy and

Malaysia (Gladden, 2019). However, it is difficult to define at what point or when a region is defined

as a “Society 5.0”. This is similar to the difficulty of saying what city is smart and which not as there is

no unified measure available for comparing cities and stating how smart a city is (Kopackova &

Komarkova, 2020). Although Japan did not propose concepts including the whole world in the past

(Keidanren, n.d.), it aims to share the concept “Society 5.0” globally and initiate international

collaboration (Önday, 2019). Despite this goal, the presented literature explains that applying Society

5.0 to other countries is more challenging than Industry 4.0 (Gladden, 2019). Industry 4.0 is mainly

economic and technological driven while Society 5.0 is also driven by culture which is harder to adopt.

Most countries share similar economies but differ vastly culturally. An Industry 4.0 driven factory might

be just as efficient in China as in Germany. But Society 5.0 is culturally much more complex and not

as applicable. Ryan says: “I’m not really seeing that in practice outside of Japan” so far. In addition to

48

that, branding Society 5.0 in Germany similar to as in Japan might not have a strong impact on other

nationalities, according to Takeo. Because in Japan the media and other outlets are visualised in a comic

style or displayed through animated cartoons. This also accounts for the official manuscript “Realizing

Society 5.0”, published by the Japanese government (Cabinet Public Relations Office, n.d.-b). This

visualisation style is not very common in Germany.

According to Noemi the vision itself is definitely applicable to other countries. In fact, she

believes that most industrial countries are already transitioning by means of automation and

personalisation. Perhaps not under the same umbrella term. Noemi argues that Germany has the right

structures in place and well-established social partners. However, she believes that the tone of the debate

would differ in Germany. Maybe with a stronger ethical focus than an economic, demographic

perspective. She says: “It’s kind of surprising that Germany didn’t come up with it as a country that

pursues social economy and likes to think of itself as a welfare state.” Her thought underscores the

previously established notion of having different national angles regarding the benefits of Society 5.0.

With Germany perhaps having a stronger focal point on ethics and social benefits. This could even be

an opportunity for Germany. Germany could put a stronger focus on social protection in the field of

cybersecurity and the currently lacking privacy aspects in Society 5.0.

Noemi thinks that Germany also faces a demographic change, but not as intense as Japan.

Consistent with that, Fabian claims that Germany has “a barrier for the adoption of new technologies

for societal questions.” Which could make it hard for Germany, as the nation currently does not have

any societal concerns that can obviously be solved through technology, according to him. However, he

adds, that this changed dramatically now with the COVID-19 crisis, but other issues are hard to tackle

with IT. He refers to the refugee integration, which is technological not tangible, and to climate change,

which is partially addressed by digital technologies, however, relies more on physical innovations, such

as new filters. Fabian reasons: “If you don’t have problems that can obviously be solved by technology,

we’re not looking into the topic.” This indicates that both interviewees currently do not consider the

demographic change as a serious impending threat. However, the literature shows that, although not as

pressing as in Japan, Germanys also shows low fertility rates and demographical ageing at a fast pace

in recent decades, but so far was able to offset it partly through successful integration of immigrants

(Sackmann & Jonda, 2015; Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). Nonetheless, it seems

this cannot work out indefinitely. In fact, there is even a lack of policy interest and of strategic foresight

in demographic change in Germany, according to Sustainable Governance Indicators (n.d.-a). Indeed,

literature argues that “countries differ in many ways as they transition to a low fertility, high longevity

environment” (Heller, 2016, p. 93). Yet, Heller (2016) also clearly warns to not delay coping strategies

even if demographic change is decades away. Time is a limited resource in combating a shrinking

population, and it will be much harder if plans are deferred. As aforementioned, time is already running

out in Japan and more time should allow for better planning.

Compared to the other interviewees, Fabian and Julia are quite sceptical towards the

applicability of Society 5.0 in Germany. As aforesaid, Fabian sees “a barrier for the adoption of new

technologies for societal questions”, and cultural scepticism about technological change in general

which makes it much harder in Germany. He refers to it as a paradox among the German population.

According to Fabian, Germans are very critical to technological change in society. But if the nation

49

suffers damage that could have been avoided by technology, then the people question why it has not

been utilised in the first place. He gives two examples. For instance, Germans criticise that using face-

recognition cameras at train stations is not compliant with privacy laws. But if a terrorist attack occurs,

the same people criticise that there haven’t been any cameras and wonder why the culprits are unknown.

There was a similar debate about a potential app to fight the COVID-19 crisis. Previously, people have

been upset that mobile providers gather mobility data. Yet, during the pandemic, people ask “why don’t

we have more data like that?” This paradox is a strong challenge in Germany to apply technology for

the benefits of society and ultimately to apply Society 5.0, according to Fabian. These public debates

and the common technology aversion are congruent with literature stating that Germany is not at the

forefront of digital transformation, in fact even behind (Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-a). In

the words of Noemi, it shows that “especially in Germany the ethical debate is still very prevalent”.

However, this must not be a bad thing. Ethical debates should be prevalent in societies if the right

balance is found. As aforesaid, this could also be an opportunity for Germany. Because it seems that

the ethical and in particular the privacy debate is not very prevalent in Japan. This leads to the

conclusion that if the Japanese technology-friendly mindset merges with Germany’s high degree of

responsibility in sociocultural and ethical principles, in particular in privacy, then a more balanced and

complete concept of Society 5.0 could evolve. A balance between both cultures which might better

apply to more countries on the global grand scheme.

But there are more challenges in Germany. In the words of Julia, “I don’t really see that vision

yet”, as Germany operates more in silos. According to her, the German ministries act separated from

each other regarding new technologies. The energy industry might work on building a smarter grid and

integrate it, while they are not aligned with cybersecurity policies which slows it down. Moreover, there

a local smart city projects spread across the country, but no nationwide vision. A similar silo pattern is

represented among German government authorities. Most of them have legal backgrounds, which is

important and might amplify the high degree of privacy debates. But there is a clear lack of people with

digital skills, such as UX designers or digital project managers which is important to drive digital

agendas. According to Julia, it is slowly changing, but still a big challenge in Germany. This

requirement aligns well with Noemi’s concern that the Japanese experts mainly analyse sociological

challenges with an engineering lens. However, a broader perspective and diverse people from different

academic fields are essential to solve societal issues. Again, a cultural balance between both countries

seems valuable.

As already abovementioned, Julia claims that there is no top-down approach which shows the

benefit for all of society. In her words: “It’s not integrated in a bigger societal vision of how we want

to live, how we want to be connected and what kind of values does it bring? […] Then maybe

companies, citizens and stakeholders, who would be important to lead this effort, don’t understand

where we want to go.” This deficient observation of Germany about communicating a vision makes

sense from the perspective that in general there is a lack of good policy communication in German

(Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-b). However, Julia argues that a vision across society is quite

important. Other ideas were communicated based on visions, too. Germany currently has a strong

leader, but not a visionary. On the other hand, a unified vision might not be as important in Germany

due to its less collectivistic nature. The group vision has less gravitas than the individual vision. Yet,

50

this is hypothetical.

However, Germany seems quite determined and visionary about Industry 4.0 and its AI strategy

“AI Made in Germany” (Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, n.d.). According to

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, AI underpins success and “our entire prosperity depends on this in

no small way, as does the question of whether and how we can defend our European values and the

dignity of every individual, as well as protecting privacy even in the digital era” (Press and Information

Office of the Federal Government, n.d.). Interestingly, the urgent message of the German initiative

appears to be quite similar to the tone of Society 5.0. The fact that Germany will invest three billion

Euros in implementing its “Artificial Intelligence Strategy” until 2025 and its “AI Made in

Germany“ initiative seem not only determined, but also indicative for the underlying technological race

and national pride, as claimed by Zanni & Rios (2018) in an KPMG report. According to the same

report, as outlined in the literature review, Germany’s strong reputation of “Made in Germany” might

facilitate opportunities in IoT cybersecurity. With this in mind, “AI Made in Germany” and its

abovementioned focus on privacy further demonstrates the nation’s a high standards in privacy matters

(Sustainable Governance Indicators, n.d.-b). Germany’s strong democratic system (Sustainable

Governance Indicators, n.d.-b), its expertise in ethical and privacy matters, and the branded impression

of “AI Made in Germany” might further increase Germany’s opportunities not only in cybersecurity,

but also regarding the privacy aspects in Society 5.0, which seem to be lacking in the current Japanese

vision.

In conclusion, cultural barriers, ethical paradoxes, internal silos and a lack of vision make it

certainly more difficult to realise Society 5.0 in Germany. But the Japanese vision might subconsciously

breakthrough in Germany by the gradual spread of Industry 4.0 in all fields. In fact, the nation’s

experience and strong emphasis on social inclusion, equality, ethical and privacy matters, as well as

initiatives such as “AI Made in Germany”, may complete the lacking elements of Society 5.0 in the

fields of cybersecurity and privacy.

4.4 Social Acceptance, Media & Cultural Differences

4.4.1 Society 5.0 and Social AcceptanceThe research discusses suggestions about how to increase social acceptance of Society 5.0.

According to the literature, breaking down the wall of social acceptance and building social consensus

among all stakeholders and citizens is vital to realise Society 5.0 (Keidanren, 2016). Thus, Society 5.0

cannot be realised without the effort and willingness of the entire society, as claimed by Fabian.

Probably, breaking down this wall is the hardest. Social consensus is essential, but it is not there yet,

according to Takeo. One of the already identified key prerequisites to build social acceptance is creating

a nationwide vision, according to Julia. In order to generate more visibility and take citizens along, “you

need to have some kind of vision across society”, as claimed by Julia. And as aforementioned, it is

important that also citizens lead this effort guided by a top-down vision. But, as aforesaid as well, the

notion of needing a vision to realise Society 5.0 might be more dominant in collectivistic countries than

in individualistic nations. Because the sense of following a larger group or community is much stronger.

Yet, Julia’s suggestion corresponds partially with the literature which argues that institutional top-down

support is necessary to initiate and to sustain citizen engagement (Powell & Colin, 2009), which also

51

relates to social acceptance.

Hiromi and Takeo both suggest that many citizens are not aware of Society 5.0 and do not

understand it. Takeo accentuates, that it is key for citizens to first comprehend the social issues of Japan

before understanding the overall Japanese vision. It is important to create awareness and build urgency.

This would probably best be accomplished through concept videos on YouTube. The majority of young

people does not watch traditional television anymore, according to Takeo. Julia believes another idea

would be to organise workshops to get more familiar with the concept.

Furthermore, Hiromi says: “In Society 5.0 we must focus on UX (User Experience) and UI

(User Interface)”, with attention on operability and easy-to-use devices. An earlier mentioned great

example of increased technology acceptance is about Hiromi’s mother. It was difficult for her to operate

a keyboard, however it is easier for her to operate a smart home system due to the much easier UI and

UX. This aligns with a study which found that users prefer easy-to-use, fast, straightforward and mobile

solutions (Kopackova & Komarkova, 2020). There is a shift of a simplified UI and a better UX in nearly

all fields. For example, the new SpaceX aircraft is controlled by a simple touchscreen and utilises

autonomous flying (CNET, 2020; Reilly, 2020). Previously, every available surface in a cockpit was

cramped with buttons, switches and hand controls to manoeuvre a spacecraft manually. Nowadays,

many web pages are built with sandbox website builders, in contrast to manually programming websites

beforehand. The simplified experience increased the adoption.

From another perspective, in the words of Fabian: “Social acceptance is being created based on

trust.” He believes, trust can be created in three ways. Firstly, trust in people and institutions. This

relates to the people and organisations that are managing the country. Secondly, through positive

experiences with technology. And thirdly, “trust in technology only rises if you have transparency”, as

argued by Fabian. Noemi also agrees that transparency is the key element of social acceptance. She

considers three aspects of transparency. The first one refers to digital literacy, which makes technology

easy to understand for people. The second aspect is about privacy, and how personal data is collected,

processed and stored. And thirdly, advocating open transparency about risks and failures that have

occurred and how to prevent them in the future. These findings align with the examined literature which

states that there is a great need for transparency and traceability in order to create trust in technology as

well as in the institution that controls the technology (Atkins et al., 2020). Another way of creating trust

is accomplished through the digital sovereignty, by allowing the user to decide what data is gathered.

While the interview findings predominantly focus on the social acceptance of Society 5.0, there

are further literature insights about the overall acceptance of technology. Leidner & Kayworth (2006)

defined general morals people have about IT as IT values. As mentioned in the literature review, a study

related to IT values regarding robots shows that humans seem to only accept robots if they are perceived

as useful (Bröhl et al., 2019). The study also reveals that Germans associate robots with more social

implications. While the already high degree of automation and familiarisation with robots in everyday

life in Japan might lead to a lower fear of losing the job due to robot technology. Which, consequently,

leads to a higher acceptance of technology compared to other nations. This highlights again the

difficulties of the aforementioned technology adoption barriers in Germany compared to Japan. Yet, it

seems that the German acceptance towards technology is not particularly high in the grand scheme,

rather the Japanese acceptance seems exclusively low. Because, globally, around 55% of employees

52

still worry about job loss due to automation and other innovations (Ries & Bersoff, 2019). This links to

Fabian’s perception that humans first need to gather enough positive experiences with technology, in

order to realise that technology might be more of help rather than a perceived risk. Due to the immense

spread of robots in Japan, the Japanese people might have had more positive experiences with

technology already compared to other countries.

Another significant element of understanding technology acceptance is explored in the already

described Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) model in the literature

review (Venkatesh et al., 2012). The model identifies seven factors regarding technology acceptance:

(1) performance expectancy (PE), (2) effort expectancy (EE), (3) social influence (SI), (4) facilitating

conditions (FC), (5) hedonic motivation (HM), (6) price value (PV) and (7) habit (HB). The study of

Venkatesh et al. (2012) found that HM, but also PV and most significantly HB strongly influence

technology acceptance. These factors are also influenced by age, gender and experience. The research

also states that elderly, in particular old men, have more difficulty in accepting new technologies once

they already formed a habit on previous technologies. Thus, for the realisation of Society 5.0 it might

be very difficult to influence elderly and therefore social acceptance might require a generational change

in the long run. On the contrary, the impact of Society 5.0 and advanced technologies may unfold the

strongest in the lives of the elderly. Since the healthcare and mobility domain seem to be industries with

a strong and early focus on digitisation as well as closely linked to the needs of elderly. For instance,

remote medical control and autonomous driving might be very beneficial for elderly and increase their

quality of life. Thus, seniors might be one of the early adopters of Society 5.0. In particular with the

focus on inclusion. The same counts for disabled people according to Ryan, especially, when it comes

to controlling machines in less physically-dependant ways. For instance, by voice control, eye tracking

or brainwave technologies in the far future. This links again to the importance of simplified UI and UX.

The UTAUT2 model is predominantly considering the pull mechanisms of customers on

consumer technologies. The research could not identify a similar model for the social acceptance of

societal concepts such as Society 5.0 or digital transformation. When attempting to apply the UTAUT2

model to the push efforts of governments on citizens about Society 5.0 in particular for automation, it

would make sense to exclude PV and HM as both factors should not play a part. Citizens are not directly

involved in the nationwide purchasing process of machines, nor is automation heavily focused on

pleasure-seeking experiences in contrast to video gaming. Yet, PE, EE, FC, SI and most importantly

HB could very well be decisive factors. PE links to the above finding that humans seem to only accept

robots if they are perceived as useful. EE links to the previously mentioned importance of easy-to-use,

fast and straightforward UX and UI elements. FC links to overcoming the digital divide and to ensure

a good digital infrastructure. HB relates to the aforesaid importance of making positive experiences

with technology, and subsequently forming a habit to interact with it. And finally, SI is determined by

the overall technology acceptance level among the population which can be interpreted and may unfold

as a snowball effect. It is likely that once again habit plays a vital role in influencing technology

acceptance also from a societal perspective. This links to the frequent habit of Japanese people

interacting with robots in everyday life and which leads to their more acceptive attitude towards new

technologies. They are simply used to it. However, this theory is speculative. But it might be useful to

develop a similar scientific model that can be fully applied to Society 5.0 in the future. And which helps

53

to break down the wall of social acceptance in order to realise the Japanese concept. Primarily it appears

to be the elderly that are opposed to new change, which links again to the above discussed findings that

elderly struggle to adopt new technologies. This might be connected with a possible decline of cognitive

abilities when ageing (Venkatesh et al., 2012), but equally with the notion of representing differing IT

values. The notion of IT values was explained by Leidner & Kayworth (2006). There is a clash of old

values and new values. Rabie (2016, p. 29) says: “Transitional periods are battlegrounds where war is

waged between old values and new ones, between the forces of stability and continuity on one side and

those of innovation and change on the other.” The last decades and century probably experienced more

technological change than ever before. Thus, it was and still is a strong transitional period in which old

values and new values collide. In order to realise Society 5.0, this clash of (IT) values needs to be

overcome in the debates of social acceptance of technology and of the digital divide, in particular for

the elderly.

In essence, a national vision and providing top-down support is vital in taking along all

stakeholders. Regulations and social implications for robotics may serve as disabling factor for

Germany. Yet, the most important aspect of increasing social acceptance of Society 5.0 lies in building

trust through transparency and digital sovereignty. Based on the UTAUT2 model, PE, EE, FC, SI and

most importantly HB could be decisive factors in increasing social acceptance. Furthermore, having

positive experiences with technology and improved UI and UX may increase the habit of using such

technologies which form the core of Society 5.0.

4.4.2 Social Acceptance and Its Role of The MediaIn this part, the importance of the media is clarified in relation to social acceptance. All

interviewees unanimously believe that the media plays an important role. In fact, Ryan says: “I think

that it plays a huge role.” The media, traditional as well as digital, is important to create social consensus

and is an important channel for the transition, according to Noemi and Takeo. Fabian argues that the

media is an influential opinion maker and Julia refers to the media as a traditional watchdog. According

to Ryan, the tone of the media is decisive to promote technology adoption. He argues: “The message

that is communicated needs to be conducive to the average citizen who may not understand how

particular technology works, what it means to them, how their privacy is being protected, and what the

benefit is.” Overall, the media is perceived as something positive that can help to transition to Society

5.0.

The literature emphasises why the media and in particular the digital media plays such a huge

role nowadays. It has become the strongest influence in societal transformation while having the noble

mission to form a good, multicultural society, as argued by Sharma et al. (2015). And according to

Rabie (2016), the infomedia process is regarded as the dominant driver of societal change in the Society

4.0, the information age. It often depicts a negative or pessimistic view, according to Veenhoven (2010),

which can be linked to the aforementioned role of being a watchdog. However, it can tend to be

sensational and overly negative which is what it often makes profit of.

Essentially, the media might be vital to convey a unified name and create global awareness for

a new concept, such as Society 5.0. This links to Ateljevic's (2013) claim that there is a lack of a

centralised and coordinated single unifying name, especially in the media, to address the global

54

paradigm shift. Considering this claim, the pressing global challenges and the success of the wildly

accepted term “Industry 4.0”, it might very well be a good idea to find a common term to co-create the

future as well. Ateljevic (2013) offers the umbrella term “Transmodernity” to address this global shift,

but Society 5.0 seems to be a more simplified and better fitting marketing term, in particular for the

media to steer this global undertaking. The term might be an opportunity for the media to fulfil its noble

mission to form a good, multicultural society.

To summarise this sub-chapter, the infomedia process is the strongest influence in societal

change. Thus, as an influential opinion maker the media plays a huge role in promoting technology

adoption. Utilising the media might be an opportunity for Society 5.0 to increase awareness and social

acceptance among all stakeholders. And Society 5.0 might be an opportunity for the media to fulfil its

noble mission to form a good, multicultural society.

4.4.3 Society 5.0 and Its Cultural FactorsThe examined literature shows that Society 5.0 is more complex and depends on cultural factors,

in contrast to Industry 4.0, which is primarily economic and technological driven (Gladden, 2019).

Various cultural differences between Japan and Germany have already been identified in the literature

review. Yet, the study further addresses the cultural aspects between both countries which were found

in the interview findings and applies them to the literature as well as to the role they play in realising

Society 5.0.

Almost all participants claim that the Japanese culture is quite unique and differs a lot from

Western countries. Even the Japanese people themselves believe that their culture differs significantly

from other cultures (Gonzalez-Fuentes, 2017). Various interviewees also argue that Japanese people

cultivate a high degree of widespread technology adoption. Ryan explains: “You only need to look at

their toilets to see that there's a high adoption of technology generally.” According to the examined

literature, this technological attitude is globally unique and is referred to as “robophilia” (Gladden,

2019). One possible explanation of that is linked to the unspoken determination that Japan would never

again fall behind the world’s leaders in technological advancement after suffering under the atomic

bombs in World War Two. Furthermore, an ancient mix of Shinto and Buddhist encourages the

recognition of souls within rocks, trees and robots. This might reason why there is the notion of humans

and robots becoming good friends in Japan, according to Takeo. Many robots in Japan look similar to

humans in a friendly face way and often have names. This is often represented in comics and animations,

as reported by Takeo. He further argues, that in the Western world, in particular through Hollywood,

robots are depicted as enemies or competitors. “Terminator”, “I, Robot”, “Bladerunner” and

“Transformers” just to name a few. This might link to one of the reasons why in several Western

countries’ humans perceive robots and AI as competitors that take away their jobs. A subconscious

cultural process. As previously discussed, Germans are much more opposed towards technological

change than the Japanese, which makes the realisation of Society 5.0 more difficult. Interestingly

though, Noemi experienced that Japanese people often tend to analyse humans in a more functional

way similar to machines. This observation might be another reason that leads to the earlier discussed

idea of different national perspectives regarding Society 5.0. An engineering, functional and economic

approach in Japan compared to a rather legal, social and inclusive tone in Germany.

55

Next to the technology related cultural differences, Hiromi says that the Japanese culture has a

low awareness of globalisation. She calls it a “barrier for globalisation”. This might link to why their

economy has been stagnating and further underlines why Japan eagerly attempts to make Society 5.0 a

global initiative with a high degree of cultivating diversity. When looking at the geographical facts the

globalisation barrier seems comprehensible. Due to being an island, which made it certainly harder to

exchange with neighbouring countries in a time before industrialised mobility, Japan has zero

kilometres of shared borders, whereas Germany has over 3700 kilometres of shared borders in the centre

of Europe (CIA Factbook, n.d.). Furthermore, Japan is scarce in critical natural resources and has long

been dependent on importing energy and raw materials. This might give reason to develop a form of

cultural protectionism opposed to importing a vast amount of resources. Which leads to protecting the

own economy from too strong global competition. Yet, subsequently this may also lead to a form of

insularity and avoids foreign cultures and their diversity. When considering today’s political affairs, it

appears common that some islands tend to form a character of insularity and less open-mindedness.

Besides a barrier for globalisation Hiromi also identifies a strong two-way language barrier in

Japan. The proclaimed new global mindset highly depends on requiring foreign language fluency. But

Japan has the lowest English-proficiency levels among all OECD countries (Desvaux et al., 2015).

Japan needs to overcome this challenge in order to foster globalisation and to realise Society 5.0. In

addition to that, the literature shows that Japan’s culture embodies the principles of “mottoai-nai” and

sampo-yoshi” (Keidanren, n.d.). Both mean living in symbiosis with nature and with society, and thus

culturally connect well to Society 5.0. This part makes a shift to a sustainable concept easier. Yet,

paradoxically Japan is reopening nuclear power plants despite the Fukushima disaster (Sustainable

Governance Indicators, n.d.-c, n.d.-d). According to Ryan, “there's perhaps less inequality in Japan than

in some other countries. […] About 95% of permanent residents in Japan are Japanese”. This aligns

with nearly 98% of Japanese residents as of 2016, according to the literature (CIA Factbook, n.d.). Due

to less inequality and a high degree of conformity, Japan might not have had the opportunity to learn

about the importance of social inclusion in contrast to Germany. Equally, it was not as necessary in

Japan. As another matter of fact, Germany might have developed a high sensitivity for privacy and

collecting data as a part of the country was ruled by the GDR and the Stasi which incorporated strong

state surveillance strategies. On top of that, Julia explains that Germany is a more civic society than

Japan and incorporates a lot of NGO’s with a higher degree of citizen engagement, yet also criticism.

Japan has hardly any NGO’s. Overall, apart from the technological aversion, all other abovementioned

aspects, and in line with the findings of the literature review, speak for a better applicability of Society

5.0 in Germany than in Japan. Such as: no barrier for globalisation, a higher degree of diversity, a

smaller language barrier, a higher sense for privacy and social inclusion, less entrepreneurial difficulties,

and a stronger civic society with NGO’s as part of multi-stakeholder collaboration. Although, Japan is

open-minded towards technological change. Culturally they must adapt quite vastly if they truly attempt

to live up to all aspects of Society 5.0. As earlier mentioned, there is a notion of Japanese collectivism

opposed to German individualism. This is congruent with the literature findings (Hofstede Insights,

n.d.-a, n.d.-b). The interview data reveals that Japan’s culture prioritises conformity, hierarchy and

community feeling over individual thinking. Hiromi says: “People always say yes, yes, yes. […] We

are so patient and polite. We can’t express our ideas directly. […] It's very important. […] We should

56

communicate more verbally and more direct.” This links to the objective of Society 5.0 to liberate

humans from uniformity and suppression of individuality (Keidanren, n.d.). The objective is essential

for Japan in order to realise Society 5.0.

Part of this discussion is to apply the results of Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory, which

were found in the literature review, to the cultural differences between Japan and Germany in regard to

realising Society 5.0 (Figure 6). Firstly, Germans have a lower value of “Power Distance” compared to

Japan. Thus, Germans embody more direct and participative communication than Japanese. Which

explains why there are more NGO’s in Germany than in Japan. And why they challenge changes and

new visions and are highly involved in ethical debates. They speak up for their rights, this is important

for multi-stakeholder collaboration and value creation in Society 5.0. Thus, in a way the earlier

described ethical debates and paradoxes in Germany that make technological change difficult partially

even embrace the principles of a human-centred Society 5.0. A certain degree of healthy distrust and

scepticism might be good to collaborate, create value and co-create the future together opposed to

saying “yes” all the time. Secondly, Germany has a higher value of “Individualism” than Japan. Thus,

Germans have a stronger believe in self-actualisation. This explains the more prevalent entrepreneurial

sphere in Germany in contrast to Japan which is also important for recurring innovation and value

creation in Society 5.0. Moreover, Japan is the country with the highest rate of “Uncertainty Avoidance”

which further amplifies that they avoid venturing into start-ups. Thirdly, Japan has a much higher value

of “Masculinity” than Germany. In fact, it is the most masculine country in the world. This causes little

awareness of gender equality and gender discrimination in Japan (Rich, 2019). And furthermore, it

partially explains the Japanese phenomenon called “karoshi” which means death from overwork (Rich,

2019). Next to the masculinity aspects, Japanese may have attempted to combat economic stagnation,

inside their firms as well as on a national level, with brutally increased workhours in the first place.

Hiromi adds: “The Japanese businessman works so hard but makes very little value.” Ironically, value

creation is one of the key elements of Society 5.0 and is mostly not defined through quantity but rather

quality. The German businessman is stereotypically often considered as an efficient and value-oriented

worker. Furthermore, the German culture is less masculine than Japan which is important to embrace

diversity and social inclusion in Society 5.0. It is hard to imagine that Japan is embracing a global world

of vast diversity in Society 5.0, if they already struggle with gender equality. Next, both nations have

the same values on “Long Term Orientation” which indicates that they plan and invest far-sighted,

which certainly would not harm but rather benefit to plan the realisation of Society 5.0. And lastly, the

level of “Indulgence” is nearly identical for both countries too, which indicates that both nations have

a culture that embodies less emphasis on hedonic experiences, but more on work and performance. Hard

working people would foster a strong economy in Society 5.0, if they don’t overwork like the Japanese

“karoshi” phenomenon and focus more on value creation than repetitive work.

After applying Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory to the cultural nuances between Germany

and Japan in terms of realising Society 5.0, there is a very strong tendency to believe that a Society 5.0

top-down vision is easier to realise in Japan due to its collectivistic “Yes-Sayer” culture than in

Germany. There is less resistance and backlash. Whereas in Germany it is more difficult to realise the

Japanese vision. Because of its Western individualistic, direct culture which evokes challenging, yet

participatory, questions when confronting change. Yet, this is good for multi-stakeholder collaboration

57

and value creation. The discussed findings lead to the conclusion that Japan’s culture is the better fit for

a “fast” top-down realisation of Society 5.0. However paradoxically, Japan embodies a rather unfit

culture that might not be able to sustain it and does not to live up to the core principles of unity in

diversity and value creation of its own vision. Whereas the German culture seems to be better equipped

to embrace the essence of Society 5.0 and to live up to its ideology in the long run, once their

technological adoption issues have been arduously overcome in the first place. Japan has culturally a

lot of homework to do if it wants to live up to the core principles of its own vision and Germany could

drop its guard slightly against new technologies. A cultural balance between both nations seems to be

most suitable in order to realise and maintain the ethos of Society 5.0. Essentially, a vast Japanese

cultural change seems unavoidable to reignite their economy, but it is not easy and quickly

accomplished. The Japanese government might have realised both aspects and Society 5.0 is their plan

to execute it.

In summary, the interview data findings in combination with the application of Hofstede's

cultural dimensions theory lead to the conclusion that Japan’s culture is the better fit for a “fast” top-

down realisation of Society 5.0 due to its collectivistic, hierarchical “Yes-Sayer” culture compared to

Germany’s critical, individualistic society. However paradoxically, Japan embodies a rather unfit

culture that might not be able to sustain it and does not live up to the core principles of unity in diversity

and value creation of its own vision. Whereas Germany’s more diverse culture seems to be better

equipped to embrace the essence of Society 5.0 and to live up to its ideology in the long run, once their

technological adoption issues have been arduously overcome in the first place. A cultural balance

between both nations seems to be most suitable in order to realise and maintain the ethos of Society 5.0.

Next to addressing demographic ageing, a shrinking labour force and lower productivity through

automation in Society 5.0, the Japanese government might have realised the general flaws of its culture

regarding economic sustainability in today’s world of diversity. But changing culture is not easy and

quickly accomplished, thus, Society 5.0 might be their game changing plan to adapt Japan’s culture.

4.4.4 Society 5.0 and Its Implication of the COVID-19 CrisisIn this sub-chapter the research determines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Society

5.0 and on digitisation. All participants claim that the COVID-19 crisis will accelerate digital

transformation. Julia explains that currently only 4.000 out of 100.000 employees within the Berlin

Administration can work at the same time from home. She adds: “Hopefully that will push them to

digitise faster.” Perhaps the crisis facilitates to build social acceptance of technology, as technology has

played a part in overcoming it, according to Ryan. For instance, in Japan the use of open data has been

accelerated, as reported by Hiromi. The Japanese government rolled out an open data dashboard in

response to the crisis. And a lot of citizens used it as a reference on a daily basis. In the words of Noemi,

the pandemic “will have an impact on the mindsets of the people”. The notion of technological change

might convert more positively towards the opportunities instead of the risks. Noemi argues that the

visibility of the digital divide might become clearer during the pandemic. For example, that some

children do not have access to digital tools at home. According to her, “there’s a chance of using this

debate about the digital divide to make progress in Society 5.0”. As previously mentioned, Takeo

suggests that “post-COVID” might be the transition into the real Society 4.0, the information age. From

58

then on, the discussions about Society 5.0 can be initiated.

The general perception of the participants is in line with the opinion of Willem Jonker, a

professor in computer science at Twente University, CEO at EIT Digital and former Vice President at

Philips Research. He delivered a guest keynote at SAP SE in April 2020 that was titled “Government

2025 and beyond: Priorities for Digital Transformation”. According to Jonker (2020), a crisis, such as

the current coronavirus crisis, always magnifies challenges and exposes existing issues. In this regard

the digital divide and the lack of digitalisation in certain sectors and regions will be amplified. Contrarily,

as a result of the crisis society has become more digitalised within a few weeks than it has in the last

years. COVID-19 has accelerated the digital transformation (Jonker, 2020).

To conclude this sub-chapter, the COVID-19 pandemic magnifies challenges and exposes the

existing issues. In this regard the visibility of the digital divide and the lack of digitalisation in certain

sectors and regions will be amplified. Thus, the crisis will accelerate the digital transformation. The

notion of technological change might convert more positively towards the opportunities instead of the

risks due to technology helping humans to cope with and overcome the crisis. This might be an

opportunity to facilitate social acceptance of technology and to overcome the digital divide which brings

humans significantly closer to the realisation of Society 5.0.

59

5. CONCLUSIONIn this final section of the research, the key findings and takeaways of the whole research paper

and its different sections will be summarised based on the study outcomes. Moreover, the findings of

the SWOT analysis and the factors that enhance (enable) or preclude (disable) the realisation of Society

5.0 will be presented. Together with the literature review they form the main answer of the research

question “What is Society 5.0 and to what extent can it be applied outside of Japan, in particular in

Germany?”. This section will end with a small recommendations chapter.

As a global provider of business systems to governments and corporations, SAP SE has

requested a research-based analysis of Society 5.0 and its applicability in other countries, in particular

in Germany, due to a lack of academic knowledge, global awareness and a rightful degree of uncertainty

about it. Thus, the research investigated the broad, contextual background of Society 5.0. With the

findings and conclusion of this research-based analysis of Society 5.0 and its applicability, companies

as SAP SE and countries as Germany can better comprehend and evaluate the Japanese concept, and to

what extent it affects their strategy and perhaps even guides their path into the future. To address the

research objective, the study firstly executed an extensive and exploratory in-depth research of existing

literature, and secondly conducted qualitative interviews with digital experts which leads to the

following conclusion of the research at hand:

There is a global paradigm shift in today’s society, which is driven by global and national social

issues, mainly: income disparity, climate change, an ageing population, and infectious diseases such as

the COVID-19 pandemic. After decades of prosperity as the “lead goose”, Japan has been struggling

with lower productivity and thus has been aching from a fiscal decline during the “lost decades” since

the 90s. It is the first industrial state that is facing demographic ageing which is a new societal threat.

Japan’s labour force is expected to shrink by 30% until 2050. Germany, too, faces an ageing population,

but there is a lack of foresight. It is vital to not delay a national response, since time is running out and

it is yet to analyse what role digitisation and new technologies will play in it.

To answer the first part of the research question: Society 5.0 is a human-centred society that

aims at balancing economic progress and solving the abovementioned social issues. Its goal is to tightly

converge the physical and cyber space into a “cyber-physical system” (CPS), in order to become a fully

technology transformed and interconnected society that can overcome its current chronic social

challenges. Society 5.0 seems to be the natural extension of today’s fourth societal stage, the

information society. It includes Germany’s Industry 4.0 vision but has more focus on social benefits

and Quality of Life (QoL) by utilising artificial intelligence (AI), internet of things (IoT), robotics and

big data analytics. Innovation and value creation through diversity are key elements of Society 5.0. The

Japanese vision aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations

(UN). Besides its official name, Society 5.0 is also dubbed “Imagination Society” or “Super-Smart

Society” and Japan aims to promote a “Society 5.0 Service Platform” through multi-stakeholder

collaboration. The origins of Society 5.0 lie in Japan, yet the objective is to develop Society 5.0

platforms and technologies within an internationally open innovation system. The idea is to share and

apply the concept globally. But compared to Industry 4.0, a full implementation of Society 5.0 reaches

much more deeply into a society’s culture. In order to realise Society 5.0 five walls must be broken

down, most importantly the wall of social acceptance with prime focus on accepting technology.

60

Instead of Industry 4.0, Society 5.0 might be the more promising and better fitting concept for

businesses, such as SAP SE, to adhere to. Industry 4.0 may serve as a differentiated sub-level concept

of Society 5.0 which leads to the suggestion that more of those are needed to further detail out the

broader vision. This could be managed and connected through the “Society 5.0 Service Platform”.

Developing this platform might be an opportunity for SAP SE. The research proposes the following

draft (Figure 12). The SWOT analysis performed throughout the (4) findings and discussion section

reveals many benefits of Society 5.0 (Figure 13). It is viewed as a holistic, inclusive, visionary master

plan for leveraging AI and other digital technologies for societal challenges to improve people's lives,

add societal value and solve the digital divide. On the other hand, weaknesses and risks are that the

concept seems very ambitious, theoretical, yet not concretely detailed out with many ethical, cyber

security and data privacy concerns to be overcome. Whereas the experts interviewed in this study are

predominantly more optimistic about the concept, it became clear throughout this study that a much

more detailed implementation strategy, beyond concepts as Industry 4.0, are needed, especially for the

public sector as well as general personal social interactions.

Additionally, this research set out to answer the question, “to what extent can Society 5.0 be

applied outside of Japan, in particular in Germany?” In conclusion, cultural barriers, ethical paradoxes,

internal silos and a lack of vision make it certainly more difficult to realise Society 5.0 in Germany. But

the Japanese vision might subconsciously breakthrough in Germany by the gradual spread of Industry

4.0 in all fields. In fact, the nation’s experience and strong emphasis on social inclusion, equality, ethical

and privacy matters, as well as initiatives, such as “AI Made in Germany” and the “International Data

Spaces Association” (IDSA) may complete the lacking elements of Society 5.0 in the fields of

cybersecurity and privacy.

To answer the second part of the research question more concretely: Society 5.0 is applicable

in Germany (Figure 14). On the one hand it is harder to realise Society 5.0 due to disabling factors, such

as barriers for technological adoption, a poor digital infrastructure, a lack of a national vision, higher

individualism and less societal challenges, such as less fiscal pressure, natural disasters and due to a

less, but still ageing population. On the other hand, it is applicable in Germany due to enabling factors,

such as a participatory civic society, an emphasis on social inclusion, cultural diversity in the workforce,

experience with Industry 4.0, and most recently due to the COVID-19 crisis as accelerator.

Indeed, Japan’s culture is the better fit for a “fast” top-down realisation of Society 5.0 due to

its collectivistic, hierarchical “Yes-Sayer” culture compared to Germany’s critical, individualistic

society. However paradoxically, Japan embodies a rather unfit culture that might not be able to sustain

it and does not live up to the core principles of unity in diversity and value creation of its own vision.

Whereas Germany’s more diverse culture seems to be better equipped to embrace the essence of Society

5.0 and to live up to its ideology in the long run, once their technological adoption issues have been

arduously overcome in the first place. A cultural balance between both nations seems to be most suitable

in order to realise and maintain the ethos of Society 5.0. Next to addressing demographic ageing through

automation in Society 5.0, the Japanese government might have realised the general flaws of their

culture regarding economic sustainability in today’s world of diversity. But changing culture is not easy

and quickly accomplished, thus, Society 5.0 might be their master plan to adapt Japan’s culture.

Irrefutably, societal development is inevitable. However, in the words of Laszlo (2003, p. 612):

61

“The evolution of society can be a conscious and purposeful process. Nevertheless, it will not be an

easy transition. Those taking the lead will find risks and resistance. And yet, there could be nothing

more challenging and rewarding.” Society 5.0 is the prime example of a conscious and purposeful

process in societal evolution. This research attempted to make a contributing effort in thought leadership.

5.1 RecommendationsIn this last chapter, various recommendations are provided to governments, the corporate world,

for instance SAP SE, and academia for further analysis. Generally, in order to realise Society 5.0,

forming a national vision and creating trust based on transparency and digital sovereignty is most vital

to spread social acceptance of technology and Society 5.0. While establishing habits through improved

UI and UX, and by increased positive experiences with technology are key aspects, too. As an influential

opinion maker, the media plays a huge role in promoting technology adoption. Because the infomedia

process is the strongest influence in societal change. Utilising the media may be an opportunity for

Society 5.0 to raise awareness and social acceptance among all stakeholders. And Society 5.0 might be

an opportunity for the media to fulfil its noble mission to form a good, multicultural society.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic magnifies the visibility of the digital divide, and the

lack of digitalisation in certain sectors and regions will be amplified. Thus, the crisis will accelerate the

digital transformation. The notion of technological change might convert more positively towards the

opportunities instead of the risks due to technology helping humans to cope with and overcome the

crisis. This might be an opportunity to facilitate social acceptance of technology and to solve the digital

divide which brings humans closer to the realisation of Society 5.0.

Lastly, ten more specific endorsements were drawn from the findings of this research. First of

all, the research recommends SAP SE to consider embracing the human-centred vision of Society 5.0

as corporate vision, instead of purely focusing on Industry 4.0. This seems more in line with SAP’s

vision to “help the world run better and improve people’s lives” (SAP SE, n.d.-b), as well as the

company’s culture of global thought leadership and innovativeness. Secondly, the research recommends

SAP SE to research and invest into developing a possible “Society 5.0 Service Platform” with further

differentiated sub-level concepts, such as Industry 4.0, for all domains, which the Japanese vision

appears to be currently lacking (Figure 12). In line with this, the research recommends SAP SE to first

focus on the Japanese healthcare system due to its very rich accumulation of high-quality, universal

data (Fukuyama, 2018). Losing the opportunity to be involved in the development of the “Society 5.0

Service Platform” due to unawareness or late reaction could be critical when considering the lucrative

market Industry 4.0 managed to create in recent years. Thirdly, the research recommends SAP’s

department of Global Public Sector and the Future Cities team to engage with Japan’s Society 5.0-alike

“Woven City” (Toyota Motor Corporation, 2020; Toyota UK, 2020; Toyota Woven City, n.d.).

Collaboration might be quite useful since researchers will be able to test and develop advanced

technologies in the framework of Society 5.0 in this prototype city of the future.

Fourthly, the research recommends the German private sector as well as the public sector to

take advantage of Germany’s opportunity to be a global leader in privacy and cybersecurity matters,

and to potentially add more detail of those matters to Society 5.0, which it seems to be currently lacking.

The branding of “(AI) Made in Germany”, IDSA and the nations strong background in social and ethical

62

subjects should be valuable. Fifthly, in order to address the presumed lack of foresight, the research

recommends the German government to consider embracing Society 5.0 as guidance to cope with an

ageing population, and to conduct a research similar to NISTEP in Japan about the social acceptance

and barriers of Society 5.0 in Germany. Furthermore, the research recommends to work on social

consensus as a key element of Society 5.0. Sixthly, the research recommends the German government

to improve the digital infrastructure and to facilitate digital literacy in order to overcome the digital

divide. In particular, during the even more significant unprecedented times of the COVID-19 crisis.

Seventhly, the research recommends the public sector, the private sector, academia, and citizens

too actively engage in multi-stakeholder collaboration in light of Society 5.0. Diversity is a core theme

in Society 5.0, and this also counts for the various perspectives during the implementation process.

Eighthly, the research recommends the multi-stakeholder collaborations to engage in researching the

potential long-term ramifications of digital fatigue and “Learned Non-Use” in relation to Society 5.0.

Furthermore, the research recommends engaging in R&D research for the Internet of Abilities (IoA) as

well. IoA could turn out to be a new disruptive “technology” in the future as part of Society 5.0. Ninthly,

the research recommends multi-stakeholder collaborations, in particular academia, to develop a

UTAUT model applicable to the push and pull mechanisms of technology acceptance from a societal

perspective in relation to building social acceptance of Society 5.0. And last but not least, as

aforementioned, the research recommends the media to share and discuss Society 5.0 to create global

awareness and expertise in order to address the lack of knowledge and, conversely, to take this

opportunity for the media to fulfil its noble mission to form a good, multicultural society.

63

REFERENCES

Abood, D., Quilligan, A., Narsalay, R., & Cabanel, V. (2018). Combine and Conquer: Unlocking the

Power of Digital. Retrieved from https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-88/accenture-

industry-xo-land-final.pdf

Adachi, M., Ishida, R., & Oka, G. (2015, March). Japan: Lessons from a hyperaging society.

McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/asia-

pacific/japan-lessons-from-a-hyperaging-society

Al-Yateem, N. (2012). The effect of interview recording on quality of data obtained: A

methodological reflection. Nurse Researcher, 19, 31–35.

https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2012.07.19.4.31.c9222

Arsovski, S. (2019). Quality of Life and Society 5.0. Proceedings on Engineering Sciences, 1(2),

775–780. https://doi.org/10.24874/pes01.02.081

Ateljevic, I. (2013). Transmodernity: Integrating perspectives on societal evolution. Futures, 47, 38–

48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.01.002

Atkins, C., Ryan, I., & Leent, R. van. (2020). Real-Time, Data-Driven Government: Develop

Forward-Thinking, Citizen-Centric Programs. Retrieved from

https://www.sap.com/documents/2018/05/dce5d788-057d-0010-87a3-c30de2ffd8ff.html

Brennen, B. S. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies. New York: Routledge.

Bröhl, C., Nelles, J., Brandl, C., Mertens, A., & Nitsch, V. (2019). Human–Robot Collaboration

Acceptance Model: Development and Comparison for Germany, Japan, China and the USA.

International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(5), 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-

00593-0

Cabinet Public Relations Office. (n.d.-a). Abenomics. Retrieved April 26, 2020, from Government of

Japan website: https://www.japan.go.jp/abenomics/

Cabinet Public Relations Office. (n.d.-b). Realizing Society 5.0. Retrieved from

https://www.japan.go.jp/abenomics/_userdata/abenomics/pdf/society_5.0.pdf

CIA Factbook. (n.d.). Germany vs. Japan. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from IndexMundi website:

https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/germany.japan

CNET. (2020). How a touchscreen controls SpaceX’s new spacecraft. Retrieved May 27, 2020, from

YouTube website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgxDH_LNmPw

Cocorocchia, C., El-Azar, D., Jentsch, A.-M., Luo, M. A., O’Neil, A. S., & Woodward, L. (2016).

Digital Media and Society: Implications in a Hyperconnected Era. Retrieved from

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_DigitalMediaAndSociety_Report2016.pdf

Council for Science Technology and Innovation. (n.d.). Society 5.0. Retrieved April 2, 2020, from

Cabinet Office, Government of Japan website:

https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html

Council for Science Technology and Innovation. (2016). Outline of the Fifth Science and Technology

Basic Plan. Retrieved from https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/basic/5thbasicplan_outline.pdf

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications.

64

Desvaux, G., Woetzel, J., Kuwabara, T., Chui, M., Fjeldsted, A., & Guzman-Herrera, S. (2015). The

Future of Japan: Reigniting Productivity and Growth. Retrieved from

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured insights/Employment and Growth/How

a private sector transformation could revive

Japan/Future_of_Japan_Full_report_March_2015.ashx

Falco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2018). Beyond technology: Identifying local government challenges for

using digital platforms for citizen engagement. International Journal of Information

Management, 40, 17–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.007

Fukuda, K. (2020). Science, technology and innovation ecosystem transformation toward society 5.0.

International Journal of Production Economics, 220, 107460.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.033

Fukuyama, M. (2018). Society 5.0: Aiming for a New Human-Centered Society. Japan Spotlight, 47–

50. Retrieved from https://www.jef.or.jp/journal/pdf/220th_Special_Article_02.pdf

Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2002). Research Methods for Managers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Gillham, B. (2005). Research Interviewing: The Range of Techniques. Maidenhead: Open University

Press.

Gladden, M. E. (2019). Who Will Be the Members of Society 5.0? Towards an Anthropology of

Technologically Posthumanized Future Societies. Social Sciences, 8(5), 148.

https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8050148

Gonzalez-Fuentes, M. (2017). Social Identity Challenges among Japanese Consumers: The Effect of

the Lost Decades. Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings, 527–528.

Hanifi, M. M., & Ali, D. (2017). Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: The

Adoption of Mobile Messaging Application. Megatrend Revija, 14(1), 169–186.

https://doi.org/10.5937/MegRev1701169M

Heller, P. S. (2016). The challenge of an aged and shrinking population: Lessons to be drawn from

Japan’s experience. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 8, 85–93.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2016.02.001

Hewlett, S. A., Marshall, M., & Sherbin, L. (2013, December). How Diversity Can Drive Innovation.

Havard Business Review. Retrieved from

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ae89190aa49a17d6e450047/t/5b0d92c4aa4a99c9a42ddd3

c/1527616197302/How+Diversity+Can+Drive+Innovation+_HBR.pdf

Hitachi Ltd. (n.d.). Multiverse Barrier Free - Revitalize Human-Machine Collaboration - Hitachi.

Retrieved May 10, 2020, from Hitachi, Ltd. website:

https://www.hitachi.com/rd/sc/video/2019/mbf.html

Hofstede Insights. (n.d.-a). What About Germany? Retrieved April 5, 2020, from Hofstede Insights

website: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/germany/

Hofstede Insights. (n.d.-b). What About Japan? Retrieved April 5, 2020, from Hofstede Insights

website: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country/japan/

Issa, T., Isaías, P., & Kommers, P. (2016). Editorial : The impact of smart technology on users and

society. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(4), 310–312.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-09-2016-0035

65

Jonker, W. (2020). Government 2025 and beyond: Priorities for Digital Transformation. EIT Digital.

Kagermann, H., & Nonaka, Y. (2019). Revitalizing Human-Machine Interaction for the Advancement

of Society: Perspectives from Germany and Japan. In acatech DISCUSSION. Retrieved from

https://www.acatech.de/wp-

content/uploads/2019/09/acatech_DISCUSSION_Revitalizing_Human-

Machine_Interaction_2019-09-06.pdf

Keidanren. (n.d.). Society 5.0: Co-creating the Future. Retrieved from

https://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2018/095_proposal.pdf

Keidanren. (2016). Toward Realization of the New Economy and Society: Reform of the economy and

society by the deepening of “Society 5.0” (pp. 1–25). pp. 1–25. Keidanren (Japan Business

Federation).

Kemp, J. E., Lee, S., Pascoe, D., Beabout, B., Watson, W., & Moore, S. (2006). Foundations for

Systemic Change. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(2), 20–

26. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-006-7582-1

Kopackova, H., & Komarkova, J. (2020). Participatory technologies in smart cities: What citizens

want and how to ask them. Telematics and Informatics, 47, 1–14.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101325

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lasky, J. (2017). Moore’s law. Salem Press Encyclopedia of Science. Salem Press.

Laszlo, K. (2003). The Evolution of Business: Learning, Innovation, and Sustainability in the Twenty-

First Century. World Futures, 59(8), 605–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/713747097

Leidner, D. E., & Kayworth, T. (2006). A Review of Culture in Information Systems Research:

Toward a Theory of Information Technology Culture Conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357–399.

Lewis, J., & McNaughton Nicholls, C. (2014). Design Issues. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. M. Nicholls,

& R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and

Researchers (pp. 47–76). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Lobe, A. (2017, April 9). Japans smarte Utopie. ZEIT ONLINE. Retrieved from

https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2017-04/japan-gesellschaft-zukunft-automatisierung-cebit

Lockhart, L. E. A. (2019). Transhumanism. Salem Press Encyclopedia. Salem Press.

Matthews, B., & Ross, L. (2010). Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social Sciences.

Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Nathan, M., & Lee, N. (2013). Cultural Diversity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship: Firm-level

Evidence from London. Economic Geography, 89(4), 367–394.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ecge.12016

NISTEP. (2019a). Reasons why people feel anxious about the realization of Society 5.0 in Japan as of

March 2019, by gender [Graph]. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from Statista website:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058259/japan-negative-attitudes-society-5-by-gender/

NISTEP. (2019b). Share of respondents who agree Society 5.0 will improve the quality of life in

Japan as of March 2019, by gender [Graph]. Retrieved from Statista website:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040691/japan-positive-attitudes-society-50-quality-of-life-

66

by-gender/

Önday, Ö. (2019). Japan’s Society 5.0: Going Beyond Industry 4.0. Business and Economics Journal,

10(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6219.1000389

Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M., & Snape, D. (2014). The Foundations of Qualitative Research.

In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. M. Nicholls, & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A

Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (pp. 1–25). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications

Ltd.

Petta Gomes da Costa, D. L. (2019). Reviewing the Concept of Technological Singularities: How Can

It Explain Human Evolution? NanoEthics, 13(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-

00339-2

Pew Research Center. (2019). Public Trust in Government: 1958-2019. Retrieved from Pew Research

Center website: https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/public-trust-in-government-1958-

2019/

Powell, M. C., & Colin, M. (2009). Participatory Paradoxes: Facilitating Citizen Engagement in

Science and Technology from the Top-Down? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4),

325–342. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467609336308

Press and Information Office of the Federal Government. (n.d.). AI - a brand for Germany. Retrieved

May 20, 2020, from Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, Government of

Germany website: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/ai-a-brand-for-germany-

1551432

Price, J., & Murnan, J. (2004). Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them. American

Journal of Health Education, 35, 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611

Rabie, M. (2016). Development of Human Societies. In M. Rabie (Ed.), A Theory of Sustainable

Sociocultural and Economic Development (pp. 45–65). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-

57952-2_5

Reilly, C. (2020, May 26). NASA and SpaceX are about to fly into space with a touchscreen. CNET.

Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-and-spacex-are-about-to-fly-into-space-with-a-

touchscreen-demo-2-crew-dragon/

Rich, M. (2019, February 2). Japan’s Working Mothers: Record Responsibilities, Little Help From

Dads. The New York Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/world/asia/japan-working-mothers.html

Ries, T. E., & Bersoff, D. M. (2019). 2019 Edelman: Trust Barometer. Retrieved from

https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2019-

02/2019_Edelman_Trust_Barometer_Global_Report.pdf

Rosado, C. (1997). Paradigm Shifts and Stages of Societal Change: A Descriptive Model. 1–27.

Rotman, D. (2020, March). The End of the Greatest Prediction on Earth. MIT Technology Review,

123(2).

Sackmann, R. (2015). How Do Societies Cope with Complex Demographic Challenges? A Model. In

R. Sackmann, W. Bartl, B. Jonda, K. Kopycka, & C. Rademacher (Eds.), Coping with

Demographic Change: A Comparative View on Education and Local Government in Germany

and Poland (pp. 25–57). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10301-3_3

67

Sackmann, R., & Jonda, B. (2015). Demographic Change as a Challenge. In R. Sackmann, W. Bartl,

B. Jonda, K. Kopycka, & C. Rademacher (Eds.), Coping with Demographic Change: A

Comparative View on Education and Local Government in Germany and Poland (pp. 7–24).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10301-3_2

SAP SE. (n.d.-a). About SAP SE. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from SAP SE website:

https://www.sap.com/corporate/en.html

SAP SE. (n.d.-b). SAP Purpose & Promise. Retrieved May 23, 2020, from SAP SE website:

https://www.sap.com/corporate/en/purpose.html

Schürmann, M., & Glunz, A. (2019). German Business in Japan 2019. Retrieved from

https://japan.ahk.de/fileadmin/AHK_Japan/Dokumente/German_Business_in_Japan_2019_EN.p

df

Serpa, S., & Ferreira, C. (2018). Society 5.0 and Social Development: Contributions to a Discussion.

Management and Organizational Studies, 5(4), 26–31.

https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201811.0108.v1

Sharma, A., Sharma, R., & Rawat, N. (2015). Role of Media in Transforming Society. University

News: A Weekly Journal of Higher Education, 53(38), 11–16.

Skobelev, P. O., & Borovik, S. (2017). On the Way From Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0: From Digital

Manufacturing to Digital Society. International Scientific Journal “Industry 4.0,” 2(6), 307–

311. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd06/76ec0c1f225900fff0729b516a075e195d8a.pdf?_ga=2.839

15353.1395171908.1591124780-70997457.1591124780

Sood, A., & Tellis, G. (2007). The S-Curve of Technological Evolution: Marketing Law or Self-

Fulfilling Prophecy? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.981532

Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2005). Technological Evolution and Radical Innovation. Journal of

Marketing, 69(3), 152–168.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., O’Connor, W., Morrell, G., & Ormston, R. (2014). Analysis in practice. In J.

Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. M. Nicholls, & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative research practice. A guide

for social science students & researchers (pp. 295–345). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Sustainable Governance Indicators. (n.d.-a). Germany: Key Challenges. Retrieved April 15, 2020,

from Bertelsmann Foundation website: https://www.sgi-

network.org/2018/Germany/Key_Challenges

Sustainable Governance Indicators. (n.d.-b). Germany. Retrieved April 5, 2020, from Bertelsmann

Foundation website: https://www.sgi-network.org/2019/Germany/Key_Findings

Sustainable Governance Indicators. (n.d.-c). Japan: Key Challenges. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from

Bertelsmann Foundation website: https://www.sgi-network.org/2019/Japan/Key_Challenges

Sustainable Governance Indicators. (n.d.-d). Japan. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from Bertelsmann

Foundation website: https://www.sgi-network.org/2019/Japan/Key_Findings

The World Bank Group. (n.d.). The World Bank Group. Retrieved May 25, 2020, from The World

Bank Group website:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?view=map&year_high_desc=true

Toyota Motor Corporation. (2020). Toyota to Build Prototype City of the Future. Retrieved May 12,

68

2020, from Toyota Motor Corporation website:

https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/31171023.html

Toyota UK. (2020). Toyota’s Woven City: a Prototype City of the Future. Retrieved May 18, 2020,

from YouTube website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng3X39lenvg

Toyota Woven City. (n.d.). Toyota Woven City. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from Woven City website:

https://www.woven-city.global

Uchida, S., & Fukuda, Y. (2019). Toward Society 5.0: Creating New Values that Drive Economic

Development and Solve Social Issues. SAP SE.

UNESCO. (2019). Japan pushing ahead with Society 5.0 to overcome chronic social challenges.

Retrieved May 5, 2020, from UNESCO website: https://en.unesco.org/news/japan-pushing-

ahead-society-50-overcome-chronic-social-challenges

United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from United Nations website:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300

Veenhoven, R. (2010). Life is Getting Better: Societal Evolution and Fit with Human Nature. Social

Indicators Research, 97(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9556-0

Venkatesh, V., L. Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information

Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS

Virakul, B. (2015). Global challenges, sustainable development, and their implications for

organizational performance. European Business Review, 27(4), 430–446.

WVS Association. (n.d.). Findings and Insights. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from WVS Association

website: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp

Zaidi, M. (n.d.). Cultural Comparison of Germany vs Japan. Charles Darwin University.

Zanni, T., & Rios, P. (2018). The Changing Landscape of Disruptive Technologies. Retrieved from

https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/it/pdf/2018/04/The-Changing-Landscape-of-Disruptive-

Technologies.pdf

ZDF. (2020). Mehrheit: Lockerungen so richtig. Retrieved April 18, 2020, from ZDF website:

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/politbarometer-mehrheit-befuerwortet-lockerungen-

coronavirus-100.html

69

FIGURES

Figure 1

Figure 1. Trend happy life years in the EU-9, Japan, Russia and the USA. From Veenhoven, R.

(2010). Life is Getting Better: Societal Evolution and Fit with Human Nature. Social Indicators

Research, 97(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9556-0

Figure 2

Figure 2. Flying Geese Hypothesis. From Lin, J. Y. (2011). From Flying Geese to Leading Dragons:

New Opportunities and Strategies for Structural Transformation in Developing Countries [Graph].

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, 42. Retrieved from

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871599

70

Figure 3

Figure 3. Development of Human Society. From Keidanren. (n.d.). Society 5.0: Co-creating the

Future. Retrieved from https://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2018/095_proposal.pdf

Figure 4

Figure 4. Changes from Society 4.0 to 5.0. From Keidanren. (n.d.). Society 5.0: Co-creating the

Future. Retrieved from https://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2018/095_proposal.pdf

Figure 5

71

Figure 5. Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map. From WVS Association. (n.d.). Findings and Insights.

Retrieved April 15, 2020, from WVS Association website:

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp

Figure 6

Figure 6. Country Comparison Germany Japan. From Hofstede Insights. (n.d.). Country Comparison.

Retrieved April 15, 2020, from Hofstede Insights website: https://www.hofstede-

insights.com/country-comparison/germany,japan/

72

Figure 7

Figure 7. UTAUT2 Model. From Venkatesh, V., L. Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer

Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and

Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.

Figure 8

Outer Qualities Inner Qualities

Life Chances Liveability of Environment Life-ability of the Person

Life Results Utility of Life Enjoyment of Life

Figure 8. Four qualities of life. From Veenhoven, R. (2010). Life is Getting Better: Societal

Evolution and Fit with Human Nature. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 105–122.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9556-0

Figure 9

73

Outer Quality Inner Quality

Life Chances Biotope Fitness

Life Results Continuation of Species

Ecological Function

Survival

Figure 9. Comparable concepts in biology. From Veenhoven, R. (2010). Life is Getting Better:

Societal Evolution and Fit with Human Nature. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 105–122.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9556-0

Figure 10

Figure 10. Long-term trend in quality of life. From Veenhoven, R. (2010). Life is Getting Better:

Societal Evolution and Fit with Human Nature. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 105–122.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9556-0

74

Figure 11

Figure 11. Vicious and virtuous cycle in humans and AI robot systems. From Kagermann, H., &

Nonaka, Y. (2019). Revitalizing Human-Machine Interaction for the Advancement of Society:

Perspectives from Germany and Japan. Acatech DISCUSSION, 1–74. Retrieved from

https://www.acatech.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/acatech_DISCUSSION_Revitalizing_Human-

Machine_Interaction_2019-09-06.pdf

Figure 12

Figure 12. Draft for Society 5.0 Service Platform. From Wiezoreck, A. (2020). Analysis of the

Japanese Concept “Society 5.0” and Its Applicability in Germany. Graduation Report.

75

Figure 13

Strengths

MainGlobal Holistic Approach

Unity in Diversity

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Inclusive Concept

Meta Plan

Disruptive Idea

Facilitates Digital Transformation

Society 5.0 Service Platform

Weaknesses

MainNon-Inclusive Implementation

Too Theoretical Concept

Little Detail and Focus

Too Ambitious Concept

Depends on Digital Transformation

Not Understanding Underlying Challenges

Opportunities

MainCo-Creates the Future

Copes With an Ageing Population

Improve People's Lives

Increases Economic Growth

Increases Enjoyment and Happiness

Encourages Globalisation

Improves Connectivity Between Humans

(E.g. Overcomes Language Barriers)

(Through Internet of Abilities – IoA)

Creates Value for Society

Increases Social Chance

Solves the Digital Divide

Steers AI Responsibly

Guides and Accelerates Human Transition

Threats

MainCyber-Attacks

Data Privacy Issues

Increases Digital Fatigue

Learned Non-Use Through Excessive Aid

Ethical Concerns

Rise of a Data Elite

Increases Social Inequality

Increases Digital Divide

Technological Singularity

Discrimination Through Customisation

Challenging HMI

Figure 13. SWOT Analysis of Society 5.0. From Wiezoreck, A. (2020). Analysis of the Japanese

Concept “Society 5.0” and Its Applicability in Germany. Graduation Report.

Figure 14

76

Enablers

MainParticipatory Civic Society in NGOs

Emphasis on Social Inclusion

Cultural Diversity in Workforce

Experience with Industry 4.0

COVID-19 Crisis as Accelerator

AI Made in Germany

Globalisation

Higher Individualism

Lower Power Distance

Media as Influencer and Driver

Right Structure and Social Partners in Place

Building Trust Through Transparency

Strong Democratic System

Start Up Environment for Innovations

Lower Masculinity

Higher Long Term Orientation

Replacing Ageing Infrastructure

Disablers

MainBarriers for Technological Adoption

Poor Digital Infrastructure

Lack of National Vision

Higher Individualism

Less Societal Challenges

(E.g. Less Ageing Population, Less Natural

Disasters, Less Fiscal Pressure)

Higher Digital Divide

Prevailing Ethical and Privacy Debates

Siloed Structures in Governments

Lack of Policy Communication

Lower Power Distance

Higher Individualism

(E.g. Less Emphasis on Group Vision)

Media as Influencer and Driver

Low Social Acceptance

Lack of Foresight in Demographic Change

Social Implications for Automation

(E.g. Robot as Enemy or Competitor)

Japanese Cartoon Branding Marketing

Figure 14. Society 5.0 Applicability Drivers in Germany. From Wiezoreck, A. (2020). Analysis of the

Japanese Concept “Society 5.0” and Its Applicability in Germany. Graduation Report.

77

Appendix A - Consent Form

I hereby indicate that I voluntarily participate in this research, which is executed by Arne Wiezoreck

in 2020. The research consists of a single 30-60 minutes long interview conducted by the researcher. I

understand that I am not responsible for any harm that might occur. I understand that the risks I take

during this research are no additions to risks I take every day. I understand that for research purposes

interview data is recorded during the study. I hereby give permission to use this interview data to

evaluate the study. I also give permission to be recorded on video. I understand that this media is used

by the researcher to revisit the study at hand. I understand that participation is voluntarily. With any

question I do not want to answer I have the right not to answer. I can refrain from participation at any

moment. I have been given the opportunity to ask any questions I have regarding the study before

participation. I understand that I can opt out of how my personal information will be cited in reports

of this research. I understand that any personal information I opt out of will be anonymised. If

required, please mark any of the following check boxes:

_ My full name cannot be cited in reports of this research

_ My job role cannot be cited in reports of this research

_ My employer name cannot be cited in reports of this research

If you have any questions during or after the study feel free to contact the researcher at any time. The

first contact is Arne Wiezoreck, reachable at 141866@buas.nl or arne.wiezoreck@sap.com.

Secondary contacts are Ian Ryan, who is the corporate supervisor at SAP SE of this research, you can

contact him via ian.ryan@sap.com and Raphael Velt, who is the academic supervisor at the Breda

University of Applied Sciences of this research, you can contact him via velt.r@buas.nl.

I have read and understood the above:

Signature:

Name: Date: 02/06/2020

Agreement by researcher:

Signature:

Name: Arne Wiezoreck Date: 27/04/2020

78

Appendix B - Research Outline

Due to a lack of global awareness and knowledge about Society 5.0 and its applicability, this

research aims to add academic value to the fields of digital sociology by researching and analysing

the Japanese concept Society 5.0 and its applicability in Germany. This study also aims

to better understand the similarities towards the global momentum of Industry 4.0, while also

evaluating the new concept in the context of the current global crisis. Therefore, this research

is analysing existing literature and conducting qualitative interviews with digital experts.

The theoretical framework is structured as follows:

1. Societal Evolution

2. Advanced Technologies and Digital Media and Their Impact on Society

3. Global and National Social Challenges

4. The Japanese Concept Society 5.0

5. Social Acceptance and Citizen Engagement and Its Potential Barriers

6. German and Japanese Cultural Differences

The following pre-read sources are relevant, but not mandatory to read:

• Government of Japan - Realising Society 5.0

• Government of Japan - Council for Science, Technology and Innovation

The interview questions might vary and will be tailored to the individual expert, but are based

on the following main questions accompanied by “Why?”:

• What do you know about Society 5.0 or what experience can you share?

• How are you evaluating the Japanese concept Society 5.0?

• How do you compare it to Industry 4.0 in terms of similarities and differences?

• How realistic and likely do you perceive this vision to be realised in Japan or Germany?

• How will the transition to Society 5.0 unfold?

• To what extend are we already transitioning?

• How applicable is Society 5.0 to Germany and other countries?

• What role do cultural differences play in realising Society 5.0?

• What opportunities, challenges and risks do you see?

• How do you see Society 5.0 from an ethical perspective?

• What role is digital media playing?

• What impact has the digital divide on our future?

• To what extent is your opinion affected by the current global crisis?

• How would you foster dynamic citizen engagement and build social consensus?

• What is your opinion on the theory of technological singularity?

• To what degree is Society 5.0 in line with societal evolution and posthumanism?

• To what extent must Human-Machine Interaction adapt in Society 5.0?

79

Appendix C - Interview Questions

• Can you tell me a bit about yourself, what you do and what touchpoints or experiences you

might have with Society 5.0?

o How would you describe or vision Society 5.0?

• How are you evaluating the Japanese concept Society 5.0?

o How do you feel about it?

• How do you compare it to Industry 4.0 in terms of similarities and differences?

• How realistic and likely do you perceive this vision to be realised in Japan?

o How applicable is Society 5.0 to Germany and other countries?

o Which social issues do you think are they key drivers to facilitate Society 5.0?

• To what degree is Society 5.0 the logical next stage of societal evolution?

o Do you see the transition to Society 5.0 as inevitable and to what extend might we alreadytransitioning?

• What opportunities do you see?

• What challenges and risks do you see?

o How do you think those challenges can be overcome?

• How do you see Society 5.0 from an ethical perspective?

o To what extent is your opinion on Society 5.0 affected by the current global crisis?

• How would you build social acceptance for Society 5.0?

o What barriers do you see?

§ What impact has the digital divide on our future?

o What role is digital media playing?

• What role do cultural differences play in realising Society 5.0?

o What examples do you know?

o What cultural or social changes do you predict to happen in Society 5.0?

§ What are your thoughts on Society 5.0 facilitating liquid democracy?

• What is your opinion on the theory of technological singularity?

o To what extent must or will Human-Machine Interaction change in Society 5.0?

o To what extent do you believe Society 5.0 increases our enjoyment and happiness in life?

• When thinking and speaking about Society 5.0, how biased do you think you are?

o If so, how did your view on Society 5.0 change during the preparation and execution of thisinterview