A Synergistic Model of Technological Capacity, Institutions, and Culture in the Transition Towards Society 5.0: Cross-Country Evidence
Downloads
This study elucidates global variation in achieving Society 5.0 objectives by identifying the foundational requirements, thresholds, and synergistic configurations of technological and AI capacity, institutional quality, and cultural values across nations. The research develops a novel conceptual model that integrates core determinants while accounting for country-specific conditions in the transition towards a human-centered society. Utilizing a harmonized dataset encompassing 102 countries, this study employs hierarchical multiple regression and three-way interaction modeling to evaluate the direct, conditional, and higher-order effects of technological readiness and its interaction with institutional and cultural values on Human-Centered Outcomes (HCO). The empirical results demonstrate that technological advancement and AI readiness alone are insufficient to generate meaningful societal progress. Instead, institutional quality emerges as the most robust predictor, significantly amplifying the relationship between digital capacity and human-centered outcomes. Among cultural dimensions, power distance exhibits the most pronounced constraining effect, while individualism and long-term orientation display consistent but statistically weaker patterns. These findings elucidate the paradox of divergent national outcomes arising from AI integration, leading to a new country taxonomy based on empirical proximity to the Society 5.0 benchmark. Ultimately, the article challenges technocentric narratives and advances a co-evolving concept of socially embedded change, providing actionable insights into how technological, institutional, and cultural pillars must be aligned to foster inclusive and well-being-oriented digital transformation.
Downloads
[1] Cabinet Office. (2016). The 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan. Council for Science, Technology and Innovation Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, Tokyo, japan. Available online: https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/kihonkeikaku/5basicplan_en.pdf (accessed on May 2026).
[2] Deguchi, A., Hirai, C., Matsuoka, H., Nakano, T., Oshima, K., Tai, M., & Tani, S. (2020). What is society 5.0?. In Society 5.0: A People-Centric Super-Smart Society, Springer Singapore, Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-2989-4.
[3] Narvaez Rojas, C., Alomia Peñafiel, G. A., Loaiza Buitrago, D. F., & Tavera Romero, C. A. (2021). Society 5.0: A Japanese concept for a superintelligent society. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(12), 6567. doi:10.3390/su13126567.
[4] Nepal, A., & Prajapati, M. (2025). The Society 5.0 Concept: A Framework for Societal Evolution. International Research Journal of MMC, 6(2), 47–67. doi:10.3126/irjmmc.v6i2.80611.
[5] Zighan, S., & Ruel, S. (2025). Managing social sustainability paradoxes in the digitalized supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 101090. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2025.101090.
[6] Filiopoulou, E., Dede, G., Fragiadakis, G., Evangelatos, S., Stamati, T., & Kamalakis, T. (2025). Prioritizing Cybersecurity Controls for SDG 3: An AHP-Based Impact–Feasibility Assessment Framework. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 15(19), 10669. doi:10.3390/app151910669.
[7] Aslam, S., & Graepel, T. (2024). Safety, Knowledge Management, and IoT: Pillars of Sustainable Development in Society 5.0. Researchgate, May 2024, 1-12. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.31470.01604.
[8] Renou, T., Carraz, R., & Burger-Helmchen, T. (2023). Japan’s Corporate Governance Transformation: Convergence or Reconfiguration? Administrative Sciences, 13(6), 141. doi:10.3390/admsci13060141.
[9] Santos, J. M. R. C. A., & Brandão, A. S. (2025). From Silos to Synergy: Collaborative Laboratories and the Transformation of Knowledge Production. Emerging Science Journal, 9(5), 2643–2660. doi:10.28991/ESJ-2025-09-05-020.
[10] OECD. (2026). Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI): Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/main-science-and-technology-indicators.html (accessed on May 2026).
[11] World Bank. (2026). Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI): Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality. World Bank, Washington, United States. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators (accessed on May 2026).
[12] United Nations. (2024). UN E-Government Survey 2024. United Nations, New York, United States. Available online: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/ (accessed on May 2026).
[13] Maghsoudi, M., Mohammadi, N., & Bakhtiari, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence and sustainable development: Public concerns and governance in developed and developing nations. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 19, 100340. doi:10.1016/j.cesys.2025.100340.
[14] Ahmed, E. M., Elfaki, K. E., & Bashir, M. S. (2026). The impacts of globalization, institutional quality, and digital technology innovation on OECD countries sustainable digital economic growth. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 13, 102560. doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102560.
[15] OECD. (2019). Going Digital: Shaping Policies, Improving Lives. In Going Digital: Shaping Policies, Improving Lives. OECD Publishing, Paris, France. doi:10.1787/9789264312012-en.
[16] Calzada, I. (2025). Generative AI and the urban AI policy challenges ahead: Trustworthy for whom? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1–17. doi:10.1108/TG-08-2025-0240.
[17] Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B., & Wang, L. (2021). Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception, conception and perception. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 61, 530–535. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.10.006.
[18] Rame, R., Purwanto, P., & Sudarno, S. (2024). Industry 5.0 and sustainability: An overview of emerging trends and challenges for a green future. Innovation and Green Development, 3(4), 100173. doi:10.1016/j.igd.2024.100173.
[19] Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Foroughi, B., Babaee Tirkolaee, E., Asadi, S., & Amran, A. (2023). Industry 5.0 implications for inclusive sustainable manufacturing: An evidence-knowledge-based strategic roadmap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 417, 138023. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138023.
[20] Zou, Q., Mao, Z., Yan, R., Liu, S., & Duan, Z. (2023). Vision and reality of e-government for governance improvement: Evidence from global cross-country panel data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122667. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122667.
[21] UNDP. (2024). From Access to Empowerment: Digital Inclusion in a Dynamic World. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Policy Centre, Singapore.
[22] Shane, S. A. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(1), 29–46. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(92)90033-N.
[23] Rinne, T., Steel, G. D., & Fairweather, J. (2012). Hofstede and Shane Revisited: The Role of Power Distance and Individualism in National-Level Innovation Success. Cross-Cultural Research, 46(2), 91–108. doi:10.1177/1069397111423898.
[24] Prokop, V., Stejskal, J., Mikusova Merickova, B., & Odei, S. A. (2023). Revealing the importance of international and domestic cooperation by using artificial neural networks: case of European radical and incremental innovators. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(2), 531–563. doi:10.1108/EJIM-02-2021-0104.
[25] Calza, F., Cannavale, C., & Zohoorian Nadali, I. (2020). How do cultural values influence entrepreneurial behavior of nations? A behavioral reasoning approach. International Business Review, 29(5), 101725. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101725.
[26] Rubino, M., Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2020). Cross-country differences in European firms’ digitalization: the role of national culture. Management Decision, 58(8), 1563–1583. doi:10.1108/MD-08-2019-1120.
[27] Maslej, N., Fattorini, L., Perrault, R., Gil, Y., Parli, V., Kariuki, N., ... & Oak, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence index report 2025. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:2504.07139. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.07139.
[28] Koroleva, D. O. (2015). The use of Social Networks in Education and Socialization of Adolescents: An analytical review of Empirical Studies (International Experience). Psychological Science and Education, 20(1), 28–37. doi:10.17759/pse.2015200104.
[29] Małkowska, A., Urbaniec, M., & Kosała, M. (2021). The impact of digital transformation on European countries: Insights from a comparative analysis. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 16(2), 325–355. doi:10.24136/eq.2021.012.
[30] Carayannis, E. G., & Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. (2022). The Futures of Europe: Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 as Driving Forces of Future Universities. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(4), 3445–3471. doi:10.1007/s13132-021-00854-2.
[31] Obelovska, K., Abziatov, A., Doroshenko, A., Dronyuk, I., Liskevych, O., & Liskevych, R. (2025). Analysis of Digital Skills and Infrastructure in EU Countries Based on DESI 2024 Data. Future Internet, 17(6), 228. doi:10.3390/fi17060228.
[32] Shonhe, L., Min, Q., & Phuti, R. (2024). Government AI readiness in the ESARBICA community: Findings from the Oxford Insights AI Readiness Index 2022. ESARBICA Journal, 43, 84–101. doi:10.4314/esarjo.v43i1.6.
[33] European Commission. (2024). Horizon Europe strategic plan 2025-2027. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/092911 (accessed on May 2026).
[34] Fifaliana, R. M. (2026). A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on the Impact of E-Government Use on Citizens’ Trust in Government. Chinese Public Administration Review, 15396754251413048. doi:10.1177/15396754251413048.
[35] Cannavale, C., Claudio, L., & Koroleva, D. (2025). Digitalisation and artificial intelligence development. A cross-country analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(11), 112–130. doi:10.1108/EJIM-07-2024-0828.
[36] Jiao, C., & Ayob, A. H. (2025). National Culture and Digitalization: A Moderating Effect of Trust. GATR Global Journal of Business Social Sciences Review, 13(1), 01–11. doi:10.35609/gjbssr.2025.13.1(1).
[37] Komatsu, K., Ždanovič, N., Yamabe, M., Iwata, H., Iwamoto, M., & Takeda, S. (2026). The association between national culture and AI readiness: a cross-national study. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 9, 1727606. doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1727606.
[38] UNCTAD. (2025). Digital economy: A new frontier for trade, sustainability and inclusion. UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Geneva, Switzerland. Available online: https://unctad.org/news/digital-economy-new-frontier-trade-sustainability-and-inclusion (accessed on May 2026).
[39] Gao, J., Li, Z., Nguyen, T., & Zhang, W. (2025). Digital transformation and enterprise employment. International Review of Economics and Finance, 99(6), 104036. doi:10.1016/j.iref.2025.104036.
[40] Mubarak, F., & Suomi, R. (2022). Elderly Forgotten? Digital Exclusion in the Information Age and the Rising Grey Digital Divide. Inquiry (United States), 59, 469580221096272. doi:10.1177/00469580221096272.
[41] Sá, M. J., Santos, A. I., Serpa, S., & Ferreira, C. M. (2021). Digital Literacy in Digital Society 5.0: Some Challenges. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 10(2), 1-9. doi:10.36941/ajis-2021-0033.
[42] de Villiers, C., Dimes, R., & Molinari, M. (2024). How will AI text generation and processing impact sustainability reporting? Critical analysis, a conceptual framework and avenues for future research. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(1), 96–118. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-02-2023-0097.
[43] Ferreira, C. M., & Serpa, S. (2018). Society 5.0 and Social Development: Contributions to a Discussion. Management and Organizational Studies, 5(4), 26. doi:10.5430/mos.v5n4p26.
[44] Tomaževič, N., Ravšelj, D., & Aristovnik, A. (2023). Artificial Intelligence for Human-Centric Society: The Future Is Here. European Liberal Forum, Brussels, Belgium. Available online: https://liberalforum.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Artificial-Intelligence-for-human-centric-society.pdf (accessed on May 2026).
[45] Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025). Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 34(2), 101885. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101885.
[46] ITU. (2026). AI Ready–Analysis towards a Standardized Readiness Framework. International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland.
[47] Breitschopf, B., Grimm, A., Billerbeck, A., Wydra, S., & Köhler, J. (2023). Towards understanding interactions between socio-technical systems in sustainability transitions. Energy Research and Social Science, 106, 103323. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2023.103323.
[48] Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2022). Analyzing the Level of Digitalization among the Enterprises of the European Union Member States and Their Impact on Economic Growth. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(2), 70. doi:10.3390/joitmc8020070.
[49] Castelo-Branco, I., Amaro-Henriques, M., Cruz-Jesus, F., & Oliveira, T. (2023). Assessing the Industry 4.0 European divide through the country/industry dichotomy. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 176, 108925. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2022.108925.
[50] Juracka, D., Nagy, M., Zvarikova, K., & Popescu, G. (2024). Eco-Innovation: Analysis of EU Member States Performance in the EU Eco-Innovation Index 2013–2022. Systems, 12(11), 452. doi:10.3390/systems12110452.
[51] Castellani, D., Lamperti, F., & Lavoratori, K. (2022). Measuring adoption of industry 4.0 technologies via international trade data: insights from European countries. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 49(1), 51–93. doi:10.1007/s40812-021-00204-y.
[52] Kaasa, A., & Andriani, L. (2022). Determinants of institutional trust: The role of cultural context. Journal of Institutional Economics, 18(1), 45–65. doi:10.1017/S1744137421000199.
[53] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339. doi:10.2307/249008.
[54] Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). Theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
[55] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540.
[56] Lokuge, S., Sedera, D., Grover, V., & Dongming, X. (2019). Organizational readiness for digital innovation: Development and empirical calibration of a construct. Information & Management, 56(3), 445–461. doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.09.001.
[57] Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (Tri): A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. doi:10.1177/109467050024001.
[58] Dutta, S., & Lanvin, B. (2024). The Network Readiness Index 2024. Portulans Institute, Washington, United States. Available online: https://networkreadinessindex.org/ (accessed on May 2026).
[59] Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, United States.
[60] Vos, J. F. J., & Boonstra, A. (2022). The influence of cultural values on Enterprise System adoption, towards a culture – Enterprise System alignment theory. International Journal of Information Management, 63, 102453. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102453.
[61] He, M., & Lee, J. (2020). Social culture and innovation diffusion: a theoretically founded agent-based model. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 30(4), 1109–1149. doi:10.1007/s00191-020-00665-9.
[62] Wang, M., & Huang, Y. (2024). A digital Technology–Cultural resource strategy to drive innovation in cultural industries: A dynamic analysis based on machine learning. Technology in Society, 77, 102590. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102590.
[63] Jan, J., Alshare, K. A., & Lane, P. L. (2024). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in technology acceptance models: a meta-analysis. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23(2), 717–741. doi:10.1007/s10209-022-00930-7.
[64] AlMutairi, S., & Yen, D. (2022). An exploratory examination of the influence of national culture on cross national diffusion: A case study on the MENA region. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1), 2016554. doi:10.1080/23311975.2021.2016554.
[65] Jaiswal, M., & Zane, L. (2022). National culture and attitudes’ impact on diffusion of sustainable new technology-based products. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(1), 5–25. doi:10.1108/NEJE-09-2021-0059.
[66] Zhang, Z., Xia, E., & Huang, J. (2022). Impact of the Moderating Effect of National Culture on Adoption Intention in Wearable Health Care Devices: Meta-analysis. JMIR MHealth and UHealth, 10(6), 30960. doi:10.2196/30960.
[67] Jeong, S., & Lee, J. (2021). Effects of cultural background on consumer perception and acceptability of foods and drinks: a review of latest cross-cultural studies. Current Opinion in Food Science, 42, 248–256. doi:10.1016/j.cofs.2021.07.004.
[68] Chi, O. H., Chi, C. G., Gursoy, D., & Nunkoo, R. (2023). Customers’ acceptance of artificially intelligent service robots: The influence of trust and culture. International Journal of Information Management, 70, 102623. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102623.
[69] Petukhov, I., Steshina, L., & Glazyrin, A. (2017). Application of virtual reality technologies in training of man-machine system operators. 2017 International Conference on Information Science and Communications Technologies (ICISCT), 1–7. doi:10.1109/ICISCT.2017.8188569.
[70] Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, United States.
[71] Erkkilä, T. (2023). Global indicators and AI policy: Metrics, policy scripts, and narratives. Review of Policy Research, 40(5), 811–839. doi:10.1111/ropr.12556.
[72] Guevara, A. J. D. H., Terra, D. M., Portes, J. H., Silva, J. L. A. da, & Magalhães, K. E. (2021). a Ranking of Countries Concerning Progress Towards a Society 5.0. Journal on Innovation and Sustainability RISUS, 11(4), 188–199. doi:10.23925/2179-3565.2020v11i4p188-199.
[73] Oxford Insights. (2025) Government AI Readiness Index. Report. Oxford Insights, Herefordshire, United Kingdom. Available online: https://oxfordinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-Government-AI-Readiness-Index-2.pdf (accessed on May 2026).
[74] Hofstede Insights. (2024). Country comparison tool. Hofstede Insights, Helsinki, Finland. Available online: https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool (accessed on May 2026).
[75] United Nations. (2023). E-government development index. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations, New York, United States. Available online: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/-E-Government-Development-Index (accessed on May 2026).
[76] Kaba, S. (2025). Hofstede Cultural Dimensions by Country. Kaggle, San Francisco, United States. Available online: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/seydakaba/hofstede-cultural-dimensions-by-country (accessed on May 2026).
[77] Atay, S., Terzi Müftüoğlu, C., Gülmez, N., & Şahin, M. (2025). Society 5.0 and human-centered technology: Redefining talent management in the digital age. Sustainable Futures, 9(3), 100733. doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100733.
[78] Erumban, A. A., & de Jong, S. B. (2006). Cross-country differences in ICT adoption: A consequence of Culture? Journal of World Business, 41(4), 302–314. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2006.08.005.
[79] Shahidi Hamedani, S., Aslam, S., Mundher Oraibi, B. A., Wah, Y. B., & Shahidi Hamedani, S. (2024). Transitioning towards Tomorrow’s Workforce: Education 5.0 in the Landscape of Society 5.0: A Systematic Literature Review. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1041. doi:10.3390/educsci14101041.
[80] Mahajan, S., Narkhede, G., Washimkar, D., Kore, S., Narkhede, R., & Chaudhari, T. (2025). Society 5.0 - Aiming for a super smart society through industry 5.0: An emerging research agenda. Business and Society Review, 130(4), 548–577. doi:10.1111/basr.70024.
[81] WDI (2026). World Development Indicators (WDI), World Bank, Washington, United States. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed on May 2026).
[82] ITU (2026). DataHub (ICT indicators), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland. Available online: https://datahub.itu.int/ (accessed on May 2026).
[83] IFR (2026). World Robotics (robots/robot density), International Federation of Robotics (IFR), Frankfurt, Germany. Available online: https://ifr.org/ (accessed on May 2026).
[84] UNESCO (2026). R&D / GERD statistics, UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), Montreal, Canada. Available online: https://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/research-and-development (accessed on May 2026).
[85] ITU (2026). Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland. Available online: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Pages/global-cybersecurity-index.aspx (accessed on May 2026).
[86] World Bank (2026). Global Findex Database (digital payments), World Bank, Washington, United States. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globalfindex (accessed on May 2026).
[87] WIPO (2026). IP Statistics Data Center (patents, etc.), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva, Switzerland. Available online: https://www3.wipo.int/ipst (accessed on May 2026).
[88] UNDP (2026). Human Development Index (HDI) / Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, United States. Available online: https://hdr.undp.org/ (accessed on May 2026).
[89] World Happiness Report (2026). Cantril Ladder / Well-Being. World Happiness Report, Oxford, United Kingdom. Available online: https://worldhappiness.report/ (accessed on May 2026).
[90] SDSN (2026). SDG Index & Dashboards (methodology and data), Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), New York, United States. Available online: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/ (accessed on May 2026).
[91] United Nations (2026). SDG Indicators Database, United Nations, New York, United States. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/ (accessed on May 2026).
- This work (including HTML and PDF Files) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
