essay society 5 0

• Winter 2024
• Tahrir Forum
• Global Forum
• Book Reviews
• Regions and Countries
• Contributors
• eBook: A Global Perspective on the Trump Era

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

--> .cls-1{fill:#770c1d;}

.cls-1{fill:#770c1d;}.

Support Our Balanced Narrative

Society 5.0 and the Future Economies

We’re better-connected today than ever before—but has modern innovation created a new society altogether?

Staff members work at the technology control centre at Mandalay City Development Committee headquarters in Mandalay, Myanmar, March 28, 2019. Ann Wang/Reuters

• X (Twitter)

In 2015, the Japanese government began to explore how science, technology, and innovation (STI) can work together to help develop a new model of sustainable development. The plan they put together for human development around the world came to be called Society 5.0.

Society 5.0 envisions a human-centered community that balances economic advancement and the resolution of social problems. With every innovation, the world moves toward this society: one that is sustainable, inclusive, and super-smart. Society 5.0 will build upon the innovations of Societies 1.0 (hunter-gatherer), 2.0 (agricultural), 3.0 (industrialized), and 4.0 (information), yet draw upon modern technologies like big data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and robotics as its driving forces.

This future will live within the fabric of the cyber-physical system, in which cyberspace and the physical space are tightly integrated, and form a pervasive technological mode supporting Society 5.0. Even today, the gap between the cyber and physical realities is closing, as most people live online-to-offline and back again, or “O2O”.  

Solving existing social problems—which have become increasingly complex—can kick-start the full potential of economic development in Society 5.0. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, increased production and reduced loss of foodstuffs, mitigation of costs associated with an aging society, support of sustainable industrialization, redistribution of wealth, and correction of regional inequality all present opportunities for problem-solving, though thus far maintaining economic development and sound social policy at the same time has proven to be difficult.

But, the relationship works both ways; new value created through the innovation prized by Society 5.0 will eliminate regional, age, gender, and language gaps and enable the provision of products and services finely tailored to diverse individual needs. In this manner of reciprocity, it will be possible to achieve a society that can both promote economic development and find solutions to social problems.

For many countries, science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy has already become a mainstream political agenda. In Japan, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry are leading the Society 5.0 progression agenda. They craft their STI policy to support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and have made the SDGs the theme of World Expo 2025—“Designing Future Society for Our Lives”—which will be held in Osaka.

Japan has also established industry–government committees for next-generation mobility, smart public services, next-generation infrastructure, financial technology, and next-generation healthcare. 

The Drivers of Society 5.0

Worldwide, both governments and businesses believe that increasing urbanization and technological changes, aging populations, and globalization will continue to stimulate Society 5.0.

This dramatic shift to the digital age is happening ten times faster and three hundred times the scale of the societal shift of the Industrial Revolution—meaning that we will feel roughly three thousand times the impact. Just as waves amplify each other, these trends are gaining strength, magnitude, and influence as they feed upon one another.

The age of urbanization

Emerging markets are going through simultaneous industrial and urban revolutions that have shifted the center of world economy east and south at a speed never witnessed before. Today, 95 percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies—Airbus, IBM, Nestle, Shell, and The Coca Cola Company, to name a few—were headquartered in developed economies. But, by 2025, it will not be surprising to see nearly 50 percent of the world’s large companies (those with revenues of $1 billion or more) headquartered in emerging markets. According to Euromonitor International, as of 2018 twenty megalopolises—sets of roughly adjacent city agglomerations forming continuous urban regions known for their sheer economic size and their massive contribution to the global economy—have been identified across the world. Nine of these are in North America, seven in the Asia–Pacific, three in Europe, and one in Latin America. As these megalopolises generate roughly $30 trillion in gross domestic product each year—equivalent to 35 percent of the world economic output—and house 9 percent of the world’s population, they are fertile ground for large companies traditionally headquartered in the West. 

Greater Global Connections: Trade, People, Finance and Data

Clearly, the world is becoming much more connected through movements in capital, people, and information. Trade and finance have long been part of the globalization story—but, in recent decades, they have significantly expanded. Instead of a series of lines connecting major trading hubs in Europe and North America, the global trading system has exploded into an intricate, sprawling web. Asia is becoming the world’s largest trading region. “South–South” flows between emerging markets have doubled their share of global trade over the past decade; the volume of trade between China and Africa, for example, soared from $9 billion in 2000 to $215 billion in 2014. 

Accelerating technological change

Likewise, the scope, scale, and economic impact of technology have been rapidly expanding. Technology has always been a major force in overturning the status quo, from the printing press to the steam engine to the Internet. However, the pervasiveness of technology in our lives now is unparalleled, and the speed by which new technologies are developed has increased. For instance, it took almost four decades for the radio to attract 50 million listeners—but, Facebook managed to attract 50 million users in two years, and Instagram did it in one and a half years. As fast as innovation has multiplied and spread in recent years, it is poised to change and grow exponentially, at a speed beyond the power of human intuition to anticipate.

Aging Population

Yet, there is one other trend that is mushrooming across the globe: aging. The human population is getting older. Fertility is falling, and the world’s population is graying dramatically. While aging has been evident in developed economies for some time—Russia and Japan have seen their populations decline over the past few years—the demographic deficit is now spreading to China, and will soon reach Latin America.

For the first time in human history, aging could mean that the planet’s population will plateau in most of the world. Thirty years ago, only a small share of the global population lived in the few countries with fertility rates substantially below that needed to replace each generation: 2.1 children per woman. But, by 2013, the number had expanded to about 60 percent. This is a sea change. The European Commission expects that, by 2060, Germany’s population will have shrunk by one-fifth, and the number of people of working age will fall to 36 million as opposed to 54 million in 2010.

The Future Economies

These four disruptive forces have not only influenced the development of Society 5.0, but are paving the way for the emergence of new types of economies within it. In the coming years, emerging “digital”, “experience”, “sharing”, “gig”, “circular”, and “purpose” economies will all dominate how businesses will create value. 

In so doing, those new economies will alter our understanding of the political economy. The future economies are expected to have a profound effect on the generation and distribution of wealth and power, the intersection of which are at the core of the concept of political economy. As the future economies evolve, societies, enterprises, and governments will find themselves in new roles when it comes to the use or control of wealth and power, each as an instrument to influence the other.

For over four decades, conventional wisdom among policymakers, academics, and journalists has lauded the neoliberal policies that have governed the global economy. We have been assured that the costs of global deregulation of capital, labor, and commodity markets are “transitional”, and more than compensated for by overall economic growth, rising standards of living, and a narrowing of the income gap between rich and poor. Yet, there is no convincing proof that this “Washington Consensus” has delivered on its promises. Most of the claims in its favor are based on anecdotal evidence, and typically focus on only the benefits while ignoring the costs. There is, however, a strong prima facie case that the net impact of neoliberalism has been negative.

The new realities that are being shaped by Society 5.0 put this phenomenon of blind acceptance up for questioning. Consumers expect that the future economies will address their mounting concerns about the stagnant wages, rising debt, and lack of creditor-friendly low inflation levels that have existed under the neoliberal status quo. This is surely shaping a new agenda for the future political economy, and is even driving voters to reject mainstream political parties.

Digital Economy

The digital economy lies at the center of this change; it acts as the enabler and influencer of the rest of the economies in one or more ways. It is changing the world view on value creation; it will not only transform the way we convert our resources into economic value-added outcomes, but it will redefine our views on how to utilize available resources to address existing economic and social challenges. 

The digital economy develops in three layers. The foundational layer includes core issues such as infrastructure, regulations and policies, digital skills, finance, and governance. The second layer is the true ecosystem of innovation and includes the different technologies that fuel the digital economy: big data analytics, AI, 3-D printing, social networks, new digital media, and cloud computing are just a few. They enable economic sectors, which exist in the third layer, to go “smart” to form the digital economy. The final product includes many sectors, such as e-health, e-government, precision agriculture, smart manufacturing, smart cities, and smart mobility. Because of its multi-layer makeup, the digital economy is able to create benefits for multiple levels of society. For example, digitization allows for the automation of business operations, resulting in operational efficiencies (like the reduction of transaction costs) which ultimately heighten productivity. Furthermore, it offers new business opportunities, thus affecting employment and entrepreneurship. It also enhances the provision of public services, such as health and education, and improves interactions between citizens and their governments by facilitating communication and social inclusion. With all of these benefits, the development of a digital economy will ultimately lead to a society that has more inclusion, affordability, and accessibility to support the achievement of social and economic development goals.

Experience Economy

The emergence of another economy—the experience economy—has fundamentally changed how companies go to market, influence their buyers, and engage people throughout the customer journey. Brands have realized that experience is king: consumers’ loyalty and dollars go not to products, but to the experience that they have when shopping with a company.

Brands consider many touchpoints in crafting a customer’s experience; its product, service, employees, and market messaging across multiple channels are continually cultivated over the duration of the customer-brand relationship. However, in order to improve and deliver a memorable customer experience—and see optimal business outcomes—companies need to move from touchpoints to journeys . 

I propose a three-step approach to making this transition. First, companies must observe. Seeing the world as their customers do helps leading companies better organize and mobilize their employees around customer needs. Then, the customer experience must be shaped around these observations. Designing the customer experience requires digitizing processes, reorienting company cultures, and nimbly refining new approaches in the field. 

The last step in this process—the performance—can take two to four years. Rewiring a company is a journey in itself, and requires high engagement from company leaders and frontline workers alike.

Some companies have created superior customer experiences and left lasting impressions in the minds of consumers by adopting this approach. Apple, Workday, and Amazon have excelled in the technology sector; Southwest and Virgin Atlantic in air travel; and Starbucks, Nordstrom, and Zappos.com in retail. Because of the interest in customer experience shown by brands like these, spending on the experience economy is projected to skyrocket to $8 trillion by 2030.

Sharing Economy

However, around the world, a new wave of peer-to-peer, access-driven companies are shaking up the established businesses. The sharing economy has allowed individuals and groups to make money from under-used assets. Trust, convenience, and sense of community have given consumers a greater appetite for sharing-based rather than corporate opportunities, whether they’re looking to borrow goods, rent homes, or use someone’s micro skills in exchange for money. 

Numbers of people are switching from traditional hotels to Airbnb and Couchsurfing. Uber, Lyft, Side.car, and Getaround have become more popular than taxis, and it is common for individuals to buy and sell retail and consumer goods from Poshmark, Tradesy, and NeighborGoods. And, of course, who among us hasn’t used Wix, Spotify, Earbits, or Soundcloud for media and entertainment?

The impact created by this emergent ecosystem is upending mature business models across the globe. To put the scale of disruption caused by the sharing economy into perspective, Airbnb averages 425,000 guests per night: 22 percent more than Hilton worldwide. Uber, an archetypal disruptive business, has played havoc with the taxi industry in over six hundred cities in sixty-five countries.

The sharing economy is too big of an opportunity to miss, but too big of a risk (for traditional businesses) not to mitigate. Therefore, it is increasingly important for traditional businesses to recognize both the opportunities and disruption risks they are confronted with in order to remain effective in the sharing economy. This can be achieved in seven steps: create a marketplace that involves high fixed costs and low marginal costs with underutilization; develop mitigation strategies by acquiring new entrants or partnering with them; engage in sharing won asset bases; effectively tap talent; share in shaping regulatory and policy frameworks; expand the brand; and finally, never settle—and continue evolving. 

Gig Economy

Although they seem similar, separate from the sharing economy is the gig economy—rather, the “skills sharing economy”. Also called the “freelance economy”, the gig economy refers to the use of digital platforms by independent freelancers to connect with individuals or businesses for short-term services. 

Since the majority of the gig economy’s gross volume is generated from platforms that are relatively new to the market, the outlook for continued industry expansion is positive. Gig platforms are projected to continue extending their operations regionally and offer a greater diversity of services to customers, thus enabling the industry to expand and mature. 

Freelancers are increasingly offering their services to gig platforms, partly because evolving social attitudes about peer-to-peer sharing of personal items now accept, and even encourage, sharing underutilized assets for profit. Moreover, digitization has become more accessible through rapid smartphone adoption and increasing Internet access in underserved regions. A cultural shift toward embracing a “flexible” work–life balance has also changed the working population’s expectations of a typical nine-to-five workday, and rising costs of living and a shrinking middle class compel the employed lower-to-middle class to seek additional part-time income through gig work.

Circular Economy

The circular economy is a $4.5 trillion business opportunity with the potential to transform the production and consumption processes that have operated since the Industrial Revolution. Often defined as a “new way of looking at relationships between markets, customers, and natural resources”, the concept of the circular economy is widely misunderstood by businesses. Capitalizing on its opportunity will remain a challenge until or unless more business leaders adopt a circular mindset, as executives from Danone, Solvay, International Flavours & Fragrances Inc., and Unilever have.

The circular economy moves away from the orthodox “take-make-dispose” economic model towards one that is regenerative by design. The origins of the linear economy, the excessive consumerism-driven economic model that we see today, date back to the period after the Second World War when the global economy was in disrepair and growth through constant buying and disposing of products was promoted. Today, we need an economic model that reflects the new generation’s social values and benefits the planet: one that reduces waste, focuses on repairing things instead of throwing them away, and designs and builds products that are more reliable, live longer, and use less packaging. 

The benefits of such a model abound. The circular economy has already created five hundred thousand additional jobs in France, and could offer a 37 percent reduction in energy consumption in the European Union. It also reduces greenhouse gas emissions—in India, implementing circular solutions presents the opportunity to reduce emissions by about 40 percent—and is particularly important in light of resource scarcity. In fact, applying circular economy principles to water management can greatly reduce conflict over water resources. Lastly, the circular economy drives innovation; the potential revenue that can be generated by circular business models for automotive companies, for example, could grow to $400–600 billion in 2030.

Purpose Economy

The conscious mindset that underlies the circular economy takes a second form in the purpose-driven economy, which finds its roots in social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs are popping up everywhere, demonstrating through innovative approaches that profit-making and social benefit can go hand-in-hand. The Egyptian brand Okhtein, for example, is one of the country’s hottest exports. They have taken a philanthropic approach to incorporating handmade embroidery and straw into their leatherwork by collaborating with several local nongovernmental organizations that provide assistance to skilled female workers from economically unstable backgrounds in the country.

Vava Coffee is another example. Launched in Kenya, Vava Coffee buys and exports some of the finest Kenyan coffee beans from smallholder farmers who have traditionally lacked access to fair markets, ensuring that they receive equitable prices. 

Tapping into a rising consciousness among customers, employees, and other stakeholders, many organizations and businesses are stepping up to enable positive innovation to tackle societal and economic challenges while promoting business growth. 

The success of businesses like Vava and Okhtein shows that for consumers, purpose has become personal, and the new generation—empowered by technology, high connectivity, and social media—has more power than ever to help solve the world’s economic and societal challenges.

The Optimal Path to Society 5.0

Movement toward Society 5.0 and the future economies is unstoppable; but, the world as a whole still needs to work to ensure that we get the most that we can out of this evolution. In order for Society 5.0 to operate at its full potential, we must confront serious deficiencies in the status quo, which take the form of five societal “walls”.

First to be confronted must be the wall of the ministries and agencies. This necessitates, as the Japan Business Federation states, “formulation of national strategies and integration of government promotion system”. This includes expanding the system of “Internet of Things” to the “Internet of Every Thing”, engineering a bureaucratic “think-tank function”.

Whereby laws need to be developed to implement new economic models, innovative regulatory reforms and a push of administrative digitization are also necessary to bring down the wall of the legal system. For example, Japan is promoting the expansion of World Trade Organization rules beyond goods and services to encompass trade in data

To combat barriers in technology, we need to form a “knowledge foundation”. Actionable data plays a foundational role here, as do all technologies and areas that protect and leverage it, from  cybersecurity  to robotics to nano, bio, and systems technology. This requires a serious commitment to research and development on various levels.

Educational reform, information technology literacy, and a greater number of individuals with specializations in advanced digital skills are crucial to removing the wall of human resources. This should also include the promotion of women’s participation to discover potential talents.

Lastly, we need to break down the wall of social acceptance: educate the public, address privacy concerns, and continuously examine ethical, legal, and social implications for all stakeholders. This examination must cover everything from the relationship between humans and machines (AI and robots) to philosophical issues, such as the definition of individual happiness and humanity.

Hesham Dinana is a professor of integrated marketing communications (IMC) at the American University in Cairo. His interest in future technologies and its social implication guided his research on the use of Information and Communications Technology and Digital Economy. He also authored research on Insights-Driven Sales Management.

• Email address

Related Articles

COVID-19: Isle of Man Response and Issues for the Future for Small States

Civil Society for the Displaced

Toward an Egyptian Open Society

Losing Syria’s Economic Future

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

• Blockchain for business
• 4IR – AI, Blockchain, Fintech, IoT
• AI for Business
• Cybersecurity and AI for Business

The Basics of DAO Taxes: What You Need to Know

How Blockchain Ushers Businesses To Web 3.0: Jay Steinback, CEO Of…

What Are The Top Technology Trends In 2023 That Are Going…

The Top 10 Tech Trends In 2024 Set To Redefine The…

Democratising Filmmaking With Blockchain: An Interview With Chris J. Davis, CTO…

The Future of AI in Cybersecurity: Challenges and Innovations

Decentralised Art Curation In The Era Of AI And Immersive Technologies:…

Anticipation And Scepticism With The Dawn Of Devin, The First Autonomous…

The Global Impact Of Synergy Between TD Synnex And IBM: Navigating…

The Language of Deception: Justin Hutchens Unveils The Dark Side Of…

Dinis Guarda Interviews Cevat Yerli, Founder Of TMRW Foundation, To Discuss…

Fusion Of AI And Spatial Computing: OpenAI’s ChatGPT App For Vision…

getAbstract AI: The Next Level In AI-Driven Learning By getAbstract

The Era of Digital Twins: Revolutionising Factory Efficiency

Apple Vision Pro Workshop, AWE Conference, And Auggie Awards Are The…

8 Career Options for Special Education Majors

Top 5 Reasons To Pursue Forex Trading

The Social Impact Of Open Shared Parenting In Adoption: Nicole Witt,…

A ‘Transforming’ Initiative By UNESCO: Dr. Sobhi Tawil Explains The Futures…

Society 5.0: what is it & how to achieve a human-centered society.

Society 5.0 is a human-centered society that balances economic and technological advancement to solve society’s problems with super-smart AI data systems. It represents a new vision for a smarter society where humans, nature and technology create a sustainable balance enhanced by data.

The concept of Society 5.0 was first proposed in the 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan by the Japanese government as a future society that Japan should aspire to. It follows the hunting society (Society 1.0), agricultural society (Society 2.0), industrial society (Society 3.0), and information society (Society 4.0).

As it was stated by Professor Harayama Yuko, Professor Emeritus at Tōhoku University and current member of the Board of Directors of the Elsevier Foundation, ORCID and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee for the French National Research Agency (ANR Society): “Society 5.0 is an initiative merging the physical space (real world) and cyberspace by leveraging ICT to its fullest, where we are proposing an ideal form of our future society: a ‘super smart society’ (…) We consider this as a concept to be developed alongside citizens.”

With Society 5.0, digitization is a means, but we humans must remain central actors. Traditionally, innovation driven by technology has been responsible for social development, but in the future, we will reverse our way of thinking, focusing on how to build a society that makes us happy and provides a sense of worth. That is why we focus on the word “society” as the foundation for human life.

As Professor Harayama Yuko said: “Society 5.0 aims to resolve various modern social challenges by incorporating game-changing innovations such as the Internet of things (IoT), robotics, AI and big data into all industries and social activities. Rather than a future controlled and monitored by AI and robots, technology is harnessed to achieve a human-centred society in which each and every person can lead an active and enjoyable life.  Within the context of ever-growing digitalization and connectivity and expanding use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, several actions have been initiated under this flagship concept by the Japanese government as well as by the private sector.”

Watch the video below to know more about Society 5.0, created by Dinis Guarda.

What makes Society 5.0 different? Having tech, nature and society systems operating in balance scope we can keep a building efficient, supplying energy to a smart city, ensuring that all services provided by that city are efficient and available. That is achieved thanks to a high degree of convergence between cyberspace (virtual space) and physical space (real space). In Society 5.0, a huge amount of information from sensors in physical space is accumulated in cyberspace. In cyberspace, this big data is analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI), and the analysis results are fed back to humans in physical space in various forms.

How Society 5.0 works? In the past information society, the common practice was to collect information via the network and have it analyzed by humans. In Society 5.0, however, people, things, and systems are all connected in cyberspace and optimal results obtained by AI exceeding the capabilities of humans are fed back to physical space. This process brings new value to industry and society in ways not previously possible.

Society Evolution : Achieving Society 5.0

We have gone through 5 society evolutions in human history:

SOCIETY 1.0 Cognitive + agriculture revolution.

Population 0-5-770 million Circa 115,000, early humans until 30,000 Homo Sapiens and after 10,000 years ago. Discover of fire, limited production, subsistence. Trade, social contract, Community, emergence state first models, First war empires. Money, jewelry, clothes. Religion, Nomadic tribes. Adapt nature. Small life span. 1215 Inception of Magna Carta as the first civic law and society constitution

SOCIETY 2.0 Circa 1760 – 1950’s first industrial revolution.

It was characterized by steam, electricity urbanisation, chemical agriculture, printing press, property ownership, centralised production, advertising, capitalism, socialism, healthcare, radio wave radiation, ego-system. Energy, free-market, accelerated nature change. Population: 2.5 billion. Regarding lifestyle principles, the life span augments from 30 to 60 years old.

We see a rise in human genome, TV, media broadcast, digitisation, internet, social media. It was the time of the Cold War, globalisation, space race, organic agriculture, big data, enterprise scale, complex hierarchy, stakeholder, uniform code, swarm awareness, mechanic to electronic, social market, NGOs, pollution, climate change issues and awareness. The world population soared to 6.9 billion and life extends to 80 years old.

SOCIETY 4.0 Circa 1950-1990-2020. The information society. This is the most recent society structure, dominated by tech exponential growth, permanent revolution, collective wisdom of Crowds – Internet App economy . This is a society highly influenced by tech innovation with frontier emergent technologies like Blockchain, IoT, AI, ML, robotics, quantum computing, etc. It is the time of great shifts like regenerative law, decentralisation, social impact, P2P digital systems, creative models, fake news, dystopian social unrest. UN SGD parallel w/ social psychometric. The world population rose to 8 billion people and there is an increase percentage number of people with 100+ years old.

SOCIETY 5.0 After 2020. The human-centered society.

A way by which to guide and mobilize action in science, technology and innovation (STI) to achieve a prosperous, sustainable, and inclusive future. It is dominated by Super Intelligence / Human Center Nature Conscience / AI Singularity / UN SDG smart society / AGI, Open Distributed APIs. It is characterized by a SUPERINTELLIGENT SOCIETY, a Redefinition of human machine identity – new evolution genetic neuroscience. Climate change – circular economy and new green economy. The world population is expected to reach 9.75 billion people.

The concept of society 5.0 is a vision of a human nature and tech sustainable society where humans, nature and technology find a circular economy of balance in super intelligent digital transformation – smart society.

“A major turning point in the history of humankind.”

The initial concept of society 5.0 was announced to the world by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in a famous speech entitled “Hannover Declaration” delivered at the CeBIT 2017 in Hannover, Germany. Society 5.0 concept was developed in Japan’s 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan by the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation.

Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said back then:

“A major turning point in the history of humankind has arrived.

In prehistoric days, we ventured into the forest to hunt. If that is the first chapter of human history, then the second is when we succeeded in securing a stable number of food calories in the form of rice and wheat.

The curtain rose on chapter three as waves of industrialization arrived in what we call modern times; chapter four saw telecommunications and computers fuse, opening a new door.

We are now witnessing the opening of the fifth chapter, when we are able to find solutions to problems we had been unable to solve. This age in which all things are connected and all technologies fuse is the advent of “Society 5.0”.”

Likewise, the exponential disruptive technologies of our time can create dystopia or utopia. They will be part of the biggest evolutionary acceleration that will shift humanity more in the next 50 years than in all the different stages of human history and evolution. Even with our basic forms of narrow AI we are already seeing the biggest disruption of human society with manipulation of entire societies with social media, fake news and dark data. However, the biggest challenges are yet to arrive. They will come in the form of health genetic modification – bioengineering and social AI engineerings.

Here, a variety of measures have become necessary such as the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, increased production and reduced loss of foodstuffs, mitigation of costs associated with the aging society, support of sustainable industrialization, redistribution of wealth, and correction of regional inequality, but achieving both economic development and solutions to social problems at the same time has proven to be difficult in the present social system.

A Human Centered Society

In Society 5.0, new value created through innovation will eliminate regional, age, gender, and language gaps and enable the provision of products and services finely tailored to diverse individual needs and latent needs. In this way, it will be possible to achieve a society that can both promote economic development and find solutions to social problems.

Society 5.0 is about augmenting humanity with super intelligence & constant conversation between the best of academic research, science a new dawn of evolution, powered by tech innovation, & all agents in society.

Dinis Guarda is an author, academic, influencer, serial entrepreneur, and leader in 4IR, AI, Fintech, digital transformation, and Blockchain. Dinis has created various companies such as Ztudium tech platform; founder of global digital platform directory openbusinesscouncil.org ; digital transformation platform to empower, guide and index cities citiesabc.com and fashion technology platform fashionabc.org . He is also the publisher of intelligenthq.com , hedgethink.com and tradersdna.com . He has been working with the likes of UN / UNITAR, UNESCO, European Space Agency, Davos WEF, Philips, Saxo Bank, Mastercard, Barclays, and governments all over the world.

With over two decades of experience in international business, C-level positions, and digital transformation, Dinis has worked with new tech, cryptocurrencies, driven ICOs, regulation, compliance, and legal international processes, and has created a bank, and been involved in the inception of some of the top 100 digital currencies.

He creates and helps build ventures focused on global growth, 360 digital strategies, sustainable innovation, Blockchain, Fintech, AI and new emerging business models such as ICOs / tokenomics.

Dinis is the founder/CEO of ztudium that manages blocksdna / lifesdna. These products and platforms offer multiple AI P2P, fintech, blockchain, search engine and PaaS solutions in consumer wellness healthcare and life style with a global team of experts and universities.

He is the founder of coinsdna a new swiss regulated, Swiss based, institutional grade token and cryptocurrencies blockchain exchange. He is founder of DragonBloc a blockchain, AI, Fintech fund and co-founder of Freedomee project.

Dinis is the author of various books. He has published different books such “4IR AI Blockchain Fintech IoT Reinventing a Nation”, “How Businesses and Governments can Prosper with Fintech, Blockchain and AI?”, also the bigger case study and book (400 pages) “Blockchain, AI and Crypto Economics – The Next Tsunami?” last the “Tokenomics and ICOs – How to be good at the new digital world of finance / Crypto” was launched in 2018.

Some of the companies Dinis created or has been involved have reached over 1 USD billions in valuation. Dinis has advised and was responsible for some top financial organisations, 100 cryptocurrencies worldwide and Fortune 500 companies.

Dinis is involved as a strategist, board member and advisor with the payments, lifestyle, blockchain reward community app Glance technologies, for whom he built the blockchain messaging / payment / loyalty software Blockimpact, the seminal Hyperloop Transportations project, Kora, and blockchain cybersecurity Privus.

He is listed in various global fintech, blockchain, AI, social media industry top lists as an influencer in position top 10/20 within 100 rankings: such as Top People In Blockchain | Cointelegraph https://top.cointelegraph.com/ and https://cryptoweekly.co/100/ .

Between 2014 and 2015 he was involved in creating a fabbanking.com a digital bank between Asia and Africa as Chief Commercial Officer and Marketing Officer responsible for all legal, tech and business development. Between 2009 and 2010 he was the founder of one of the world first fintech, social trading platforms tradingfloor.com for Saxo Bank.

He is a shareholder of the fintech social money transfer app Moneymailme and math edutech gamification children’s app Gozoa.

He has been a lecturer at Copenhagen Business School, Groupe INSEEC/Monaco University and other leading world universities.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

How Knowing Your Online Reputation Score Can Help Your Business?

Amir Hussain, Founder And CEO Of Yeme Tech, Discusses ESG In Urban Planning And Social Communities With Hilton Supra In Citiesabc YouTube Podcast

Five Must Have Chrome Extensions For Every Marketer

Most popular.

Video Interview with Richard Weaver from Advantage Business Partnerships

Billion Strong Seeks Global Support Through Crowdfunding Effort

Employee Boost: How to Keep them Productive Without a Raise

Interview with Ivan Ivanov Serial Entrepreneur Co-Founder of Digital Week Online

OUR NETWORK

• Advertising With Us

Local content

Sustainability and environment

Sign up to receive our latest insights from the Middle East

The CFO agenda

Arabian Gambit [Book]

The future of gaming

inbold, Middle East podcast

Our Middle East offices

Loading Results

No Match Found

Society 5.0

Society 5.0 has people at its heart. The concept was born in Japan to envision a super smart society, leveraging technological innovations to solve socioeconomic challenges. This human-centric model creates interconnected and personalized experiences across the physical and virtual world to benefit everyone.

Join Strategy&, in partnership with the Global Manufacturing and Industrialisation Summit, to zoom into this notion and provide a pragmatic approach to embedding Society 5.0 approaches and ensuring citizens’ holistic well-being.

Explore Society 5.0 today

Use these navigation controls to experience Society 5.0

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Nostrum, enim?

A day in the life of a senior citizen

Watch how Society 5.0 provides cutting-edge healthcare services and support to Aziz, a fellow senior citizen and resident.

A day in the life of a child

Children can take education and experience-based learnings to a whole new level. Let’s meet Amir, a young talent who is exploring and nurturing his skills in Society 5.0.

A day in the life of people of determination

Hind is empowered and provided with advanced technology solutions for a better quality of life. Let's see how Society 5.0 works for her.

A day in the life of a remote person

Aliyah, a Society 5.0 resident, utilizes automation and assistive technology to create a sustainable and green future in farming. Let's take a quick look at how she achieves this feat.

Explore our personas

Senior citizen

People of determination

Remote person

Learn more about Society 5.0

Download PDF

Badr Al-Olama

Head of the GMIS Organizing Committee Executive Director, UAE Clusters, Mubadala

Partner, Strategy& Middle East

Dima Sayess

Partner and Ideation Center Lead, Strategy& Middle East

Melissa Rizk

Foresight Director, Ideation Center, Strategy& Middle East

© 2019 - 2024 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

• Privacy statement
• Terms of use
• Cookies info
• About site provider

Society 5.0

What is society 5.0.

The vision of the future society that Japan should strive towards that follows the eras of the hunting society (Society 1.0), agricultural society (Society 2.0), industrial society (Society 3.0), and information society (Society 4.0). In the 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan（Cabinet decision of January 22, 2016）, Society 5.0 was first proposed as "a human-centered society in which economic development and the resolution of social issues are compatible with each other through a highly integrated system of cyberspace and physical space." In order to embody and bring into reality the concept of Society 5.0 presented in the 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan, the 6th Science, Technology, and Innovation Basic Plan (Cabinet decision of March 26, 2021), depicts Society 5.0 as "a society that is sustainable and resilient against threats and unpredictable and uncertain situations, that ensures the safety and security of the people, and that individual to realize diverse well-being."

What is necessary to Realizing Society 5.0

It is necessary for the Sixth Basic Plan to embody Society 5.0 which is proposed in the Fifth Basic Plan, etc. as "a human-centered society in which economic development and the resolution of social issues are compatible with each other through a highly integrated system of cyberspace and physical space" , in light of domestic and international changes.

Transformation into a sustainable and resilient society through the fusion of cyberspace and physical space

The key to achieving Society 5.0 is the fusion of cyberspace and physical space and the values of a human-centered society. In Society 5.0, every element of society will be built as a digital twin23 in cyberspace, restructured in terms of systems, business design, urban and regional development, etc., and then reflected in physical space to transform society. By incorporating the human-centered values into these new processes, we will encourage individual Japanese citizens and citizens of the world to play a central role in decision-making, and society will change flexibly and expeditiously into a better shape.

Creation of knowledge as a source of value creation by designing a new society

In transitioning to Society 5.0, in order to respond to the ELSI* that arises when new technologies are utilized in society, it is necessary to have a panoramic perspective and to build a system that enables the utilization of "Convergence Knowledge (So-Go-Chi)" that includes not only the natural sciences but also the humanities and social sciences. *ELSI: Ethical, Legal and Social Implications/Issues.

Developing human resources to support a new society

In the era of Society 5.0, it will be important to develop the abilities and qualities that can be acquired through exploratory activities to discover problems and find solutions by oneself. It will be necessary to produce human resources who can create new value in the world and to realize an education and human resource development system that will realize this.

Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for the Realization of Society 5.0

Cross-ministerial strategic innovation promotion program (sip), programs for bridging the gap between r&d and the ideal society (society 5.0) and generating economic and social value (hereinafter referred to as "bridge").

We are fostering innovation in the strategies of each ministry's research and development by bridging results, such as groundbreaking technologies produced through initiatives like SIP, toward the resolution of social issues, the creation of new businesses, and the realization of Society 5.0.

The Moonshot Research and Development Program

In pursuit of creating disruptive innovations originating from Japan, the government is setting ambitious goals and visions targeted at social issues that, while challenging, are expected to yield significant impact upon realization. It is promoting daring research and development grounded in bolder ideas. Multiple objectives have been set against the backdrop of Society 5.0. For more information, please visit the page for the Moonshot Research and Development Program

Smart Cities

Convergence knowledge (so-go-chi).

Addressing societal challenges through science, technology, and innovation, as well as realizing Society 5.0 and other social reforms, requires the use of Convergence Knowledge (So-Go-Chi) that includes not only the natural sciences but also the humanities and social sciences, which play a critical role. To promote the use of convergence knowledge, we are advancing efforts such as the dissemination of information about convergence knowledge and the collection of case studies where it has been applied.

Education and the Development of Human Resources

Recognizing that "diversity," "fairness and individual dignity," and "varied well-being" are at the core of Society 5.0, we are advancing initiatives to promote education and the development of human resources policies throughout society.

Related Link

Society 5.0: balancing of Industry 4.0, economic advancement and social problems

ISSN : 0368-492X

Article publication date: 15 May 2020

Issue publication date: 27 March 2021

The purpose of this paper is to report about research how Society 5.0 balances Industry 4.0, responsible economic development and resolution of social problems by advancement of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in organizations.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing from organization, sustainable development and social functionalism theories, the authors designed an integral model of CSR in line with goals of a forward-looking and socially responsible society. This study includes analyzing of present governing principles, multidisciplinary and multifunctional consideration and developing of integral framework for CSR in organizations.

This study’s findings suggest incorporation of technology in models of CSR, a regionally grounded solving of individuals’ social problems and changing of CSR’s environmental, social and economic dimensions according to circumstances of Society 5.0.

Practical implications

This study has created guidance for improvement of CSR practice in organizations through its responsible operating and behavior grounded on the governing environmental and social circumstances in modern society. It also revealed new possibilities for interest-based usage of human-centered society among individuals and organizations.

Originality/value

The reported study proposed an integral model of CSR for solving the main social problems with usage of advanced technologies in responsible economic growth founded on circumstances of Society 5.0, previously not considered in literature.

• Corporate social responsibility
• Industry 4.0
• Socially responsible economic advancement
• Social problems

Society 5.0

Potočan, V. , Mulej, M. and Nedelko, Z. (2021), "Society 5.0: balancing of Industry 4.0, economic advancement and social problems", Kybernetes , Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 794-811. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2019-0858

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Vojko Potočan, Matjaž Mulej and Zlatko Nedelko.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

Authors examine impact of Society 5.0 on understanding and practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in modern organizations.

Media headlines on “environmental problems,” “risky technological development” and “laches of social development” keep worsening public opinion about practice of responsibility of organizations and their contributions to sustainable development of society ( Wang et al. , 2016 ; Kish-Gephart et al. , 2019 ).

Studies about organizational effects on natural environment revealed substantial and growing alteration of humans on Earth ( Campbell, 2007 ; Aguinis, 2011 ; Elkington, 2004 ). Increasing interest in protection of natural environment initiated visions aimed at a more responsible living of humankind, such as responsible development, sustainable development and social responsibility ( Dahlsrud, 2008 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ). In 1960s, environmentalism studies presented CSR ( Carroll, 1999 ; Elkington, 2004 ). CSR was established as a leading vision for responsible operating and behavior of organization toward natural, social and economic environment in the past decades ( Elkington, 2004 ; Dahlsrud, 2008 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ).

Leading conceptualizations of CSR as “A company’s sense of responsibility toward the community and environment in which it operates” ( Carroll, 1999 , p. 269) and “Obligation of organization to serve its own interests and those of society” ( Shen and Benson, 2016 , p. 1725) show large accordance in content and methodological consideration of organizations’ responsibility ( Dahlsrud, 2008 ; Elkington, 2004 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ). Conceptualizations of CSR are aimed at improving organizational – and their stakeholders’ – care for nature preservation and assurance of social prosperity ( Wang et al. , 2016 ; Kish-Gephart et al. , 2019 ).

Less studied and explained are effects of internal and external situational circumstances on CSR in organization ( Waddock and Graves, 1997 ; Glavas, 2016 ). Globalized development of society in the past decades resulted in fast economic growth, technological advance and spreading of prosperity around the world; it also modeled new circumstances for responsible advancement of humankind, which need to be included in CSR ( Wang et al. , 2016 ; Kish-Gephart et al. , 2019 ). Theorists and practitioners in their research follow the tradition of social functionalism ( Myers, 2010 ; Macionis, 2012 ), and organizational contingency theories ( Feldman, 1976 ; Dahlsrud, 2008 ) with presumption that situational circumstances of modern society ( Elkington, 2004 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ) decide on models realization and potential results of CSR in organizations ( Potocan et al. , 2016 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ).

In the forefront of recent CSR scholars’ research interests are circumstances connected to social problems ( Gelfand et al. , 2017 ; Kish-Gephart et al. , 2019 ) and technological development ( Palazzeschi et al. , 2018 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ). Social issues related to growing demands for energy and foodstuffs, humankind’s un-rational using of limited natural and other resources, limited capacities and possibilities for society’s development and globalization ( Kassin et al. , 2017 ; Higashihara, 2018 ) importantly determine alternatives for development of a socially responsible forward-looking society ( Wang et al. , 2016 ; Kish-Gephart et al. , 2019 ).

In conditions of restricted resources, severe competition and growing globalization, organizations can improve the solving of social problems with usage of advances technologies, which enables connections of people, things and technologies in cyberspace for creation of new values for industry in society ( Lee et al. , 2015 ; Palazzeschi et al. , 2018 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ). Understanding of interdependences of technological and social developments, implementation of advanced technologies, diffusion of available technological solutions and forming of integrated cyberspace enable solving of social problems in ways not previously possible ( Lee et al. , 2015 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ).

New development issue of modern society ( Aguinis, 2011 ; Kish-Gephart et al. , 2019 ) led Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) to modeling the Society 5.0 ( Keidanren, 2016 ). Society 5.0 presented a new vision of society:

[…] that incorporates several new technologies in all industries and social activities and achieves both economic development–primarily based on Sustainable Development Goals established by the United Nations, and solutions to key social problems in the present society ( Keidanren, 2016 , p. 3).

Society 5.0, described the present circumstances of society, suggested solutions for achievement of responsible human-centered society ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ) and offered promising integral framework for potential development of CSR in organizations.

According to calls of scholars for improvement of responsibility ( Elkington, 2004 ; Aguinis, 2011 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ) and inspired by vision of Society 5.0 ( Keidanren, 2016 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ), we are expanding previous studies with conceptualization of integral framework of Society 5.0 for consideration of environmental, social and economic dimensions of CSR in organizations.

To give analytical traction to our exposition, we begin by highlighting related gaps in understanding and consideration of CSR that have been emphasized in prior studies.

Our study contributes the following added value. First, we study Society 5.0 through multidisciplinary and multifunctional approach, which includes technological development, leading social problems and sustainable development to establish the bridge between previously divided studies of CSR ( Dahlsrud, 2008 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2018 ). Second, we analyze how circumstances of modern society defined by Society 5.0 govern development of CSR arguments and initiatives of CSR in organizations ( Wang et al. , 2016 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ). Third, following the studies on present circumstances of society and development trends of CSR, we modeled an integral framework and corresponding model for usage of CSR in forward-looking responsible society ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ). Finally, our study uncovers substantial knowledge gaps for critical analysis, aimed at development of CSR in organizations and suggestions for its future inquiry.

In the following section, we begin by reviewing the theoretical framework of Society 5.0 and CSR as the interesting variables that guided the development of research hypothesis in our study. In the next section, we form an integral framework for further advance of CSR in Society 5.0 through consideration of technological development, innovations and innovativeness. We then analyze directions for future consideration of environmental, social and economic dimensions of CSR. We continue with modeling of an integral model of CSR in Society 5.0. We conclude with a discussion about the findings, limitations and extensions of this research.

Theoretical framework and hypothesis

Idea of social responsibility of organizations has become more widespread in 1960s, and since then, studies about responsibility of organizations for environmental, social and economic issues have been growing ( Carroll, 1999 ; Dahlsrud, 2008 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ).

In 2016, Keidanren ( Keidanren, 2016 ) published declaration “Toward realization of the new economy and society - Reform of the economy and society,” which established Society 5.0 as a new vision for further responsible development of society. Keidanren defined Society 5.0 as “A human-centered society that balances economic advancement with the resolution of social problems by a system that highly integrates cyberspace and physical space” ( Keidanren, 2016 , p. 5). Although this new vision exposed policies and actions on society’s level, such initiative is founded and decisively dependent on organizations as the most influential institutions of the modern society.

Society 5.0 followed the previous development visions with consideration of responsible economic development ( Reinhardt et al. , 2008 ; Crifo and Forget, 2015 ) and solving of sustainability issues ( Lins et al. , 2012 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ). More importantly, Keidanren (2019) completed knowledge of sustainability with humans-centered society ( Higashihara, 2018 ; SCTI, 2019 ), regionally planned and realized solving of sustainability issues ( Metaxas and Tsavdaridou, 2014 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ) and established prevailing situational circumstances as origins for advancement of sustainability in society ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ). Researchers characterized humans-centered society as providing goods and services that granularly address manifolds latent needs without disparity but balancing economic development with the resolution of social problems of individuals and one advancing fusion of cyberspace and physical space to ensure suitable infrastructures and preconditions for sustainable living of individuals in modern society ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Keidanren, 2019 ).

The concept Society 5.0 radically changes solving of social sustainability problems with regional orientation of solving and implementation of bottom-up created solutions ( Keidanren, 2016 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ). That enables organizations to provide goods that people need and at the time they are needed, thereby optimizing the entire process of sustainable living in the local environment ( SCTI, 2019 ). Keidanren (2019) aims at balancing expectations about sustainability in society and lag of organizations’ interest in responsible production of sustainable goods in contentment of humans’ unsatisfied sustainable needs in local environment ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ). More detailed overview of human-centered and regionally oriented implementation of Society 5.0 in organizations is beyond the scope of this paper.

For purpose of this study, we will now outline circumstances of Society 5.0, whose characteristics importantly govern the CSR operating and behavior in organizations ( Higashihara, 2018 ; SCTI, 2019 ). Researchers of Society 5.0 focused their attention on circumstances related to knowledge and information, humans’ work, attributes of work places, solving of social problems and limitations in humans’ work abilities ( Higashihara, 2018 ; SCTI, 2019 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ).

In the present information society – also named Society 4.0 – knowledge and information are insufficiently shared; members of cross-sector teams did not adopt the same values, and this limited the potential results of cooperation in society ( Lee et al. , 2015 ; Palazzeschi et al. , 2018 ). Society 5.0 suggests the use of advanced technologies and products for connection of people and things and sharing of all sorts of knowledge and information in creation of new social and business chains and values in society ( Shiroishi et al. , 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ).

Employees work in conditions characterized by overflow of information, and consequently, finding and analyzing of information is difficult and not appropriately supported by available technological solutions ( Palazzeschi et al. , 2018 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ). Society 5.0 foresees usage of modern information technologies and solutions to free humans from exhausting routine work and improve using of available information ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ).

Social problems of the modern society created many constrains among humans, originating in aging society, regional depopulations and stagnation of participation of individuals in social living ( Shen and Benson, 2016 ; Kassin et al. , 2017 ). Society 5.0 applies technological solutions, innovative organizing of social system and modeling of locally centered activities to overcome social issues by proactively working on liberation from various types of social constraints ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ).

Society 5.0 tries to eliminate big lots of work of employees, limitation of employees’ physical abilities on job and physical constrains related to extended routine and exhausting work ( Keidanren, 2016 ; SCTI, 2019 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ). Use of automata, robots, new approaches to organization of work and working place, advanced work conditions and enrichment of work operations enables employees to use their resources and potentials for creative and interesting works ( Lee et al. , 2015 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ).

Finally, researchers of Society 5.0 are modeling new cyber-physical environment through implementation of Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0, which improves connections between people, things, humans’ subjects and technologies in advanced cyberspace environment ( Keidanren, 2019 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ). Advanced technological solutions form high-value-added information infrastructures; this enables responsible cooperating of people, things and technologies in the modern society ( Ruttan, 1997 ; Higashihara, 2018 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ). At the same time, technological development offers useful technological solutions for several products and services, which can match responsible demands in society ( Lee et al. , 2015 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2018 ). For instance, new technologies such as Internet of Things, robotics, artificial intelligence and big data in all industries and social activities provide goods and services that address manifold needs in more responsible ways ( Foray and Grubler, 1996 ; Lee et al. , 2015 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ).

Social responsibility of organizations

Interest of organizations in their social responsibility beyond making profits for shareholders has become more widespread from 1960s onwards ( Dunlap et al. , 1993 ; Aguilera et al. , 2007 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ).

Conceptualizations of CSR in organizations established multidisciplinary and multifunctional meaning of CSR ( Aguilera et al. , 2007 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ). The multidisciplinary nature of CSR resulted through interdependent studies of environmentalism, which established the basic theory for building of CSR ( Elkington, 2004 ; Glavas, 2016 ) management, which conducted solutions for operationalization of CSR in organizations ( Aguinis, 2011 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ), and behavior theories, which reveal mechanisms for impact of stakeholders’ behavior on organizational CSR ( Wang et al. , 2016 ; Mulej and Dyck, 2015 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ). Results of these studies introduced conceptual and methodological frameworks for addressing the challenges in usage of CSR in organizations ( Glavas, 2016 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ).

Dunlap et al. (1993) , Carroll (1999) and Elkington (2004) broadened CSR with multifunctional modeling and consideration of organizations’ care for environmental, social and economic environment. Environmental care expressed actions and initiatives to preserve the ecological environment for future generations ( Elkington, 2004 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ). Social care draws on the relative importance placed by organizations on the social roles and norms expected by the internal and external societies ( Windsor, 2006 ; Petrenko et al. , 2016 ). Economic care defines relative importance that organizations ascribe to the achievement of the economic results and economic prosperity of themselves, other people, groups, organization and society ( Waddock and Graves, 1997 ; Kitzmueller and Shimshack, 2012 ). These content-related studies established “guidance for conceptual frameworks and methods for addressing the management, organization, and societal challenges in CSR practices” ( Wang et al. , 2016 , p. 535). For example, Carroll and Shabana (2010) explored the arguments why the business community should accept and advance the CSR; Campbell (2007) revealed multidimensional research of CSR for integration of various CSR initiatives and arguments in organizations. Methodological studies revealed the variety of methodological approaches focused on broader understanding of CSR by reviews of CSR in academic literature, constructs of CSR’s models in theoretical reasoning and conducting interviews ( Carroll and Shabana, 2010 ; Crifo and Forget, 2015 ).

To avoid confusion owing to the available conceptualizations of CSR ( Carroll, 1999 ; Dahlsrud, 2008 ), we followed Aguinis’s (2011 , p. 855) definition of CSR as “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance”.

More fragmented are results of organizations’ conceptualizations of CSR in specific situations and under diverse circumstances ( Aguinis, 2011 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ). These indicate differences and contradictories in institutional conditions (Wood, 1991; Hofman et al. , 2017 ), organizational characteristics ( Elkington, 2004 ; Petrenko et al. , 2016 ), cultural-cognitive preconditions ( Glavas, 2016 ; Nedelko et al. , 2017 ) and used qualitative and quantitative approaches such as ISO 26000 ( Mulej, 2011 ; Balzarova and Castka, 2012 ; Hahn, 2013 ) and solutions for implementation of CSR in rapidly changing social environment.

Prevailing situations and circumstances of Society 5.0 decisively define content-related consideration of CSR in organizations.

Integral frameworks for consideration of corporate social responsibility in Society 5.0 reality

Beyond discussion about responsible economic development ( Crifo and Forget, 2015 ), solving social issues ( Glavas, 2016 ), humans-centered society ( SCTI, 2019 ), regional grounding of sustainable development ( Rego et al. , 2017 ) and definition of governing situational circumstances of modern society ( Higashihara, 2018 ), Society 5.0 exposed decisive importance of technological development and innovative changing of society for creation of integral framework of sustainable development ( Shiroishi et al. , 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ). Inclusion of technology, innovations and innovativeness in sustainability enables improvement of organizations’ diffusion of available sustainable solutions, creation of infrastructure and capacities for sustainable operating and behavior and supports advancement of priority sustainable areas of Society 5.0 ( Keidanren, 2016 ; SCTI, 2019 ).

Technological development and corporate social responsibility

Despite efforts and capacity of organizations regarding their CSR, managers face certain limitations in adaptation of mechanisms and processes by which technological development and corresponding advanced technologies can be conceptualized into CSR in organizations ( Cooper and Foster, 1971 ; Windsor, 2006 ; Crifo and Forget, 2015 ).

Technology was traditionally considered separately from social issues in humankind’s history ( Ruttan, 1997 ; Lasi et al. , 2014 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ). Idea about interdependences of technology and social issues appears first in the sociotechnical theory developed in Second World War era ( Cooper and Foster, 1971 ; Zwaan, 1975 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ), and systems theories developed in 1960s ( Mulej, 2011 ; Glavas, 2016 ; Kish-Gephart et al. , 2019 ). Recently, broader views of technology indicate several short- and long-term technological alternatives, incremental technological changes and searching for technological solutions which can enable responsible development of society ( Rego et al. , 2017 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ).

The recent technological visions such as the European Industry 4.0 – published in German “High-Tech Strategy” in 2010 ( Federal Ministry of Education and Research [BMBF], 2010 ; European commission [EC], 2017 ); the USA’s “Industrial Internet” scheme – proposed by General Electric in 2012 ( Annunziata and Evans, 2013 ); and China’s vision of “Made in China 2025” (State council of People’s republic of China [SC], 2015) established modern understanding of relations between technological and humankind’s development. The related studies confirmed the leading role of technology in development from information society to a super smart society in the frame of the 5th phase of industrial revolution ( Lee et al. , 2015 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ).

Several theorists and practitioners exposed deficiency of information sharing, humans-based collection of information in physical space, storage of data in traditional databases and limited capabilities of humans for analyzing the overflowing information in the present society ( Pasmore et al. , 1982 ; Lasi et al. , 2014 ; Brunswicker and Chesbrough, 2018 ). Other studies reported that people access the partially connected cloud databases in cyberspace via the internet and access, retrieve and analyze data or information congruent with their physical and psychical possibilities ( Foray and Grubler, 1996 ; Palazzeschi et al. , 2018 ). Consequently, people are burdened, and their labor and scope of action are restricted owing to age and varying degrees of their ability ( Shen and Benson, 2016 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ).

Society 5.0 concept goes beyond these visions with interdisciplinary consideration of technology in modern society based on proposed “5 th Science and Technological Basic plan” that complements the previously divided technological and social studies ( Keidanren, 2019 ; SCTI, 2019 ). Modern technological solutions support and enable further development of responsibility in operating and behavior of society ( Brunswicker and Chesbrough, 2018 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ) . Higashihara (2018) summarized the new understanding of technology with his quotation that “Development of Industry 5.0 incorporates new technologies in all industries and several social activities in solving of problems related to economic development and social issues”.

The newest technological visions (BMBF, 2010; Annunziata and Evans, 2013 ; SC, 2015) and Society 5.0 ( Keidanren, 2016 ; SCTI, 2019 ) exposed importance of technology for interdisciplinary consideration of the phenomenon of society. In addition, studies of social–technological theory ( Cooper and Foster, 1971 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ) and systems theories ( Crifo and Forget, 2015 ; Glavas, 2016 ) discovered important effects of technology on responsible development of the modern society.

More biased are academics’ presumptions about content-related inclusion of technology in CSR ( Windsor, 2006 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ; Palazzeschi et al. , 2018 ). Individual studies established technology as an additional dimension of CSR and suggested completion of leading CSR models with technological dimensions ( Windsor, 2006 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ). Researches in social sciences mainly considered technologies only as preconditions for organizational development and not as a logical part of CSR ( Lee et al. , 2015 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2018 ). For example, researches about impact of new technologies on organizational operating and behavior ( Ruttan, 1997 ; Foray and Grubler, 1996 ) and needs for technological solutions which can match the newest demands of society ( Brunswicker and Chesbrough, 2018 ; Palazzeschi et al. , 2018 ) still considered technology separately from sustainable development in organizations.

Innovations and innovativeness in Society 5.0

Society 5.0 established innovations and innovativeness as necessary preconditions and leading accelerators for solving of sustainability problems in society ( Keidanren, 2016 ; SCTI, 2019 ).

Mainly, activities of organizations are dedicated to technological innovations ( Armbruster et al. , 2008 ; Afuah, 2019 ) which academics conceptualized as “developing of new services and products that fulfill unaddressed needs or enable solving of problems in internal and external environment of organizations” ( Agarwal and Prasad, 1998 ; p. 205) and as “a new or improved product or process whose technological characteristics are significantly different from before” ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2005 , p. 5).

Society 5.0 continues this research stream and broadens innovativeness with non-technological innovations, social innovations and innovativeness. It can enable organizations to prepare themselves and their stakeholders for sustainable development to qualify stakeholders for their active participation in it and forming of appropriate behavior for social acceptance and social adoption of the new technological environment ( Shiroishi et al. , 2018 , 2018 ; SCTI, 2019 ).

Society 5.0 followed the 3rd edition of the Oslo Manual ( OECD, 2005 , p. 5) in analyzing of nontechnological innovations as “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance.” More about nontechnological innovations can be seen in Damanpour (1991) , Brunswicker and Chesbrough (2018) and Afuah (2019). More differences exist between Keidanren (2016) and others leading definition ( Damanpour, 1991 ; Brunswicker and Chesbrough, 2018 ) of social innovations. Literature reported about several conceptualization of social innovations characterized by definition of the criteria for social objectives, social interaction between participants, definition of social outputs and forming of innovativeness ( Hubert, 2010 ; Brunswicker and Chesbrough, 2018 ; Afuah, 2019 ). So did European Union which defined them as innovations which are focusing on social needs that traditionally were not considered and tackled and changing of present social relations through empowerment of individual, groups and nongovernment organizations in society ( OECD, 2005 ; Afuah, 2019 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ). Keidanren (2016 ; p. 8) define social innovations in more sustainable-oriented way as “a new social practices that aim to meet sustainable social needs in a better way than the existing solutions, resulting from working conditions, education, community development or health”.

When engagements for innovations are in forefront of interests among organizations, less attention is dedicated to innovativeness as necessary precondition for diffusion of inventions or innovations ( Damanpour, 1991 ; Afuah, 2019 ). Attention to innovativeness as the individuals’, organizations’ and societies’ inclination to engage in development and implementation of innovations gained currency in the 1970s ( Agarwal and Prasad, 1998 ; Brunswicker and Chesbrough, 2018 ; Afuah, 2019 ). Initial studies were focused on building of fundamental theories and corresponding models for innovative challenges in organizations ( Agarwal and Prasad, 1998 ; Armbruster et al. , 2008 ; Brunswicker and Chesbrough, 2018 ). Thus, Rogers (1962) presented an analytical model for adoption of innovations, Dahlsrud(2008) defined key dimensions and researched their relations to innovativeness, and Kassin et al. (2017) researched mechanism by which organizational behavior impacts innovativeness. Newest studies expanded previous models with situational, behavioral and values variables ( Brunswicker and Chesbrough, 2018 ; Afuah, 2019 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ). For example, Kassin et al. (2017) researched mechanism by which organizations’ behavior impacts innovativeness, and Afuah (2019) reported about effects of situational variables on innovativeness in organizations.

Society 5.0 concept contributes to study of innovativeness by analyzing of precondition, solutions for acceleration of innovations and goals for realization of invention–innovation–diffusion process ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ). Studies of Shiroishi et al. (2018) about security and human well-being and of Shiroishi et al. (2019) about artificial intelligence and business polity continue situational and behavior studies of innovativeness in framework of Society 5.0.

In addition, a number of studies about influential factors and components of innovativeness issues in organizations – such as circumstances and conditions, factors, components, parts, internal and external relations and impacts of innovativeness on invention–innovation–diffusion process and results of organizations and society ( Lee et al. , 2015 ; Palazzeschi et al. , 2018 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ) – presents promising directions for future inquiry of innovativeness in Society 5.0.

An overview of the theoretical cognitions about research of social phenomena ( Whetten, 1989 ; Aguilera et al. , 2007 ; Glavas, 2016 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ) included suggestions and proposed solutions of Society 5.0 concept for sustainable development ( Keidanren, 2016 ; SCTI, 2019 ); it also presented governing characteristics of the modern society ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ), which defined framework for consideration of CSR grounded in circumstances of Society 5.0 ( Figure 1 ).

Directions for future consideration of corporate social responsibility in Society 5.0

Origins, orientations and suggested solutions of Society 5.0 ( Keidanren, 2016 ; SCTI, 2019 ) importantly change understanding and realization of CSR in organization regarding goals, approaches and expected results of sustainable development ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ). For the purpose of this study, we continue with analyzing of content-related changes among environmental, social and economic dimensions of CSR grounded in Society 5.0.

Environmental dimension of corporate social responsibility under circumstances of Society 5.0

Studies on environmental dimension of CSR expose the relative importance that organizations place on plants, animals, ecological environment and the entire Earth ( Aupperle et al. , 1985 ; Aguinis, 2011 ; Windsor, 2006 ). In modern society awareness about the crucial importance of nature protection is a generally accepted axiom ( Shen and Benson, 2016 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ), which originates in developed human values about protection of nature, legislations about nature and enforcement of sustainable development in society ( Glavas, 2016 ; Petrenko et al. , 2016 ; Nedelko et al. , 2017 ). While inclination to nature protection among society stakeholder constantly grows, organizations’ operating and results still do not match enough societal expectations and demands related to nature ( Windsor, 2006 ; Kish-Gephart et al. , 2019 ).

Society 5.0 supplements environment-related discussion with orientation of organizations for production, which can enable covering of existing environmental demands and tries to achieve a forward-looking expectation about environment ( Waddock and Graves, 1997 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ). Keidanren (2016) wants to supplement traditional moral and legal ( Carroll and Shabana, 2010 ; Nedelko et al. , 2017 ) obligations of organizations toward nature with their interests for contentment of market opportunities related with production of goods for natural protection ( Aguinis, 2011 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ). Society 5.0 presumes that reliable production of responsible goods enables long-range profitable results of organizations with their fulfillment of market-based demands related with care for nature ( Nakanishi, 2019 ; Keidanren, 2016 ). Organization can realize this orientation with responsible production, responsible products and services, usage of leaning technologies and innovative use of advanced technological solutions ( Glavas, 2016 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ). For example, Dunlap et al. (1993) , Aguilera et al. (2007) and Aguinis (2011) exposed significant effects of advanced technologies and newest products for ecological activities such as recycling, conservation or managing wastes. In present market situation, each of these solutions enables organizations to improve their competitiveness and business results that consequently enlarge organizations’ interest for further sustainable operating and behavior ( Foray and Grubler, 1996 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ).

Beyond the current market-related interests for natural care, there are also society’s needs for advanced technologies and goods, which can substitute exploitation of limited natural resources and repair past natural damages ( Aupperle et al. , 1985 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ). A Society 5.0 applies a variety of technological and technical solutions and goods to enable substitution or replacement of natural resources designated to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, increased responsible production, reduced loss of foodstuffs, sustainable industrialization, if we mentioned just some of them ( Pasmore et al. , 1982 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ).

This type of advancement is not possible without innovative longitudinal visions of organizations and large investment in necessary infrastructure for usage of advanced technologies ( Lasi et al. , 2014 ; Lee et al. , 2015 ; Shiroishi et al. , 2019 ). Several cases of new technologies – such as artificial intelligence, data mining and genetic engineering – proved correctness and economic rationality of advanced technologies in solving of resources issues ( Kitzmueller and Shimshack, 2012 ; Palazzeschi et al. , 2018 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ). In addition, management theory proved that development of responsible new product can generate new market for their trade; this is an additional argument which strengthens organizational interest in responsible operating in the prevailing sustainable orientation of the modern society ( Agarwal and Prasad, 1998 ; Crifo and Forget, 2015 ; Afuah, 2019 ).

Social dimension of corporate social responsibility under circumstances of Society 5.0

Organizations with social orientation express their responses to social roles and norms expected from them by the internal and external societies ( Aupperle et al. , 1985 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ). McWilliams and Siegel (2000 ; p. 605) explained organizational social operating and behavior through their support “to actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law.” Study of Glavas (2016) and Wang et al. (2016) additionally revealed that social actions and behavior of organizations can reduce social, business and legal risks of organizational operating on the base of adjustment of organizations’ social characteristics to the expected social roles and norms of societies in which they participate.

Society 5.0 complements social orientation of CSR of organization with content-related and methodological frameworks for creation of innovative solutions and guidance designated for solving of urgent social problems in modern society ( Minton and Khale, 2014 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ; Kassin et al. , 2017 ). The current level of development is characterized by complex social issues of constantly growing economy which cause increasing demands for energy and foodstuffs, longer lifespan and aging of population in societies around the world ( Aguilera et al. , 2007 ; Shen and Benson, 2016 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ). In addition, globalization opened several development issues related with its progressing, severe international competition, concentration of wealth in parts of the world globe and inequality of regional development, among others ( Crifo and Forget, 2015 ; Glavas, 2016 ). Society 5.0 suggested integral framework for overcoming of the existing regional, age and gender gaps to enable production of goods tailored to satisfy diverse individual needs and latent needs ( Keidanren, 2016 ; SCTI, 2019 ).

Content-wise, Society 5.0 broadened consideration of social issues with activities, which can solve the rising social problems and reduce consequences of social problems, such as promotion of social care, prevention programs and providing lively support to social care ( Higashihara, 2018 ; SCTI, 2019 ). Methodologically, collections of integrated data about social issues, analyzing them with advanced solutions and usage of newest technological solutions for operating social activities created integrated framework, which can enable better governing of social issues in organizations and improvement of social care in society ( Keidanren, 2016 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ). Guidance for solving of individual social problems is focusing on reduction of the social costs, solving the operational problems in social activities, strengthening competitiveness in social industries, enhancing responsiveness to dynamic demographics trends, dealing with diverse social needs and improving satisfaction of participants in social activities ( Keidanren, 2019 ; SCTI, 2019 ).

For purpose of this study, we briefly outline only solving of health-care and caregiving social issues, while a detailed presentation of all important social issues in Society 5.0 exceeds the scope of this research ( Petrenko et al. , 2016 ; SCTI, 2019 ). Social systems of health care and caregiving are networks of basic elements – data and information collection, equipment, capacities and participants, their relations in social system and its relations with other systems in society ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Keidanren, 2019 ). This typical structure remains fixed, but Society 5.0 innovatively redesigns processes, extent of flows and process goals in social systems in human effort for better use of available elements and sources ( Keidanren, 2016 ; SCTI, 2019 ).

Thus, the newest technological solutions (such as artificial intelligence and big data) enable generation of accurate data on the present situation – including personal real-time physiological data, health-care site information, treatment/infection information and environmental information ( Shiroishi et al. , 2018 ). These data can be treated by technological tools for real-time analyzing that enables creation of feedback information and solutions for social issues which can be solved by participants of the system, or they can be automatically solved by automatized or robotized equipment ( Keidanren, 2019 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ).

Society 5.0 focused its attention on ( Keidanren, 2019 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ) reduction of humans’ burn-out through support actions for comfortable living, extension of healthy life span with health promotions which include early detection of illnesses through real-time health check-ups, reduction of medical costs with optimal treatment through sharing of physiological and medical data and reduction of social costs with reduction of burden through mitigation of the on-site burden of health care and caregiving by automata and robots.

Economic dimension of corporate social responsibility under circumstances of Society 5.0

Society 5.0 grounded new economic consideration of responsible development on society and organizations levels. On societal level, scholars of Society 5.0 followed the prevailing economic system in society ( Altvater, 1993 ; Campbell, 2007 ; Kitzmueller and Shimshack, 2012 ).

Academics define economic system as entity of starting points, mechanism of impacts and conditions and expose its effects on economic operating and behavior of organizations as subjects on micro-economic level ( Dahlsrud, 2008 ; Crifo and Forget, 2015 ). In the 19th and 20th centuries, idea of “market economy” leads humans’ development through “economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production, and distribution are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand” ( Gregory and Stuart, 2004 ; p. 21). For instance, Altvater (1993 ; p. 237) has explained market economy through “three development phases, namely free market, laissez-faire system, and interventionism.” Free market and laissez-faire systems are based on presumption about restricted states’ activities in providing selected public goods and services and safeguarding private ownership and do not consider responsibility of organizations explicitly ( Gregory and Stuart, 2004 ). Interventionism recognizes responsibility as a decisive goal of organizations through presumptions about government’s active role in correcting market failures and promoting social welfare ( Gregory and Stuart, 2004 ; Crifo and Forget, 2015 ). Society 5.0 accepts interventionism’s responsibility as the prevailing starting point for establishing the newest “sustainable economic system” and corresponding business models, in consideration of economics orientation of organizations and their relations to other CSR dimensions ( Altvater, 1993 ; Crifo and Forget, 2015 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ).

On the organizational level, Society 5.0 follows the idea about “responsible economics of organizations” presented by Waddock and Graves (1997) , Aguinis (2011) and Crifo and Forget (2015) . In addition, Keidanren (2019) determines “responsible economics” as the main reason for implementation of CSR in organizations. Such understanding of economic dimension of CSR originates in presumptions that CSR’s products and services present unexploited market opportunities which organizations can realize through their CSR operating and behavior as response to market imperfections to satisfy CSR preferences ( Crifo and Forget, 2015 ; SCTI, 2019 ). Moreover, Society 5.0 established “responsible economics of organizations” as the decisive driver for market-based decision related with CSR in organizations and necessary criteria for evaluation of CSR in organizations and their parts ( Higashihara, 2018 ; SCTI, 2019 ). Such understanding of economic dimension of CSR initiates changing of the traditional orientation on “profit maximization” to “responsible economics” in support of sustainable economic results of organizations and creation of responsible economics’ justification of natural and social dimensions of CSR ( Waddock and Graves, 1997 ; Windsor, 2006 ). The monopolies replacing the free market, under the label of no interventionism, are left aside ( Windsor, 2006 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ), unfortunately.

In addition, “responsible economics” enables organizations to balance achievement of economic goals understood as “discretionary and mandatory responsibility of enterprises” ( Friedman, 1970 , p. 123) and “prediction of strong long-term social benefits of relatively unfettered markets operated by self-interested actors” ( Jensen, 2000 , p. 41) and appropriate “ethics of organizations related to CSR” ( Carroll, 1999 ; p. 274).

Integral model of corporate social responsibility in Society 5.0

Vision of Society 5.0 offered a new understanding of the role and importance of technological development for solving of current social problems in modern society, initiatives and actions for further development of the known social concepts of sustainable society and expose decisive importance of innovations for humankind’s and society’s survival ( Keidanren, 2016 ; Higashihara, 2018 ; Keidanren, 2019 ).

According to vision, policies and actions of Society 5.0 ( Keidanren, 2016 ; Higashihara, 2018 ) and sustainable development ( Aguinis, 2011 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ) and in tradition of theories about social functionalism and organizational contingency ( Myers, 2010 ; Long, 2013 ; Kassin et al. , 2017 ), we designed an integral model of CSR founded on circumstances of Society 5.0 ( Figure 2 ).

The suggested model of CSR includes general and specific frameworks for broader or even potentially “holistic consideration.” Model offers possible explanation of effects of modern society’s circumstances on changing of CSR in accordance with several unadjusted issues of the general research framework ( Carroll, 1999 ; Minton and Khale, 2014 ; Kassin et al. , 2017 ). Literature reveals wide disparities in the research findings about theoretical framework for consideration of social phenomena in responsible development of society ( Windsor, 2006 ; Glavas, 2016 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ).

Several studies were focused on cognition, definition and application of a general research framework and defined the prevailing theoretical perspectives, driving forces, explaining theories and selected important domains for consideration ( Dahlsrud, 2008 ; Potocan and Cruz-Cuhan, 2012 ; Kish-Gephart et al. , 2019 ). In addition, application of general framework is decisively effected by individuals’ decisions about chosen contents, values and weights of all criteria, which define their content and formulation of different outcomes inside the selected criteria and values for general definitions of the problem ( Glavas, 2016 ; Gelfand et al. , 2017 ). Owing to these subjective factors of decision-makers and other subjective impacts of personal behavior, no general framework for consideration can be fully unified. In our research, we follow tradition of social psychology ( Minton and Khale, 2014 ; Kassin et al. , 2017 ) for creation of research which includes methodological-, content- and situation-related frameworks for consideration of CSR according to previous studies of sustainable development and CSR theory ( Dunlap et al. , 1993 ; Campbell, 2007 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ).

Inside the created general framework, we clarify differences between many insights in CSR with definition of specific framework focused on goals of forward-looking responsible society, circumstances of modern society and content of CSR’s dimensions, which govern CSR in modern organizations. With each specific framework of the model, we presented contently similar solutions; frameworks follow the natural hierarchy of sequence and interdependence ( Mulej and Dyck, 2014 ; Mulej and Cagran, 2015 ; Potocan et al. , 2016 ).

A further framework revealed the main goals of forward-looking responsible society which effect the direction of present changing and future development of CSR in organizations. Following goals of Society 5.0 ( Keidanren, 2019 ; SCTI, 2019 ) and demands of CSR in organizations ( Elkington, 2004 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ; Rego et al. , 2017 ), the model exposed needs for inclusion of technological development in CSR consideration, realization of sustainable goals of economic development and solving of growing social problems in modern society.

The next framework presented circumstances of modern society which governs CSR in organizations and which are prerequisites for further achievement of sustainable and human-oriented society. Model exposed importance of technological, nontechnological innovations, development of innovativeness on all levels of human living and operating and regional focusing of further CSR development ( Agarwal and Prasad, 1998 ; Brunswicker and Chesbrough, 2018 ). Society 5.0, for the first time, revealed importance of regional orientation of CSR, which enables more applicable CSR solutions, supports more human-oriented development and increases interest of individuals and organizations in applicable solutions of CSR.

The final framework determines content-viewpoint of modern CSR. Our research followed previous cognitions about content characteristics and relations of CSR originated in triple bottom model which includes environmental, social and economic dimensions. We complement previous cognitions with revealing of specific orientations of CSR in modern society related with achievement of comfort, vitality and high-quality lives of humans and innovative approaches to their realization. Provision of goods and services granularly addresses manifold latent needs without disparities, balances the economic advancement with the resolution of social problems and advances fusion of technological and social advances to enable CSR in Society 5.0.

In 2016, the Keidanren launched the Society 5.0 as a sustainable vision of a new society that incorporates several new technologies in all industries and social activities and achieves both economic development primarily based on sustainable development goals established by the United Nations and solutions to significant social problems in the present society ( Keidanren, 2016 ).

Society 5.0 is based on recognition of leading circumstances of modern society to suggest a new understanding and changing of CSR operating and behavior in organizations.

Society 5.0 considers Industry 4.0 and belonging new technologies for sustainable development of society ( Wang et al. , 2016 ; Savaget et al. , 2019 ) which enables solving of key social issues in present society ( Zwaan, 1975 ; Foray and Grubler, 1996 ; Ruttan, 1997 ; Windsor, 2006 ). Scholars used Industry 4.0 for definition of initial technological circumstances in diverse technological situations and heterogeneous solutions of technological development in consideration of humankind’s development ( Higashihara, 2018 ).

In addition, Society 5.0 reevaluated interest in socially responsible development among stakeholders of society. Environmentalism theorists defined social responsibility primarily as aspiration for natural and social well-being, but in reality, interest of organizations for socially responsible development decisively depends on their economic interest in contentment of responsible demands of society ( Glavas, 2016 ; Kassin et al. , 2017 ). Thus, Society 5.0 recognized economic interests and goals of organizations as promising initiatives for further development of CSR in organizations operating in humans-centered society ( SCTI, 2019 ). This pragmatic approach enables acceleration of CSR in current circumstances of market economy and supports CSR’ advances in further sustainable economic systems.

Finally, Society 5.0 is created for solving of significant social problems in the present society, caused by longer lifespan, aging societies, concentration of wealth and regional inequality ( Nakanishi, 2019 ; SCTI, 2019 ). The Keidanren ( Keidanren, 2016 ) exposed organizations’ ability for solving important social problem of individuals in local environment as central motive for further development of responsibility. Thus, Society 5.0 defines agenda on crucial social problems in modern society in local environment, possibilities for solving of individual social problems through organizational activities and creation of practical guidance for organizational advancement of social responsibility in organizations.

In practice, Society 5.0 can enable creation of new values through innovations focused on the provision of products and services adopted for diverse individual needs and latent needs. Achievement of promising results of 5.0 depends on infrastructure preconditions, human values and level of knowledge and capacities of society’s stakeholders for connections of people, things, humans’ subjects and technologies in advanced cyberspace environment ( Higashihara, 2018 ; Nakanishi, 2019 ; SCTI, 2019 ). This process can enable creation of new values through innovations focused on the provision of products and services adopted for diverse individual needs and latent needs. In this framework, Society 5.0 recognized innovations, especially social innovations, and innovativeness of all stakeholders in society as necessary preconditions for development of information society into human-centered society based on CSR and socially responsible society composed of individuals and their organizations.

Integral framework for CSR under circumstances of Society 5.0

Integral model of CSR founded on circumstances of Society 5.0

Afuah , A. ( 2019 ), Business Model Innovations: Concepts, Analysis, and Cases , Taylor and Francis , New York, NY .

Agarwal , R. and Prasad , J. ( 1998 ), “ A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology ”, Information Systems Research , Vol. 9 No. 2 , pp. 204 - 215 .

Aguilera , R.V. , Rupp , D.E. , Williams , C.A. and Ganapathi , J. ( 2007 ), “ Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change of organizations ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 32 No. 3 , pp. 836 - 863 .

Aguinis , H. ( 2011 ), “ Organizational responsibility: doing good and doing well ”, in Zedeck , S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 3 , American Psychological Association , Washington, DC , pp. 855 - 879 .

Altvater , E. ( 1993 ), The Future of the Market: An Essay on the Regulation of Money and Nature after the Collapse of Actually Existing Socialism , Verso books , New York, NY .

Annunziata , M. and Evans , P. ( 2013 ), “ The industrial internet@work ”, General Electric Company , available at: www.ge.com/sites/default/files/GE_IndustrialInternetatWork_WhitePaper_20131028.pdf

Armbruster , H. , Bikfalvib , A. , Kinkela , S. and Lay , G. ( 2008 ), “ Organisational innovation: the challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys ”, Technovation , Vol. 28 No. 10 , pp. 644 - 657 .

Aupperle , K. , Carroll , A. and Hatfield , J. ( 1985 ), “ An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 28 No. 2 , pp. 446 - 463 .

Balzarova , M. and Castka , P. ( 2012 ), “ Stakeholders’ influence and contribution to social standards development: the case of multiple stakeholder approach to ISO 26000 development ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 111 No. 2 , pp. 265 - 279 .

Brunswicker , S. and Chesbrough , H. ( 2018 ), “ The adoption of open innovation in large firms ”, Research-Technology Management , Vol. 61 No. 1 , pp. 35 - 45 .

Campbell , J. ( 2007 ), “ Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 32 No. 3 , pp. 946 - 967 .

Carroll , A. ( 1999 ), “ Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct ”, Business and Society , Vol. 38 No. 3 , pp. 268 - 295 .

Carroll , A. and Shabana , K. ( 2010 ), “ The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 85 - 105 .

Council for Science, Technology and innovation (SCTI) ( 2019 ), Society 5.0 , Ministry of Sciences and Technology , Tokyo .

Cooper , R. and Foster , M. ( 1971 ), “ Sociotechnical systems ”, American Psychologist , Vol. 26 No. 5 , pp. 467 - 474 .

Crifo , P. and Forget , V. ( 2015 ), “ The economics of corporate social responsibility: a firm-level perspective survey ”, Journal of Economic Surveys , Vol. 29 No. 1 , pp. 112 - 130 .

Dahlsrud , A. ( 2008 ), “ How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions ”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , Vol. 15 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 13 .

Damanpour , F. ( 1991 ), “ Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 34 No. 3 , pp. 555 - 590 .

Dunlap , R. , Gallup , G. and Gallup , A. ( 1993 ), “ Of global concern: results of the health of the planet survey ”, Environment , Vol. 35 No. 9 , pp. 7 - 39 .

Elkington , J. ( 2004 ), “ Enter the triple bottom line ”, in Henriques , A. and Richardson , J. (Eds), The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add up , Earthscan , London , pp. 1 - 16 .

European Commission (EC) ( 2017 ), Germany: Industrie 4.0. Digital Transformation Monitor , European Commission , Brussels .

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) ( 2010 ), The High-Tech Strategy for Germany , Federal Ministry of Education and Research , Berlin .

Feldman , D. ( 1976 ), “ Contingency theory of socialization ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 21 No. 3 , pp. 433 - 452 .

Foray , D. and Grubler , A. ( 1996 ), “ Technology and the environment: an overview ”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change , Vol. 53 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 13 .

Friedman , M. ( 1970 ), “ The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits ”, New York Times Magazine , Vol. 13 Nos 32/33 , pp. 122 - 124 .

Gelfand , M.J. , Aycan , Z. , Erez , M. and Leung , K. ( 2017 ), “ Cross-cultural industrial organizational psychology and organizational behavior: a hundred-year journey ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 102 No. 3 , pp. 514 - 529 .

Glavas , A. ( 2016 ), “ Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: an integrative review ”, Frontiers in Psychology , Vol. 7 , pp. 1 - 13 .

Gregory , P. and Stuart , R. ( 2004 ), Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century , South Western , Mason .

Hahn , R. ( 2013 ), “ ISO 26000 and the standardization of strategic management processes for sustainability and corporate social responsibility ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol. 22 No. 7 , pp. 442 - 455 .

Higashihara , T. ( 2018 ), A Search for Unicorns and the Building of “Society 5.0 ”, World Economic Forum , Davos .

Hofman , P. , Moon , J. and Wu , B. ( 2017 ), “ Corporate social responsibility under authoritarian capitalism: dynamics and prospects of state-led and society-driven CSR ”, Business & Society , Vol. 56 No. 5 , pp. 651 - 671 .

Hubert , A. ( 2010 ), Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union , Bureau of European Policy Advisers , Brussels .

Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) ( 2016 ), Toward Realization of the New Economy and Society. Reform of the Economy and Society by the Deepening of “Society 5.0 ”, Keidanren , Tokyo .

Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) ( 2019 ), Society 5.0 for SDGs , Keidanren , Tokyo .

Jensen , M. ( 2000 ), “ Value maximization and the corporate objective functions ”, in Beer , M. and Nohria , N. (Eds), Breaking the Code of Change , HSB Press , Boston , pp. 37 - 57 .

Kassin , S. , Fein , S. and Markus , H. ( 2017 ), Social Psychology , Cengage Learning , Belmont .

Kitzmueller , M. and Shimshack , J. ( 2012 ), “ Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility ”, Journal of Economic Literature , Vol. 50 No. 1 , pp. 51 - 84 .

Kish-Gephart , J. , Treviño , L. , Chen , A. and Tilton , J. ( 2019 ), “ Behavioral business ethics: the journey from foundations to future ”, in Wasieleski , D. and Weber , J. (Eds), Business Ethics, Business and Society 360 , Emerald , Bingley , pp. 3 - 34 .

Lasi , H. , Fettke , P. , Feld , T. and Hoffmann , M. ( 2014 ), “ Industry 4.0 ”, Business and Information Systems Engineering , Vol. 6 No. 4 , pp. 239 - 242 .

Lee , J. , Bagheri , B. and Kao , H.A. ( 2015 ), “ A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems ”, Manufacturing Letters , Vol. 3 , pp. 18 - 23 .

Lins , K. , Servaes , H. and Tamayo , A. ( 2017 ), “ Social capital, trust, and firm performance: the value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis ”, The Journal of Finance , Vol. 72 No. 4 , pp. 1785 - 1824 .

Long , S. ( 2013 ), Socio-Analytic Methods: Discovering the Hidden in Organizations and Social Systems , Routledge , London .

McWilliams , A. and Siegel , D. ( 2000 ), “ Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 21 No. 5 , pp. 603 - 609 .

Macionis , J. ( 2012 ), Sociology , Pearson , Boston .

Metaxas , T. and Tsavdaridou , M. ( 2014 ), “ Green CSR practices: an European approach ”, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development , Vol. 13 No. 3 , pp. 261 - 283 .

Minton , E. and Khale , L. ( 2014 ), Belief Systems, Religion, and Behavioral Economics , Business Expert Press , New York, NY .

Mulej , M. ( 2011 ), “ Survival: climate change and innovation of habits toward more social responsibility of humans ”, The European Journal of Management and Public Policy , Vol. 11 No. 1 , pp. 51 - 70 .

Mulej , M. and Cagran , B. ( 2015 ), “ 2014/2015 Survey on university of Maribor as a sustainable and socially responsible university ”, International Journal of Markets and Business Systems , Vol. 1 No. 4 , pp. 275 - 288 .

Mulej , M. and Dyck , R. (Eds) ( 2014 ), Social Responsibility – A Non-Technological Innovation Process , ( Social responsibility beyond neoliberalism and charity , Vol. 1 ), Bentham , London .

Mulej , M. and Dyck , R. (Eds) ( 2015 ), Social Responsibility – Range of Perspectives per Topics and Countries , ( Social responsibility beyond neoliberalism and charity , Vol. 4 ), Bentham , London .

Myers , D. ( 2010 ), Social Psychology , McGraw-Hill , New York, NY .

Nakanishi , H. ( 2019 ), Modern Society Has Reached Its Limits – “Society 5.0” Will Liberate us , World Economic Forum , Davos .

Nedelko , Z. , Mulej , M. and Potocan , V. ( 2017 ), “ How to requisitely holistically consider internal gaps of business ethic ”, Kybernetes , Vol. 46 No. 6 , pp. 914 - 932 .

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ( 2005 ), The Measurement of Scientific and Technological activities – Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data (Oslo Manual) , OECD , Oslo .

Palazzeschi , L. , Bucci , O. and Di Fabio , A. ( 2018 ), “ Re-thinking innovation in organizations in the industry 4.0 scenario: new challenges in a primary prevention perspective ”, Front Psychol , Vol. 9 , pp. 1 - 30 .

Pasmore , W. , Francis , C. , Haldeman , J. and Shani , A. ( 1982 ), “ Sociotechnical systems: a North American reflection on empirical studies of the seventies ”, Human Relations , Vol. 35 No. 12 , pp. 1179 - 1204 .

Petrenko , O. , Aime , F. , Ridge , J. and Hill , A. ( 2016 ), “ Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 37 No. 2 , pp. 262 - 279 .

Potocan , V. and Cruz-Cuhan , M. ( 2012 ), “ Virtual business organization – information viewpoint ”, Kardas , J. and Brodowska-Szewczuj , J. (Eds), Efficiency in Business , University of Natural Sciences and Humanities , Siedlce , pp. 161 - 176 .

Potocan , V. , Nedelko , Z. , Peleckiene , V. and Peleckis , K. ( 2016 ), “ Values, environmental concern and economic concern as predictors of enterprise environmental responsiveness ”, Journal of Business Economics and Management , Vol. 17 No. 5 , pp. 685 - 700 .

Rego , A. , Cunha , M.P. and Polonia , D. ( 2017 ), “ Corporate sustainability: a view from the top ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 143 No. 1 , pp. 133 - 157 .

Reinhardt , F. , Stavins , R. and Vietor , R. ( 2008 ), “ Corporate social responsibility through an economic lens ”, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , Vol. 2 No. 2 , pp. 219 - 239 .

Rogers , E. ( 1962 ), Diffusion of Innovations , Free Press , New York, NY .

Ruttan , V. ( 1997 ), “ Induced innovation, evolutionary theory and path dependence: sources of technical change ”, The Economic Journal , Vol. 107 No. 444 , pp. 1520 - 1529 .

Savaget , P. , Geissdoerfer , M. , Kharrazi , A. and Evans , S. ( 2019 ), “ The theoretical foundations of sociotechnical systems change for sustainability: a systematic literature review ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 206 , pp. 878 - 892 .

Shen , J. and Benson , J. ( 2016 ), “ When CSR is a social norm. How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behavior ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 42 No. 6 , pp. 1723 - 1746 .

Shiroishi , Y. , Uchiyama , K. and Suzuki , N. ( 2018 ), “ Society 5.0: for human security and well-being ”, Computer , Vol. 51 No. 7 , pp. 91 - 95 .

Shiroishi , Y. , Uchiyama , K. and Suzuki , N. ( 2019 ), “ Better actions for society 5.0: using AI for evidence-based policy making that keeps humans in the loop ”, Computer , Vol. 52 No. 11 , pp. 73 - 78 .

State council of People’s republic of China (SC) ( 2015 ), The Made in China 2025 , People’s republic of China , Beijing .

Waddock , S. and Graves , S. ( 1997 ), “ The corporate social performance – financial performance link ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 18 No. 4 , pp. 303 - 319 .

Wang , H. , Tong , L. , Takeuchi , R. and George , G. ( 2016 ), “ Corporate social responsibility: an overview and new research directions: thematic issue on corporate social responsibility ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 59 No. 2 , pp. 534 - 544 .

Whetten , D. ( 1989 ), “ What constitutes a theoretical contribution? ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 14 No. 4 , pp. 490 - 495 .

Windsor , D. ( 2006 ), “ Corporate social responsibility: three key approaches ”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 43 No. 1 , pp. 93 - 114 .

Zwaan , A.H. ( 1975 ), “ The socio-technical systems approach: a critical evaluation ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol. 13 , pp. 149 - 163 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Research Article

Society 5.0 in Education: Higher Order Thinking Skills

• @INPROCEEDINGS{10.4108/eai.18-11-2020.2311812, author={Prima Mytra and Wardawaty Wardawaty and Akmal Akmal and Kusnadi Kusnadi and Rahmatullah Rahmatullah}, title={Society 5.0 in Education: Higher Order Thinking Skills}, proceedings={Proceedings of the 2nd Borobudur International Symposium on Humanities and Social Sciences, BIS-HSS 2020, 18 November 2020, Magelang, Central Java, Indonesia}, publisher={EAI}, proceedings_a={BIS-HSS}, year={2021}, month={9}, keywords={higher-order thinking skills technology society of 50}, doi={10.4108/eai.18-11-2020.2311812} }
• Prima Mytra Wardawaty Wardawaty Akmal Akmal Kusnadi Kusnadi Rahmatullah Rahmatullah Year: 2021 Society 5.0 in Education: Higher Order Thinking Skills BIS-HSS EAI DOI: 10.4108/eai.18-11-2020.2311812
• 1: Institut Agama Islam Muhammadiyah Sinjai, Indonesia
• 2: Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia

The social life, even in education, is increasingly changing with technological innovation that is growing rapidly. A new idea, the society 5.0, was presented in 2016 to anticipate the technological developments. It becomes one of the Japanese government's efforts in dealing with global trends that emerged due to sector and society. The purpose of the research is to describe how the students prepare to face society 5.0 with a focused review of some research about it and high order thinking. The method used is the study of literature while the source data are from secondary data. Data collection methods apply textbooks, journals, and research studies. The result of the study reveals that the presence of society 5.0 will be able to solve social problems through a global system integrated from virtual and real space. Especially in the world of education, students must have a high level of thinking ability, such as, the ability to solve problems, think critically, and be creative. These are parts of higher-order thinking skills, and they will help the students to solve each problem faced within school and community.

Society 5.0: The New Social Paradigm Report

Introduction, the importance of the “society 5.0” concept.

Society 5.0 is a new social paradigm, which implies the total spread of IoT and the use of Big Data. Technologies of handling substantial data arrays and AI for parallel evolution of the economy and solving various social problems. The Society 5.0 strategy was presented in March 2017 at CeBIT in Hanover by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (Author, 2022). Thus, it is essential to explain why Japan needs Society 5.0 to achieve its sustainable development goals.

Japan is developing dimensions of digitalization, especially in specific institutions and sections of society, into a comprehensive national transition strategy, policymaking, and eventual vision. Meanwhile, the evolution is occurring internationally and contributes to the achievement of SDGs. Industry 5.0 was negotiated in 2020 in a range of panels by members from research and technology institutions (Author, 2022). There was agreement on the necessity of incorporating social and environmental European concerns into technological investment and changing the focus from separate technologies to a systemic vision. Accordingly, the joint efforts of Japan and other states contribute to the immediate benefits of a phase of progress.

The new role of the industry employee in Industry 5.0 is significantly changing. The workforce is considered not as a “price” but as an “investment” position for the company, enabling the organization and the employee to advance (Author, 2022). This means that the employer is interested in investing in its staff’s skills, abilities, and well-being to achieve their objectives. This approach is quite different from balancing labor costs with financial returns: human capital is more respected and valued. An essential premise of Industry 5.0 is that technology serves people rather than the opposite (Author, 2022). In an industrial context, this implies that the technology used in production is adapted to the needs and diversity of industrial workers instead of constantly adjusting to ever-evolving technology. The worker should have more options, and the work environment should become more inclusive (Author, 2022). To achieve this, workers have to actively participate in developing and adopting new industrial technologies, including robotics and AI.

Significantly, Industry 5.0 contributes to the economic efficiency of enterprises in a way that addresses the needs and desires of workers and is environmentally sustainable. This makes it appealing to businessmen, potential investments, and clients, who can profit from more marketable products in the most meaningful sense (Author, 2022). Hence, the new concept is highly advantageous to stakeholders, which enhances the incentives for its promotion and, consequently, the implementation of sustainable development aims.

Therefore, Industry 5.0 is a shift in emphasis from technological progress to an entirely human-centered approach. The industry also needs to consider social constraints, endeavoring not to leave anyone behind. This has many implications concerning a safe and supportive work environment, respect for human rights, and skill requirements for workers. At the same time, stakeholders benefit if Industry 5.0 achieves its sustainability goals. This is because they will then be able to reduce costs and obtain competitive products presented globally.

Author. (2022). Goal 12 responsible consumption and production goal 13 climate action [PowerPoint slides].

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, April 6). Society 5.0: The New Social Paradigm. https://ivypanda.com/essays/society-50-the-new-social-paradigm/

"Society 5.0: The New Social Paradigm." IvyPanda , 6 Apr. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/society-50-the-new-social-paradigm/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Society 5.0: The New Social Paradigm'. 6 April.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Society 5.0: The New Social Paradigm." April 6, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/society-50-the-new-social-paradigm/.

1. IvyPanda . "Society 5.0: The New Social Paradigm." April 6, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/society-50-the-new-social-paradigm/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Society 5.0: The New Social Paradigm." April 6, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/society-50-the-new-social-paradigm/.

• Effects of AI on the Accounting Profession
• The Age of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• The Importance of Trust in AI Adoption
• Ethical Considerations of AI Becoming Sentient
• The Battle of AI - Wajbah Discussion
• Working With Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• Bicultural Paradigm in a Contemporary Society
• AI Application in the Automotive Industry and Urban Management
• How AI and Machine Learning Influence Marketing in the Fashion Industry
• AI in Pharmaceutical Industry: Amazon and AI
• The Margolis Wheel Use in Community Development
• Moral Identities, Social Anxiety, and Academic Dishonesty
• Sociology of Health and Medicine Concepts in News Stories
• Transgender Women Take Part in Sports Competitions
• Case Study: A Multi-Problem Appalachian Family

Society 5.0 as a Contribution to the Sustainable Development Report

• Conference paper
• First Online: 17 November 2020
• Cite this conference paper

• Maria da Conceição da Costa Tavares 7 &
• Graça Maria do Carmo Azevedo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6346-4035 8  

Part of the book series: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ((SIST,volume 208))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Tourism, Technology and Systems

1266 Accesses

10 Citations

2 Altmetric

In this work, we intend to understand the context of Society 5.0 in business and deepen its potential for proactivity in the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as potential implications on accounting and sustainability reporting, based on recent publications. Taking into account that the changes imposed by the 4.0 industry are comprehensive, it becomes relevant to understand the current impacts and future expectations of this evolution with cross industry 5.0.

In a Society 5.0 it is intended that all citizens get dynamically involved, introducing digital technologies in a variety of systems and accelerating their implementation. It is thus proposed to deepen the concept and the potential of the individual-technology relationship in the promotion of their quality of life enhancement and that of society’s, in favors of sustainable development, sustainability and its reporting.

For this reason, it is a contribution that seeks to collaborate in this very urgent and necessary discussion, presenting its evolution. It is concluded that Industry 4.0, and recently the so-called 5.0, have come to stay and put artificial intelligence, robotics, big data, etc., at men’s service, in which everything will be connected and society will have to be adaptable.

• Agenda 2030
• Industry 4.0
• Society 5.0
• Sustainable development
• Sustainability reports

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Higher Institute for Accountancy and Administration, University of Aveiro (ISCA-UA), Aveiro, Portugal

Maria da Conceição da Costa Tavares

Higher Institute for Accountancy and Administration, Research Centre on Accounting and Taxation (CICF), University of Aveiro (ISCA-UA), Aveiro, Portugal

Graça Maria do Carmo Azevedo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria da Conceição da Costa Tavares .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Institute of Accounting and Administration of Porto (ISCAP), Polytechnic Institute of Porto, São Mamede de Infesta, Portugal

João Vidal de Carvalho

ISEG, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Álvaro Rocha

School of Hospitality and Tourism, Polytechnic of Porto, Vila do Conde, Portugal

Pedro Liberato

Universidad EIA, Envigado, Colombia

Alejandro Peña

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

da Costa Tavares, M.d.C., do Carmo Azevedo, G.M. (2021). Society 5.0 as a Contribution to the Sustainable Development Report. In: de Carvalho, J.V., Rocha, Á., Liberato, P., Peña, A. (eds) Advances in Tourism, Technology and Systems. ICOTTS 2020. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 208. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4256-9_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4256-9_5

Published : 17 November 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-33-4255-2

Online ISBN : 978-981-33-4256-9

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Making excellence a habit

• Verify a certificate

Buy standards

Popular searches

• ISO 13485 Quality Management for Medical Devices
• ISO 14971 Risk Management for Medical Devices
• ISO 27001 Information Security
• ISO 45001 Occupational Health and Safety Management
• Training courses

Suggestions

• Our services

Digital trust

• Shaping society 5.0 - Building trust in AI

Shaping society 5.0

Building trust in AI as a force for good

AI as a force for good: realizing the benefits through openness and transparency >

Closing ai confidence gap key to powering its benefits for society and planet (uk press release) >, the invisible thread: how global collaboration and innovation can create a framework to build greater trust in ai >, how ai-powered risk management solutions can support cybersecurity and build trust >, shaping trust in ai: how regulation can help us unlock the true power of ai >, four steps for industry to lead the way in the responsible use of ai >, ai can be a force for good in healthcare >, the human advantage: how ai can create opportunities in the world of work >, how ai can transform the built environment from the ground floor up >, feeding the future: how ai can help to build a safer and more secure global food system >, democratization, collaboration and education – paving a way for ai to benefit us all >, asking the right questions: how ai can help organizations to enter new markets, navigate responsibilities, and drive progress towards a better society and sustainable world >, harnessing the emerging power of ai to strengthen supply chains and help eradicate modern slavery >.

AI is a transformational technology that has the potential to positively shape lives across society, if we build greater digital trust.

Shaping Society 5.0 1 explores the opportunity presented by AI to be a force for good and an enabler that accelerates progress to a better society and a sustainable world, whether by creating new workplace opportunities, improving patient outcomes, tackling modern slavery or building a safe and secure global food system.

In these essays, BSI’s experts look at the real-world impact of AI and share valuable insights from the BSI Trust in AI Poll, which brings together the views of over 10,000 people in nine countries.

Key insights

• There is a gap in confidence and understanding of AI, leading to low levels of trust and enthusiasm for AI.
•  AI is here to stay. 62% of people expect their industries to use AI every day by 2030. Already, many of us currently use AI in everyday technologies like smartphones, smart speakers or chatbots – however, only half of us recognize that these technologies use AI.
• By 2050 three in ten (29%) say a top priority is for AI to help to reduce our impact on the environment, 28% focus on it improving medical diagnosis and a fifth (22%) pick AI helping to make society fairer and reducing inequality.

Recommendations

• Embedding digital trust can help strengthen understanding across society to bridge the confidence gap, enabling us to accelerate AI adoption and realize its potential benefits.
• Shaping society 5.0 is an opportunity to enhance understanding of AI through education and training everyone, especially the next generation, so that they have the skills they need for the future, building greater trust in AI and harnessing its true power of AI.
• We have an opportunity to collaborate and innovate across society to harness the power of AI to building greater trust in its benefits to society and accelerating progress to a better society and a sustainable world.

Infographics

Ai for a brighter home, adding a decade to life expectancy, ai in the world of work, ai's promise for a greener plate.

How we can help

Develop the skills to navigate the complex AI landscape with our training.

Discover a range of agreed AI guidance, principles and management system standards.

AI in medical devices

Explore our leadership role in the medical application of AI.

Progress trusted adoption of AI through international governance standard ISO 42001.

Let’s shape trust in AI together

Our experts provide a trusted foundation that understands the societal impact of AI and allows your organization to create positive change.

Discover how we build trust in the digital relationships between organizations, people and things.

Collaboration and innovation create transformation. Find out how you can embrace technology, underpinned by standards, to transform your business.

1. Society 5.0 is a term that was used by the Japanese Government in the 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan. It refers to a "human-centred society that balances economic and technological advancement to solve society's problems with super-smart AI data systems". In this essay collection, we use it to refer to a future societal model that we can aspire to.