Professor Jiro Kokuryo, formerly of Keio Business School, Keio University, and now at Waseda University Institute for Business and Finance, explores how Asian cultures could impact the governance of the cyber-civilisation and in particular, how they could work with the western way of thinking.

How Asian Cultural Values Can Help Define Cyber-civilization Governance by CoBS Editor Antonin Delobre. Related research: Kokuryo, J. An Asian perspective on the governance of cyber civilization. Electron Markets 32, 475–485 (2022).

If you have never seen Tron, Ex Machina or Terminator, where the protagonists grapple with the unethical consequences of advanced artificial intelligence, maybe it is time to before reading this very insight. Indeed, could Asian cultures and philosophies be a smart way to balance out a western vision of cyber governance?

In his research, Prof. Jiro Kokuryo tackles just that. He proposes a rethink of the governance of a ‘cyber-civilisation’ — the era shaped by data, platforms and artificial intelligence — by drawing on Asian philosophical traditions while seeking principles shared with Western tradition.

Faced with the growing difficulty of modern societies in reconciling the economic use of data, respect for privacy and the regulation of intelligent technologies, Kokuryo explores alternative ethical benchmarks. He highlights the notion of fiduciary responsibility as a conceptual bridge between cultures, that is, the duty of an actor – platform, institution, or company – to act in the interests of those who entrust them with assets or data.

What Is Fiduciary Responsibility?

Indeed, in Anglo-Saxon law, a fiduciary is someone to whom another person entrusts resources – money, information, property – with the expectation that these resources will be managed in their best interests. This principle implies loyalty, diligence and responsibility.

This framework seems relevant to the case of digital governance: when faced with platforms that centralise and exploit data, should they be seen as mere owners or as trustees required to act in the interests of users? This concept makes it possible to move beyond the opposition between property rights – the Western model – and duty of loyalty – the Asian model – by linking them around the concept of trust.

Between Individualism and Relational Ethics: A shift in reference points

One of the major contributions from Prof. Kokuryo’s research is to propose a framework for understanding contemporary tensions surrounding data based on two ethical approaches. On the one hand, modern individualism, heir to the philosophy of the Enlightenment, conceives of privacy and data as individual property, the use of which must be subject to explicit consent.

On the other hand, relational ethics – found in certain Asian traditions but also in Western schools of thought such as fiduciary responsibility – emphasises loyalty, trust and respect for interpersonal relationships. This apparent opposition, however, is not set in stone but serves to highlight different conceptions of digital governance. Indeed, it structures the argument without being absolutist, with Prof. Kokuryo advocating a hybridisation of models rather than a substitution.

Towards the Hybrid: Three key questions

The above-mentioned approaches beg a number of key questions. First, is an ethical tradition oriented towards loyalty and the collective better suited to the regulation of digital technologies? While Western societies protect privacy as an individual right, some East Asian societies accept collective data management provided that trust is not betrayed. Moreover, the cultural acceptance of technical objects as autonomous – rooted in animistic beliefs – reduces the fear of machine domination, facilitating their integration into society.

A second key question is that of how today’s economic logic of digital technology is undermining the model of the individual owner. In the digital age, asserts Prof. Kokuryo, the foundations of capitalism are being transformed by three revolutions: network effects, the near-free nature of digital goods, and the end of mass anonymity. Network effects increase the value of a service as its use spreads, transforming data into resources that become more valuable the more they are shared.

At the same time, the near-zero marginal cost of reproducing digital services is destabilising economic models based on scarcity. Intellectual property, a pillar of the industrial economy, is losing ground to subscription, access and licensing models. Finally, the rise of tracking technologies is removing the anonymity of exchanges. In this light, trust and reputation are becoming the new values in digital ecosystems based on personalisation.

Finally, what forms of governance are needed for a digital civilisation? Every civilisation is based on a combination of key technology, a dominant form of wealth and a specific mode of governance. For example, the agrarian era was organised around metals as the structuring technology, food stocks as the main form of wealth, and kingdoms as institutions of governance. The industrial era, on the other hand, was based on energy, monetary accumulation and market mechanisms.

Prof. Kokuryo asserts that the digital era also has its own distinctive features. Digital technology is its foundation, trust is its main form of wealth, and regulated communities – often embodied by platforms – are its vehicles of governance. In this configuration, raw data is no longer a strategic asset in itself; only its circulation within a framework perceived as legitimate and reliable can generate value. Consequently, an actor’s ability to inspire trust determines its ability to aggregate, process and leverage information flows on a large scale.

The Concept of the ‘Potluck Economy’: Trust and reciprocity as the foundation for value creation

Jiro Kokuryo proposes a governance model inspired by sharing communities: individuals make their resources – that is, data, objects, skills – available when they are not using them; the community recognises and rewards these contributions through traceability – for example, self-sharing systems. As such, value therefore depends on reputation, loyalty and perceived integrity.

Moreover, Asian culture provides several ethical contributions that help shape the above. Confucianism, for example, prioritises loyalty to family and loved ones. And in a broader context, this justifies collective data management in the interests of the group. The revival of traceability encourages this return to a logic of relational responsibility. Further, Buddhism encourages detachment from possessions and kindness towards others, including strangers. This may well form the basis for an ethic of selfless data sharing, provided that dignity is preserved. Previously mentioned, Animism constitutes a third shaping element, considering humans to be part of nature, not its pinnacle. This facilitates the acceptance of machines as partners or allies.

How Can West and East Settle a New Way of Governance Together?

Towards shared responsibility governance, the Western legal framework is based on responsibility being clearly attributed to an individual or entity. However, as self-learning systems blur this chain of causality, other avenues must be explored. These could include prioritising the collective responsibility of platforms as trustees, viewing accidents not as mistakes but as systemic events, and restricting the autonomous use of sensitive technologies such as those used for weapons or healthcare innovation.

Prof. Kokuryo does not take sides but suggests drawing inspiration from a logic of respectful coexistence between humans, nature and technologies based on trust. This moves things away from opposing the two predominant – and different – approaches to data legislation: the European and American. On the one hand, the European approach, as illustrated in the GDPR, Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, seeks to protect users.

On the other, the American mercantilist approach favours plurality of actors in order to protect business – which amounts to an antitrust logic. Kokuryo proposes a middle ground, encouraging platforms to act in the interests of those who entrust them with data. Indeed, this latter approach, which combines the ethics of responsibility and loyalty, could provide a basis for international convergence.

In the face of profound digital change, Prof. Kokuryo invites us to shift our thinking. It is no longer just individual rights or property that establish the legitimacy of systems, but their ability to be trustworthy. By drawing on Asian references without essentialising them, and linking them to universal principles such as fiduciary responsibility, he paves the way for governance centred on relationships and reliability. This approach does not pit civilisations against each other but proposes a shared ethical framework for thinking about the digital future.

Useful links:

• Link up with Prof. Jiro Kokuryo on LinkedIn
• Read a related article: How do humans interact with AI to ensure the common good?
• Discover CoBS member school Keio Business School.

Learn more about the Council on Business & Society

The Council on Business & Society (CoBS), visionary in its conception and purpose, was created in 2011, and is dedicated to promoting responsible leadership and tackling issues at the crossroads of business, society, and planet including the dimensions of sustainability, diversity, social impact, social enterprise, employee wellbeing, ethical finance, ethical leadership and the place responsible business has to play in contributing to the common good.  

• Follow the CoBS on LinkedIn
• Download magazines and learning content from the CoBS website downloads page.

Member schools of the Council on Business & Society.

• ESSEC Business School, France, Singapore, Morocco
• FGV-EAESP, Brazil
• School of Management Fudan University, China
• IE Business School, Spain
• Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, India
• Keio Business School, Japan
• Monash Business School, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia
• Olin Business School, USA
• Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Canada
• Stellenbosch Business School, South Africa
• Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
• Warwick Business School, United Kingdom.