GIRAI logo
Japan flag

Global Index Score

55.66

Global: 24thRegional: 2ndIncome Group: 23rd

Japan's index score lands +22.7 against the Asia and Oceania average (33.0) and +3.5 against High income peers (52.1). It scores ahead of 83% of the 135 economies assessed this edition. Published score 55.7 reflects a URAI adjustment from 58.0 (1 government-misuse evidence item on file). The profile rests on 55 documented evidence items spanning policy frameworks, government initiatives and civil society activity.

How Japan Performs Across the Five Dimensions

GIRAI evaluates countries across five core dimensions that capture the social, ethical, and institutional impacts of artificial intelligence.

AI Policy

48.66

Avrg. Score

25.65

Global: 29thRegional: 4th

Enabling Conditions

80.06

Avrg. Score

55.27

Global: 20thRegional: 3rd

Civil Society Engagement

47.62

Avrg. Score

17.68

Global: 11thRegional: 1st
1

Inclusion and Diversity

61.95

Index Score

33.21

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 24thRegional: 3rd

Japan runs +28.7 against the regional average (33.2) on Inclusion and Diversity. Strongest indicators: Gender Equality (73.1), Children's Rights (52.3). Weakest: Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (29.6). 10 evidence items on file, including "New Female Digital Talent Development Plan (Japan)" and 2 other documented items.

2

Ethics and Sustainability

55.84

Index Score

31.00

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 26thRegional: 2nd

Japan runs +24.8 against the regional average (31.0) on Ethics and Sustainability. Strongest indicators: Fairness and Non-discrimination (72.7), Transparency and Explainability (70.5). Weakest: Environmental Impact (26.5), Human Oversight and Determination (61.4). This dimension ranks 26th globally — behind the country's overall position (24th). 10 evidence items on file, including "AI Guidelines for Business Ver. 1.1 (Japan)" and 2 other documented items.

3

Labour and Skills

51.93

Index Score

36.03

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 34thRegional: 4th

Japan runs +15.9 against the regional average (36.0) on Labour and Skills. Strongest indicators: Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives (69.7), AI Literacy (26.1). Weakest: Labour Protections (18.2). This dimension ranks 34th globally — behind the country's overall position (24th). 10 evidence items on file, including "AI Guidelines for Business Ver. 1.1 (Japan)" and 2 other documented items.

4

Trust and Safety

63.50

Index Score

38.45

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 28thRegional: 4th

Japan runs +25.1 against the regional average (38.4) on Trust and Safety. Strongest indicators: Safety and Security (86.9), AI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence (67.6). Weakest: Access to Redress and Remedy (9.1), Impact Assessments (67.4). This dimension ranks 28th globally — behind the country's overall position (24th). 13 evidence items on file, including "AI Guidelines for Business APPENDIX Ver11" and 1 other documented items.

5

AI Use in Public Service

56.66

Index Score

30.02

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 16thRegional: 1st

Japan runs +26.6 against the regional average (30.0) on AI Use in Public Service. Strongest indicators: Public Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems (44.4), Public Procurement (42.8). Weakest: Public Sector Skills Development (27.2). This dimension ranks 16th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (24th). 12 evidence items on file, including "Advanced AI Utilization Advisory Board - Meeting" and 1 other documented items.

Comparing Results Across Editions

Explore how country performance, scores, and governance indicators have changed between GIRAI editions.

14 indicators

Indicator2024 Edition2026 Edition
Gender EqualityNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Children's RightsNo FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Cultural and Linguistic DiversityNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Fairness and Non-discriminationNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Transparency and ExplainabilityNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Human Oversight and DeterminationNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Labour ProtectionsNo FrameworkNo Framework
Reskilling/Upskilling InitiativesNo FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Safety and SecurityNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Access to Redress and RemedyNo FrameworkNo Framework
Impact AssessmentsNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Public Sector Skills DevelopmentNo FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Public ProcurementNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Government Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and GovernanceNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework

Indicator definitions changed between editions; this table compares evidence presence and status, not directly comparable scores. A — indicates the item is not applicable or was not assessed for that edition.

Compare responsible AI performance

Explore how countries and regions perform across GIRAI's governance dimensions, scores, and structural indicators.

Compare
🇯🇵Japan

55.66

Global 24thRegional 2nd
Asia and Oceania

32.98

Regional average

Dimension scores

Inclusion and Diversity
Japan
62.0
Asia and Oceania
33.2
Ethics and Sustainability
Japan
55.8
Asia and Oceania
31.0
Labour and Skills
Japan
51.9
Asia and Oceania
36.0
Trust and Safety
Japan
63.5
Asia and Oceania
38.4
AI Use in Public Service
Japan
56.7
Asia and Oceania
30.0

Indicators

37 of 37
IndicatorJapanAsia and Oceania
Inclusion and Diversity7
APGender Equality
73.124.5
APChildren's Rights
52.327.8
APCultural and Linguistic Diversity
29.625.9
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Inclusion and Diversity
46.115.4
ECEgalitarian Democracy
89.633.2
ECSocioeconomic Inclusion in Connectivity
96.649.2
ECGender Inclusion in Connectivity
77.378.0
Ethics and Sustainability6
APFairness and Non-discrimination
72.726.1
APTransparency and Explainability
70.533.5
APHuman Oversight and Determination
61.426.2
APEnvironmental Impact
26.518.0
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Ethics and Sustainability
30.820.8
ECEnvironmental Performance
31.340.9
Labour and Skills6
APLabour Protections
18.27.7
APReskilling/Upskilling Initiatives
69.741.4
APAI Literacy
26.139.0
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Labour and Skills
41.018.6
ECLabour Rights
74.039.0
ECPopulation Digital Readiness
92.871.3
Trust and Safety11
APSafety and Security
86.933.8
APAccess to Redress and Remedy
9.123.2
APImpact Assessments
67.427.9
APAI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence
67.625.5
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Trust and Safety
35.213.6
ECData Protection and Privacy
83.456.4
ECData Sharing and Access
87.568.3
ECConsumer Protection
62.172.3
ECCybersecurity
97.576.8
ECRule of Law
89.548.2
ECGlobal Peace
91.768.4
AI Use in Public Service7
APPublic Sector Skills Development
27.232.0
APPublic Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems
44.411.1
APPublic Procurement
42.814.8
CSOGovernment Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance
85.020.0
ECCivil Society Oversight
85.047.9
ECPublic Service Delivery
94.476.9
ECRight to Information
73.439.6
Score adjustment
URAIUnacceptable Risk AI Systems
×0.961 government-misuse item×0.98Regional average
APAI Policy
CSOCSO Engagement
ECEnabling Conditions
Misuse Of AI

Unacceptable Risk AI Systems

Evidence related to government use of AI systems associated with unacceptable-risk categories.

Contact GIRAI
  • Mass Biometric Surveillance

    Abnormal Behavior Detection System to Snare Criminals Before They Commit Crime

    During the Tokyo election law-enforcement authorities deployed AI-enabled behavior-detection cameras. The deployment followed recent violent incidents involving Japanese politicians. The system was used to scan crowds in real-time and generate immediate alerts based on predefined movement patterns including actions such as drawing a handgun and other movements classified by the system as suspicious marking it as real-time surveillance in a public space. The article confirms both the use of the system in an election setting and its functionality as a crowd-scanning and alert-generation tool. No information is provided regarding on-site public notice individual notification or mechanisms to contest alerts generated by the systems.

    View Trusted Source

What Drives This Performance?

A breakdown of the structural factors shaping this country's score.

AI Policy

National AI strategies, laws, and oversight mechanisms that establish formal governance structures.

Contribution to overall score

50%

Civil society engagement

Participation of academia, advocacy groups, and non-state actors in shaping governance and ensuring accountability.

Contribution to overall score

8%

Enabling conditions

Institutional capacity, rule of law, digital readiness, and labour protections that enable effective governance.

Contribution to overall score

41%

  • Strongest context signal: Cybersecurity (97.5)
  • Socioeconomic Inclusion in Connectivity (96.6)
  • Public Service Delivery (94.4)

Evidence for Japan

Loading evidence explorer…