Japan: sustainability reporting needs improvement

29 January 2017

Editor

Latest News

Australia narrows climate reporting scope mid‑rollout

Minerva Proxy Update

Follow This challenges Shell days before key vote

SRD III is Europe’s chance to fix proxy plumbing

SEC Steps Closer to Unwinding Climate Disclosure Rules

Minerva Proxy Update

Featured Briefings

Australia Proxy Season Review 2025

2026 Proxy Season Preview

Diversity Divergence: Shareholders Steadfast Amid Pervasive Political Posturing

The Japanese Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) recenlty tweeted about the "excellent" integrated reporting of some of the country's firms. However, Manifest's analysis shows that sustainability reporting in Japan is falling short of many investors expectations.

Based on analysis of the Japanese companies reviewed for Manifest's Say on Sustainability project during the 2016 reporting season, the average percentage score awarded was only 32% - a low grade D - only just above the grade E boundary of 30%. This compares with   EU - C/53%; UK - D/40%; and US - D/40% and Australia - D/37%.

Japanese reporting - few high achievers

Although Mitsubishi and MHI were rated as "excellent" by GPIF, no Japanese companies achieved the top A grade, and only three companies (6% of the sample) have achieved a B.

CompanySay on Sustainability
Grade% ScoreJSR
B 65% Sony B 65% Toshiba B 67% Mitsubishi Heavy Industries C 47% Mitsubishi D 31%

Out of date disclosure a systemic problem for Japan

Just as investors depend on up to date disclosure of core financial metrics, many investors expect to see sustainability reporting to also be published in a timely way. The majority of the companies in Manifest's sample produced a separate sustainability report (91%),  however all of these reports are produced late - that is not published within 6 months of the relevant year-end. Very worryingly, a significant proportion of the reports are two or three years out of date (26% of the entire of sample and 29% of late reporters). However, this may not be entirely surprising given that the financial statements and annual reports of the majority were also not up to date with the financial year at time of assessment (80%) with a similar of proportion of websites being out of date (78%).

Poor carbon emission disclosure

Most of the companies analysed (61%) do audit their work to some extent. In terms of carbon disclosure the largest group (22 companies/41%) disclosure just their total emissions while 11 companies (20%) provide a breakdown of emissions. However, nine companies (17%) do not disclose their emissions at all.

Manifest's research also found that only 12 companies (22%) disclose on their political donations or their policy on this and only five (9% of all companies, 42% of those that do disclose) of these are clear about their policy.

GPIF has highlighted its commitment to sustainability and good stewardship by joining the 30% Club in the UK and the Thirty Percent Coalition in the US. GPIF said it believes that integration of environment, social and governance (ESG) factors into the  investment process mitigates investment risk. It stated that it believes that gender diversity is regarded as one of major ESG factors.

For more information about the Manifest Say on Sustainability framework and data sets, email sustainability@manifest.info

Related Stories

Texas Climate Investing Blacklist Stays on Ice

April 17, 2026
Read More

Regulating the Raters: The FCA’s ESG Regulatory Proposals, Minerva’s Response, and What the Market Should Watch

April 16, 2026
Read More

FCA Sustainability Disclosure Proposals: A Turning Point for UK Market Transparency

April 10, 2026
Read More

Why Switzerland’s Proposed Sustainability Bill Matters for Investors

April 9, 2026
Read More

Quarterly Reporting: The Next Target in the SEC’s Stewardship Retreat

April 7, 2026
Read More

ISSB Prepares for Final SASB Updates with New Proposals

April 2, 2026

Alex Whitebrook

Read More