2010/10/27 - CANPAN FIELDS



World Class CSR practices by Japanese companies

CANPAN CSR+

The Nippon Foundation

Oct. 27, 2010

1. Purpose

The interest in the impact of climate change on business amongst global investors has drawn attention to CSR disclosure. In Japan, whilst CSR disclosure is increasing the quality is still variable when compared with disclosure in other markets. The Nippon Foundation has been conducting research into CSR disclosure levels amongst listed companies in the first section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange since 2005. Since last year (2009), the Nippon Foundation used 240 indicators to analyze the CSR information and practices by Japanese companies. Our analysis shows that among Japanese companies human diversity is a key weakness, a very crucial issue in a globalized economy. Based on our research findings, our aim is to encourage Japanese companies to enhance the understanding of their values in the global arena by accelerating CSR initiatives.

2. Methodology

　・Surveyed companies

As of April 1st 2010, CANPAN CSR＋surveyed listed companies in the first section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange by analyzing CSR reports published in FY2009. In this report “World-class CSR practices by Japanese companies”, we analyze the CSR disclosure of the top 100 companies.

　・Survey scope

1. CSR reports (CSR reports analyzed in FY2009 on CSR disclosure level)

2. Company websites where URLs are found in CSR reports or other existing information.

　・Survey method

Companies were analyzed using the three upper tiers of the “Sanpo-yoshi,” (Good for all three parties) centuries-old business ethics upheld by Ohmi merchants:

　　・Seken-yoshi (Good for society)

　　・Urite-yoshi (Good for seller)

　　・Kaite-yoshi(Good for buyer)

Each tier has 80 indicators therefore the total number of indicators used were 240.

　　

We reviewed the information in CSR reports with a focus on the quality, quantity, uniqueness and effectiveness of CSR undertaken. A point was awarded against each indicator where the company reported that it had taken action.

Table 1　List of surveyed companies（100 companies）

|TOPPAN PRINTING CO., LTD. |Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited |

|Daiwa House Industry Co., Ltd. |Astellas Pharma Inc. |

|Sekisui House, Ltd. |FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation |

|Asahi Breweries, Ltd. |Daikin Industries, Ltd. |

|Toshiba Co, Ltd. |Renesas Electronics Corporation |

|Kansai Electric Power Co, Ltd. |SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. |

|TEIJIN LIMITED |Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. |

|Seiko Epson Corporation |Mitsubishi Motors Corporation |

|Fujitsu Limited |Ricoh Company, Ltd. |

|Tokyu Corporation |KOKUYO Co.,Ltd. |

|Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. |OKAMURA CORPORATION |

|Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. |Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd. |

|DENSO Corporation |NTT DATA CORPORATION |

|NIKON CORPORATION |Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd. |

|Tohoku ElectricPower Co., Inc |Toray Industries, Inc. |

|Tsumura & Co. |KURARAY CO., LTD. |

|Sharp Corporation |Showa Denko K.K. |

|MAEDA　CORPORATION |Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation |

|Lion Corporation |JX Holdings, Inc. |

|Hitachi, Ltd. |Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. |

|Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. |AICHI STEEL CORPORATION |

|The Tokyo Electric Power Company, Incorporated (TEPCO) |Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd. |

|SHIMIZU CORPORATION |Kubota Corporation |

|Kao Corporation |NSK Ltd. |

|NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. |Mitsubishi Electric Corporation |

|ITOCHU ENEX CO., LTD. |ESPEC CORP. |

|Obayashi Corporation |CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD. |

|Sapporo Holdings Limited |Lintec Corporation. |

|Asahi Kasei Corporation. |NIPPONKOA Insurance Co., Ltd. |

|Komatsu Ltd. |MITSUBISHI ESTATE CO., LTD. |

|Mazda Motor Corporation. |Hokuriku Electric Power Company |

|MITSUI & CO., LTD. |Shikoku Electric Power Company, Incorporated |

|SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE INC. |Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Inc. |

|The Chugoku Electric Power Co.,Inc. |Nippon Flour Mills Co., Ltd. |

|Kewpie Corporation. |Showa Sangyo Co., Ltd. |

|Gunze Limited |Meiji Holdings Co., Ltd. |

|Mitsubishi Paper Mills Ltd. |Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. |

|DAICEL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. |TAIYO INK MFG. CO., LTD. |

|DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED. |SHOWA SHELL SEKIYU K. K. |

|NGK SPARK PLUG CO., LTD. |Hitachi Metals, Ltd. |

|Mitsubishi Materials Corporation. |Hitachi Cable, Ltd. |

|Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. |FUJI ELECTRIC HOLDINGS CO., LTD. |

|Marubeni Corporation. |OMRON Corporation |

|Resona Holdings, Inc. |KYOCERA Corporation |

|The Sumitomo Trust and Banking Co., Ltd. |Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. |

|Nomura Holdings, Inc. |Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. |

|NTT DOCOMO, INC. |TOPCON CORPORATION |

|KYUSHU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. |MIZUNO CORPORATION |

|Hitachi Information Systems, Ltd. |RICOH LEASING COMPANY, LTD. |

|SEKISUI CHEMICAL CO., LTD. |T&D Holdings, Inc. |

3．Results

（１）Outline

Figure 1 below shows the average score of each of the three main tiers. A comparison of the tiers finds that Seken-yoshi (Good for society) (33.9pt）scores highest, closely followed by Kaite-yoshi (Good for buyer)（30.2pt), whilst Urite-yoshi (Good for seller) (22.2pt）is again this year in last place. A year on year comparison does show that Urite-yoshi has improved.

[pic]

Figure 1：Average score of three upper tiers

When we look at the average score of the middle tiers which are:

• Seken-yoshi: 1-1 Philanthropy, 1-2 Sustainable Development, 1-3 Environmental and Social issues, and 1-4 Environmental impact disclosure

• Urite-yoshi: 2-1 Human rights issues, 2-2 Rights for workers, 2-3 Prevention of forced labour, and 2-4 No discrimination for recruitment and promotion

• Kaite-yoshi: 3-1 Information on security, 3-2 Communication with consumers and the general public and 3-4 Efforts in privacy policy

The best scoring indicators are 1-4 Environmental impact disclosure”11.2pt and 3-1 Disclosure of information on security（9.4pt）followed by 1-3 Environmental and Social issues（8.9pt） and 3-3 Compliance (8.8pt). When compared with last year it appears that there is an increased score in 2-1 Human rights issues（4.2→5.9pt）however, this can be explained by the changes in indicators. In particular, 1-1 Philanthropy）also shows an increase (6.2→7.2) because of the amendments to the indicators.

[pic]

Figure 2：Average score of the middle tiers

（２）Trend of listed companies

　a. Total score

Table 2-1 below shows the individual scores of the top 10 companies.

　When comparing the average scores of the 100 companies reviewed and those in the top 10, we can see that the top 10 companies demonstrate a balance of each of the three tiers. The average scores of those in the top ten are: “Seken-yoshi” 68.5, “Urite-yoshi” 65.8 and “Kaite-yoshi” 66.2. In particular, the top 10 companies demonstrate a high score in “Seken-yoshi”.

Table 2-1　Top 10 companies total score

|Rank |Company |Total score |

|1 |Sekisui House, Ltd. |142 |

|2 |Toshiba Co., Ltd. |139 |

|3 |Kansai Electric Power Co., Ltd. |133 |

|4 |TOPPAN PRINTING CO. LTD. |131 |

|5 |DENSO Corporation |130 |

|6 |SANYO Electric Co. Ltd. |126 |

|7 |Hitachi, Ltd. |125 |

|8 |NIKON CORPORATION |124 |

|9 |NSK Ltd. |123 |

|10 |Mazda Motor Corporation |122 |

Table 2-2　Comparison of 100 companies and top 10 (total score/Sampo-Yoshi)

| |Total Score |Seken-yoshi |Urite-yoshi |Kaite-yoshi |

|Top 10 average |130.3 |50.2 |35.9 |44.2 |

|100 companies average |86.3 |33.9 |22.2 |30.2 |

|Standard deviate |22.8 |8.8 |8.7 |8.6 |

|Top 10 deviate |69.3 |68.5 |65.8 |66.2 |

b. “Sanpo-yoshi,” (Good for all three parties) Breakdown

• ”Seken-yoshi” (Top 12 companies)

Table 3-1 below shows the top 12 companies in the“Seken-yoshi”tier.

　When the 100 companies and the top 12 companies are compared in the “Seken-yoshi”tier, deviation in“1-3: Environmental and social issues”marks 67, which is the highest among the four middle tiers (Table 3-2).

Table 3-1 Top companies in "Seken-yoshi”　

| |Company |Score in“Seken-yoshi” |Deviation |

|1 |Sekisui House, Ltd. |59 |78.5 |

|2 |DENSO Corporation |53 |71.7 |

|3 |Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. |51 |69.4 |

|4 |Toshiba Co., Ltd. |50 |68.3 |

|4 |Kansai Electric Power Co., Ltd. |50 |68.3 |

|4 |TOPPAN PRINTING CO., LTD. |50 |68.3 |

|4 |NIKON CORPORATION |50 |68.3 |

|8 |Hitachi, Ltd. |49 |67.1 |

|8 |NSK Ltd. |49 |67.1 |

|8 |Mazda Motor Corporation |49 |67.1 |

|8 |Daiwa House Industry Co., Ltd. |49 |67.1 |

|8 |Komatsu Ltd. |49 |67.1 |

Table 3-2　Comparison with 100 companies average (“Seken-yoshi”）

| |1-1 |1-2 |1-3 Environmental & |1-4 Environmental impact |

| |Philanthropy |Sustainable Development |Social issues |disclosure |

|Top 12 average in |10.2 |10.2 |14.9 |15.4 |

|“Seken-yoshi” | | | | |

|100 companies average |7.2 |6.6 |8.9 |11.2 |

|Standard deviate |2.8 |2.8 |3.5 |3.7 |

|Top 12 deviate in |60.4 |62.8 |67.0 |61.2 |

|“Seken-yoshi” | | | | |

• 　“Urite-yoshi” (Top 11 companies)

Table 4-1 below shows the top companies in the “Urite-yoshi”tier.

　　When the 100 companies and the top 11 companies in are compared in the“Urite-yoshi” tier, the greatest difference is within the indicator of 2-1 Human rights issues. Very few companies score in the“2-3: Prevention for forced labor” indicator, there are a few companies who are demonstrating they are able to cope with this issue and Japanese companies fall behind in this respect. However, the average score of the top companies in “Urite-yoshi” tier is twice as that of 100 companies average score (Table 4-2).

Table 4-1 Top companies in "Urite-yoshi”　

| |Company |Score in“Urite-yoshi” |Deviation |

|1 |Toshiba Co., Ltd. |41 |71.7 |

|2 |Sekisui House, Ltd. |39 |69.4 |

|2 |SANYO Electric Co. Ltd. |39 |69.4 |

|4 |TOPPAN PRINTING CO. LTD. |38 |68.2 |

|4 |DENSO Corporation. |38 |68.2 |

|4 |SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE INC. |38 |68.2 |

|7 |Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. |37 |67.1 |

|8 |Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. |36 |65.9 |

|8 |Resona Holdings, Inc. |36 |65.9 |

|10 |FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation |34 |63.6 |

|10 |Tokyu Corporation |34 |63.6 |

Table 4-2 Comparison with 100 companies average (“Urite-yoshi”)

| |2-1 |2-2 |2-3 |2-4 |

| |Human rights issues |Rights for workers |Prevention for forced |No discrimination in |

| | | |labor |recruitment and promotion |

|Top 11 average in |10.8 |10.4 |4.3 |11.5 |

|“Urite-yoshi” | | | | |

|100 companies average |5.9 |7.4 |2.0 |6.9 |

|Standard deviate |3.4 |2.5 |1.7 |3.3 |

|Top 11 deviate in |64.1 |61.8 |63.6 |63.9 |

|“Urite-yoshi” | | | | |

• 　“Kaite-yoshi” (Top 12 companies)

Table 5-1 shows the top companies in the Kaite-yoshi”tier.

When the 100 companies and the top 12 companies in are compared in the “Kaite-yoshi” tier, deviation of “3-4: Efforts in privacy policy” is the highest (Table 5-2).

Table 5-1　Top companies in "Kaite-yoshi”　

| |Company |Score in“Kaite-yoshi” |Deviation |

|1 |Kansai Electric Power Co., Ltd. |51 |74.1 |

|2 |The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. |49 |71.8 |

|3 |Toshiba Co., Ltd. |48 |70.6 |

|4 |SHIMIZU CORPORATION |47 |69.4 |

|5 |SANYO Electric Co. Ltd. |45 |67.1 |

|5 |Sharp Corporation |45 |67.1 |

|7 |Sekisui House, Ltd. |44 |66.0 |

|7 |Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. |44 |66.0 |

|7 |Kubota Corporation |44 |66.0 |

|10 |TOPPAN PRINTING CO. LTD. |43 |64.8 |

|10 |Hitachi, Ltd. |43 |64.8 |

|10 |NSK Ltd. |43 |64.8 |

Table 5-2 Comparison with 100 companies average (“Kaite-yoshi”)

　　

| |3-1 |3-2 |3-3 |3-4 |

| |Disclosure of information|Communication with |Compliance |Efforts in privacy policy |

| |on security |consumers and the general| | |

| | |public | | |

|Top 12 average in |13.0 |8.7 |12.0 |11.8 |

|“Kaite-yoshi” | | | | |

|100 companies average |9.4 |5.4 |8.8 |6.6 |

|Standard deviate |3.2 |2.8 |2.8 |3.8 |

|Top 12 deviate in |61.2 |61.6 |61.2 |64.0 |

|“Kaite-yoshi” | | | | |

（３）Levels in progress and differentiation strategy

Figure 3 is a scatter chart of average scores in the middle tier and standard deviation. This figure suggests that companies are at different levels with respect to their progress and need strategy for differentiation. The vertical axis shows the average score and the horizontal axis represents the standard deviation. Four quadrants are created by plotting the median of average score and regression line of standard deviation. Each quadrant tells us as follows.

　　Quadrants I：high average score, high standard deviation = Overall, companies are working but levels are varied.

　　Quadrants II：high average score, low standard deviation＝Companies are working and the levels are not varied.

　　Quadrants III：low average score, low standard deviation＝ Few companies are working.

　　Quadrants IV：low average score, high standard deviation＝Few companies are working and levels are varied.

In other words, the Quadrants II is “most companies are working,” the Quadrants III is “Very few companies are working,” and the Quadrants IV is “Levels are varied by companies”. New initiatives are introduced and evolved from the Quadrants III, IV, I, and II. This scatted chart tells us that initiatives for “2-1 Human rights issues” and “3-4 Efforts in privacy policy” in the Quadrants IV brings companies to enhance differentiation in CSR.

[pic]

In comparison of the last year’s analysis, average scores in “2-2 Rights for workers” and “3-3 Compliance” are dramatically increased. This tells us that most companies are keep working on these fields.

Both “2-2 Human rights issues” and “2-4 No discrimination in recruitment and promotion” moved from the Quadrant III to IV. These fields become key differentiation for companies.

【FY2009】　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　【FY2010】

[pic][pic]

Reference 1

Evaluation criteria for “Report of the world-class CSR practices by Japanese companies（2010）”

“Seken-yoshi”(Good for society)

[pic]

[pic]

“Urite-yoshi” (Good for seller)

[pic]

[pic]

“Kaite-yoshi” (Good for buyer)

[pic]

[pic]

Reference 2

Companies are working for lower tiers

Tables show percentages of companies working for 240 questions.

＜1-1Philanthropy＞　　　　　　　　　　＜1-2 Sustainable development＞

[pic][pic]

＜1-3.Environmental and social issues＞　　　＜1-4. Environmental impact disclosure＞

[pic][pic]

＜2-1.Human rights issues＞　　　　　　　　　　＜2.2 Rights for workers＞

[pic][pic]

＜2-3. Prevention for forced labour＞ 　＜2-4. No discrimination in recruitment and promotion＞

[pic][pic]

＜3-1. Disclosure of information on security＞＜3-2. Comm. with consumers and the general public＞

[pic][pic]

＜3-pliance＞　　　　　　　　　　　　　＜3-4.Efforts in privacy policy＞

[pic][pic]

-----------------------

31.7

17.9

30.5

33.9

22.2

30.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Seken-yoshi

Urite-yoshi

Kaite-yoshi

2009

2010

別送のエクセルの「09-10comparison」シートご参照

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Seken-yoshi

Urite-yoshi

Kaite-yoshi

Ⅰ

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

Ⅳ

1

-

1

1

-

2

1

-

3

1

-

4

2

-

1

2

-

2

2

-

3

2

-

4

3

-

1

3

-

2

3

-

3

3

-

4

以下は別送のエクセルファイルご参照

以下は別送のエクセルファイルご参照

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download