ス ポ ッ ト研 究

Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations
by Japanese Manufacturing Companies—Results of the JBIC FY2023 Survey:
Outlook for Japanese Foreign Direct Investment(35th Annual Survey) —NAKAJIMA Ryuji
Strategic Research Department, Corporate Planning Group
Japan Bank for International Cooperation

1. Introduction
Japan Bank for International
Cooperation (JBIC) has released the“Survey Report on Overseas
Business Operations by Japanese
Manufacturing Companies.” In thissurvey, questionnaires were sent out
in July 2023 and collected by
September (987 target companies,
534 valid respondents, 54.1%
response rate.) We would like toexpress our gratitude to the companies
who participated in the survey.

Figure 1. Trends in Overseas Production/Sales Ratios(FY2001 onwards, all industries)
44%

Medium-term plans (FY2026)

42%

Overseas Sales Ratios

40%

Overseas Production Ratios
37.5%

38%
36%

34.0%

34%

28%

34.2%

33.5%

32%
30%

34.7%

27.9%

30.5%
29.2%

33.3%

37.9%
35.6%
35.1%

35.2%

32.9%

30.6%
29.1%

35.4%
34.7% 34.2%

30.8%

31.0% 31.3%

39.6%
39.3%
38.7%
38.5%
36.8%

35.6%
35.0%

37.9%
36.2%

24% 24.6%

37.0%

35.7%
34.9%
35.8%
35.8%
35.0%
33.9% 33.6%＊Last year's survey.
Estimated actual results for FY2022

Actual28.0%

26%39.0% 39.1%

26.0% 26.1%

FY2023
Projected

22%
20%

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 （FY）

In this survey, we set out not only the regular questions, suchas “Overseas Business Performance,” “Business Prospects
for Medium-term,” and “Promising Countries/Regions,” butalso “Shape of Supply Chains under Fragmented Global
Economy,” “Impact of Global Price Hikes on Business
Development,” and “Issues in Sustainability in Business
Development” as the special themes. This article attempts tooverview the outlook of the survey result.

it is expected to remain high. (Figure 1)

2. Overseas Production/Sales Ratios

As for overseas business, the number of companies whichchose “Strengthen/expand” increased slightly from theprevious year’s survey but did not the reach the level seen
before the Covid-19 pandemic. (Figure 2) By company
size, large enterprises, which had been on a recovery
trend, showed a slight decrease of 0.6 points this year. On
the other hand, SMEs, which had stagnated, started to risein this year’s survey by 2.4 points.

The ratio of overseas production1 rose to 35.7% in
FY2022, while the FY2023 forecast was at 35.8% andremains almost unchanged. It is currently slightly below
the level seen before the Covid-19 pandemic, but is
expected to rise to 37.0% in the mid-term plan (FY2026).
The ratio of overseas sales2 has also continued to increasesince the previous fiscal year, reaching 39.0%, above thelevel seen before the Covid-19 pandemic. Although theforecast for FY2023 remains almost unchanged at 39.1%,

Note 1: Overseas Production Ratio = Overseas Production / (Domestic
Production + Overseas Production)
N o t e 2 : O ve r s e a s S a l e s R a t i o = O ve r s e a s S a l e s / ( D o m e s t i c S a l e s +Overseas Sales)

3. M edium-term (Next 3 Years) Prospects for
Business Expansion (Overseas/Domestic)

By industry, electrical equipment & electronics andautomobiles were the most distinctive and for electricalequipment & electronics, the strengthen attitude2024.357

Figure 2. Medium-term (Next 3 Years) Prospects forOverseas Business Expansion
2.0%

100%

26.7%

80%

2.8%

1.6%

1.2%

2.1%

37.9%

34.7%

31.6%

30.2%

59.3%

63.7%

67.2%

67.7%

2020
（509）

2021
（504）

2022
（512）

2023（FY）（companies）
（523）

60%
40%

71.4%

20%
0%

2019
（562）

Scale back/Withdraw

Maintain present level

Strengthen/Expand

Figure 3. Medium-term (Next 3 Years) Prospects
for Domestic Business Expansion
100%
80%
60%

3.9%

7.2%

3.2%

3.5%

50.2%

50.4%

0.6%

0.4%

0.8%

52.1%

50.4%

52.5%

42.8%

38.9%

2019
（568）

2020
（514）

20%

47.3%

49.2%

2021
2022
（501） （512）Undecided
Maintain present level

46.7%2023 （FY）（522）（companies）

Scale back/Withdraw
Strengthen/Expand

Note： The answer choice “undecided” was eliminated from 2021.

Figure 4. Promising Countries for Overseas Businessover the Medium-term (Next 3 Years)
Ranking2023 ← 2022
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
11
14
15
16
16
16
19
19
19
19
19
19

58

In domestic business, the previous fiscal year, “Strengthen/
expand” increased due to the resumption of domestic
investments following the convergence of the Covid-19
pandemic, but this year the percentage decreased. (Figure3) In the interviews, one company said that “we do notintend to expand our domestic business as the Japanesemarket will not grow significantly in the future due to thedeclining birth rate” (Construction Machinery, Other).

4. Promising Countries/Regions

40%

0%

weakened compared to the previous year. From theperspective of economic security, this is thought to be
influenced by the strengthening of domestic investment
by semiconductor-related companies. For automobiles,
the strengthen attitude has not returned to the level seen
before the Covid-19 pandemic (64.4% in FY18), despite
a slight increase compared to the previous year. The“scale back/withdraw” attitude also increased, reaching
7.1%. One of the reasons for this may be the uncertainty
about the degree of progress in Japan’s response to theshift to EVs.

－

－

－
－

1
4
2
3
6
5
9
8
7
11
10
12
13
14
16
16
19
27
18
20
21
21
25
25

No. of Companies Percentage Share（％）
2023
2022
Countries
2023
2022（Total） 395
367
India
192
148
48.6
40.3
Vietnam
119
106
30.1
28.9
China
112
136
28.4
37.1
US
107
118
27.1
32.2
Indonesia
97
77
24.6
21.0
Thailand
85
85
21.5
23.2
Mexico
42
27
10.6
7.4
Philippines
35
28
8.9
7.6
Malaysia
26
31
6.6
8.4
Germany
21
21
5.3
5.7
Taiwan
17
23
4.3
6.3
Korea
17
17
4.3
4.6
Brazil
17
15
4.3
4.1
Australia
13
13
3.3
3.5
Bangladesh
11
10
2.8
2.7
UK
7
10
1.8
2.7
France
7
8
1.8
2.2
Spain
7
3
1.8
0.8
Turkey69
1.5
2.5
Cambodia
6
7
1.5
1.9
Canada
6
5
1.5
1.4
UAE
6
5
1.5
1.4
Myanmar6
4
1.5
1.1
Netherlands
6
4
1.5
1.1

2024.3In this section, we asked the respondents to name up to
five countries/regions where they see promising business
opportunities in the medium term (next three years), andthe results were ranked as shown in the Figure 4.
In this year’s result, India maintained the top, far ahead of
the other countries. With regard to the existence ofbusiness plans, 45.8% of the 192 companies that chose
India as promising countiries indicated that they havenew or additional business plans, an increase of 8.3 points
from the previous year. India appears to be moving awayfrom its “image-driven” evaluation as a promisingcountry. China dropped to third place, losing votes for thesecond consecutive year, due to variety of growing
concerns, such as the prolonged conflict between the U.S.
and the slowdown of the Chinese economy. The U.S. isbelieved to have lost its vote share due to the current
inflation and rising labor costs, despite the highappreciation for the size of the market. The decrease in
the U.S.-China vote share was distributed among the top
ASEAN countries, Mexico, and other countries. Mexico
in particular, is expected to be a temporary near-shoring
destination of the U.S. for Japanese companies.
Vietnam, which is expected to be the recipient of the【スポット研究】Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations by Japanese Manufacturing Companies

Figure 5. Supply Sources of Raw Materials, Parts, and Manufacturing Equipment Difficult to Substitute
（%）
80
65.6
60
40

35.9

de-China, was ranked second for the first time, but it’sbusiness planning ratio (31.8%) was the lowest among
the top 10 countries, suggesting that it may be “imagedriven.”

5. Shape of Supply Chains underFragmented Global Economy
Although there is a move to review raw material
procurement in the supply chain in response to risinggeopolitical risks, such as the U.S.-China confrontationand the invasion of Ukraine, China continues to be asignificant source of raw materials and parts that are
difficult to replace. Companies that cited China as aprocurement of raw materials, parts, and manufacturing
equipment that are difficult to substitute, were second
most after Japan, with a response rate of over 35%.
(Figure 5) Some respondents said, “We are looking into
sources other than China, but it is difficult from a cost
standpoint, including changing suppliers to Japan, and it
is impossible to replace them” (Automobile parts). This
was a glimpse into the dilemma of Japanese companies
that find it difficult to separate China from their supply
chains even amid concerns about China risk.
On the other hand, when asked about the extent to which
various regulations by the Chinese government and legal
measures/restrictions by the U.S./EU against China
would have an impact, regarding the impact of each legal
measures/regulations on business operations related toChina, the largest percentage of companies based in
China responded that “there has been no impact on
business operations so far, but we are concerned” forN/ATurkeyOthersBangladesh

Central/East Europe

RussiaPhilippines

UK

AfricaChile

BrazilMexicoMiddle East

Total: 485 companies

Malaysia

Australia

10.5
1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.6

Singapore

India

VietnamThailand4.7 3.3 3.1 2.9 1.9Indonesia

Korea

9.7 9.3 7.0

EU14

US

China

Japan

0

15.7

Taiwan20

almost all legal measures/regulations. Although thenumber of companies that have been affected in theirbusiness operations is not large as a whole at this time,
there is a growing sense of concern, especially among
companies with offices in China. Among the legal
measures and regulations discussed in this report, “forced
technology transfer” and “new anti-espionage law” werethe most influential and causes for concern. One company
commented, “We have been receiving technicalcooperation from local companies in our sales activities
for advanced technologies handled in China, but we areconcerned that we may be in violation of the antiespionage law” (Ceramics, Cement & Glass). More thanFigure 6. Impact of Legal Measures and Regulations
inside/outside China (only for companies with
office in China)0

1.5

Enactment of data security law(398)
Revision of anti-trust law(392)

40

60

80

（％）
100

54.0

22.4

22.1

55.1

20.7

23.2

52.0
1.0
36.5

19.3

27.4

Forced technology transfer(402)
New anti-espionage law(405)

20

1.0
1.3

Import restrictions on Chinese productsin the US and other countries (402) 9.5

32.7

21.1 19.4

50.0

Limiting semiconductor export
44.9
to China(403) 9.9
1.8
Enactment of human rights-related laws
38.6
and regulations in Europe(394)

29.8

24.1
32.2

21.1
27.4

（companies）
Having the impact on business operation, and being concerned
Having no impact on business operation so far, but being concerned
Having no impact on business operation, and thus being not concerned
Uncertain

2024.359

Figure 7. Strengthening of Domestic Investment

147 companies,
29.5%

half of the companies with offices in China expressed
concern about the regulations in the U.S., and about 10%of the companies said that the regulations had affected
their business operations. (Figure 6)

114 companies,
22.8%

54 companies,
10.8%

128 companies,
25.7%

56 companies,
11.2%
Total: 499 companies

Already made new/additional investments in domestic businesses
Considering new/additional investments in domestic business
Aspired to strengthen domestic businesses (wait-and-see)No need to make new or additional domestic investment
Not fully discussed

Figure 8. Reasons for Strengthening Domestic
Investment
14 companies, 4.7%
6 companies, 2.0%

4 companies, 1.4%
28 companies,
9.5%

6. Impact of Global Price Hikes on
Business Development

103 companies,
34.8%

In response to a question about which aspects of global
price hikes have affected global business operations,approximately 85% of the companies indicated that they
are affected by the global price hikes of materials,
components, and energy, etc. (Figure 9) By major regionof production, such as the U.S., EU, and China, there
were no major differences by overseas operation site, andall factors were found to be affected by price hikes
regardless of region. (Figure 10)

141companies,
47.6%

Total: 296 companies
To establish a stable supply system for raw materials and parts
For a purely domestic investment that maximaizes profit
To realize both profit maximization and a stable supply system
To transfer production from overseas for both profit
maximization and a stable supply system
To transfer production from overseas to establish a stablesupply system for raw materials and parts
To implement domestic investment accompanying thetransfer of production from overseas for profit maximization
63.8%
85.8%
8.1%
91.9%

Stable supply system
Profit maximization
Production transfer from abroad
N/A

4

Automobiles

9Electrical Equipment & Electronics
2

Chemicals
General Machinary

3
0

60

2024.3

Next, we asked to what extent and for what purposescompanies are implementing or considering responses to
new and additional investments in Japan, about 50% of
the responding companies have either “already done” orare “considering” strengthening their domestic
investments. (Figure 7) Of those companies willing tostrengthen their domestic investments, approximately
50% answered that they would “maximize profits andimprove supply systems.” Although only 8.1% of all
respondents selected “production transfer from abroad”
in light of geopolitical risks and other factors, many of the
respondents in the electrical equipment & electronics
industry tended to select this option. It could be interpreted
as a return to domestic semiconductor-related manufacturing,which is considered important from an economic security
standpoint. (Figure 8)

510（companies）

When asked to what extent companies are able to pass on
prices, we found that about 70% of the companies havedone so. By industry, the percentage of firms that havebeen able to pass on prices to their customers is relatively
high for steel (100%), petroleum & rubber (about 90%),and chemicals (over 85%), which are located relatively
close to the upstream of the supply chain, while thepercentage for automobiles is below 60%, indicating thatprice pass-through is not progressing. (Figure 11)
In the next question, we asked companies that answered“not done very much” or “not done at all” for price passthrough, the reasons for this, some respondents stated that【スポット研究】Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations by Japanese Manufacturing Companies

they could not proceed with price pass-through due to“lack of understanding from business partners” and“existance of competition.” (Figure12) Some companies
mentioned, “Struggling with both pressures from
Figure 9. Factors Influencing
0

20

40

60

（%）
100

80

85.2

Rise in material and components prices

82.9

Rise in energy (electricity and fuel) prices
69.0

Rise in transportation costs
46.5

Rise in import costs due to yen depreciation

41.9

Rise in wages
26.9

Rise in mineral prices

upstream and lack of understanding of passing on prices
downstream” (paper, pulp, and wood) and “Not able topass on prices due to technological competition and costcompetition with other countries.” (transportationequipment (excl. automobiles)). By industry, “lack ofunderstanding from business partners” and “insufficientnegotiating ability of the company” accounted for a large
percentage in the automobile sector. (Figure 13) Somecompanies said, “In the Japanese market, it is difficult topass on 100% of the price. We have not been able to gain
the understanding of dealers and users, and we have no
choice but to do so gradually while observing how othercompanies are doing” (Automobile).

Others 0.4
No particular impact 0.8

Figure 12. Reasons for not being able to Pass on Prices
Total: 520 companies
0

Figure 10. Factors Influencing (by regions)
0

20

40

60

（%）
100

80

87.2
91.0
85.5

Rise in energy(electricity and fuel) prices

87.2
92.1
82.8
73.8
65.2
69.4

Rise in transportation costs
Rise in import costs due toyen depreciation

EU14 Production(89)020Chemicals（85）

60

（％）
100

3.5

80

90.9

9.1

82.4

14.1

81.8

18.2

Paper, Pulp & Wood（10）

80.0

20.0

Precision Machinery（27）70.4

Nonferrous Metals（20）

25.9

70.0

20.0

General Machinary（59）

1.7

67.8

28.8

Electrical Equipment &Electronics（71）

1.4

67.6

31.0

Textiles（25）64.0

Food（19）
Transportation Equipment(excl. Automobiles)（17）

Automobiles（96）Other（18）（companies）

32.0

63.2
7.4

29.5

14.8

Total:149 companies

Figure 13. Reasons for not being able to Pass on Prices(by industry)

100.0

Ceramic, Cement & Glass（11）Metal Products（27）Insuficient negotiating abilityof the company

China Production(379)40

Petroleum & Rubber（11）56.4

Others 1.3

Figure 11. Degree of Price Pass-throughSteel（13）Existence of competition

Price spikes are expected
to be temporary 2.0

27.7
29.2
27.2

Rise in mineral prices
U.S. Production(195)

43.8
44.3

（%）
80

60

63.1

Contractually restricted

49.7
51.7
42.2

Rise in wages

40

Lack of understanding
from business partners

Rise in material andcomponents prices

32.6

20

0

37.0

3.7
5.0
5.0
1.7
4.0

Others

57.3

37.5

5.2

33.3

5.6

Done to some extent

Not done at all

No need for price pass-throughContractually restricted
Price spikes are expected
to be temporary

41.2

Done enoughInsuficient negotiating abilityof the company

Not very much done

60

80.5

34.1

72.7
66.7

8.3

8.3

31.8

（%）
100

80

50.0
50.0
50.0

Existence of competition

3.7

58.8
61.1

40

Lack of understanding
from business partners

36.8

51.9

20

83.3

46.3

33.3
24.4
22.7

8.3

5.6

Automobile(41companies)

Electrical Equipment & Electronics(22companies)

Chemicals(12companies)

General Machinery(18companies)

2024.361

7. Issues in Sustainability in Business
Development

Figure 14. Decarbonization Initiatives Progress
020

Paper, Pulp & Wood（10）When asked about companies’ progress over the past year
on decarbonization, about 65% of them have made good
progress in their efforts. By industry, industries that are
generally considered to have high CO2 emissions, such as“paper, pulp, and wood,” “automobiles,” and “steel,” areshowing a proactive attitude toward setting targets andmaking efforts. (Figure 14)
When asked about the main factors that will influence(accelerate or decelerate) companies’ decarbonization
efforts over the next three years or so, companies indicatedthat they are concerned about “requests from customers,”“status of competitors’ efforts,” and “changes in related
technologies,” but the factors varied by company size andindustry. By size, large companies significantly
outperformed small and medium enterprises in the
response rate for “changes in requests from investors,
financial institutions, etc.” and “changes in decarbonizationrelated technology trends.” Among SMEs, 60% responded“changes in requests from customers,” which was muchhigher than that of large companies. By sector, in theautomobile category, the percentage of responses for“change in requests from customers” was particularly
large, at 65.6%. (Figure 15) Some respondents said,“When we make deliveries overseas, we are sometimes
asked about our decarbonization initiatives byshareholders of the recipient companies” (nonferrous
metals), and “I think we will see an increase in situations
where we come in contact with changes in requests for
initiatives from overseas recipients” (electronics andelectrical machinery).
Most of the companies said in the interview that they haveestablished a department dedicated to sustainability, and
it is possible that their efforts will be further accelerated in
the future. In recent years, investors, asset managers,banks, and other financial institutions have beenencouraging their lenders to take decarbonization
initiatives, and it is possible that such trends could affectsmall and medium suppliers via large corporations.
Finally, with regard to biodiversity and human rights
issues, for which not many efforts were made in lastyear’s survey, this year’s survey asked why interest inthese issues has not increased or why efforts are not being
62

2024.3

40

60

30.0

60.0

Automobiles（91） 6.6

10.0

65.9

Steel（13） 23.1

13.2 14.3
7.7 15.4

53.8

Ceramics, Cement & Glass（11）Transportation Equipment（16）

18.2

81.8
25.0

12.5 18.8

43.8

Chemicals（83）10.8

59.0

Nonferrous Metals（21） 19.0
Food（17）11.8

58.8
52.1

22.9

7.2

47.6

Electrical Equipment &Electronics（71）11.3

28.6

4.8

29.4
32.4

4.2

Petroleum & Rubber（11）

54.5

9.1

36.4

General Machinary（59） 5.1

52.5

5.1

37.3

Other（18） 22.2

38.9

Precision Machinery（26） 15.4
Metal Products（27）3.7
Textiles（25）12.0(companies）

（％）
100

80

38.9

38.5

3.8

42.3

51.9
24.0

44.4
8.0

56.0

Accelerated compared to the targets/plans
In line with targets and plans
Slowed down compared to the targets/plans
No specific targets or plans

Figure 15. Main Factors that could Influence the Progressof Decarbonization (by industry)
0

20

40

Changes in decarbonization
demand from consumer

60
50.0
51.9
50.0

Changes in decarbonization
progress at companies in same
industry and competitors

28.6
34.5

50.5
48.1

Expansion/contraction of subsidies/financial
support for decarbonization by Japanese/
foreign governments/agencies

41.9
35.7
38.3
39.7

Changes in the availability, accessibility,
diffusion of electricity from renewableenergy sources in each country

36.6
40.0
34.6
29.3

Changes in transitioning to low-carbon
raw materials and components

12.9
20.7
15.7

31.4
33.3

26.9

8.6

32.1

16.1
18.6
18.5
20.7

EU rulemaking (e.g., border carbon
coordination, fuel regulations (SAF))
Changes in progress of infrastructuredevelopment in Japan and othercountries (recharging/hydrogen stations)

65.6

39.8
37.1
35.8
48.3

Changes in decarbonization-related
technology trends (hydrogen,ammonia, storage batteries, etc.)

Changes in decarbonization demand
from investors and financial institutions

（%）
80

7.4

20.4
22.9
24.1

Automobiles(93 companies)
Electrical Equipment & Electronics(70 companies)
Chemicals(81 companies)
General Machinary(58 companies)
Note：Top 9 items are shown【スポット研究】Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations by Japanese Manufacturing Companies

made. About biodiversity, a large percentage of
respondents cited “terminology and difficulty inunderstanding,” “lack of specialized/external humanresources,” and “lack of recognition within the industry.”(Figure 16) No significant differences were observed bysize, suggesting that overall understanding and efforts
have not progressed much. In the interviews, one
respondent commented, “The concept is abstract, and I
don’t know what to do in concrete terms.”
Also on human rights issues, “diversity and complexity(difficulty in understanding),” “difficulty in identifying
and understanding the impact on SCs,” and “lack ofexpert personnel” were the reasons for lack of progress inaddressing human rights issues. By size, a relatively large
number of large companies cited “difficulty in identifying
and understanding the impact on SCs.” Small and medium
enterprises were relatively more likely than large
companies to cite “Lack of professional human resources.
(Figure 17) At the interviews, one respondent said,“Although we surveyed the situation of suppliers, it isdifficult to ascertain the exact situation” (Chemicals).

8. Conclusion
In this year’s survey, India maintained its top position in
the ranking of promising countries for the second year ina row, while China dropped to third place with the lowest
vote share ever. Japanese companies are evaluating the
growth potential of the Indian market and are establishinga firm position as a “promising country” against the
backdrop of improvements in infrastructure development,
which has been a challenge for many years. On the other
hand, it is noteworthy that China remains in third place
without recent positive news, indicating that China’s huge
consumer market and role in the supply chain issignificant. We need to focus on business development inIndia, which is expected to continue to grow economically,
and Vietnam, which has ranked second for the first time,is promising from the perspective of diversification of
production bases.
In terms of special themes, heightened geopolitical risks,such as the U.S.-China conflict and the invasion of
Ukraine, also affected supply chain reviews and business
operations in China. The importance of geopolitical risk
to companies has been increasing in recent years due tothe conflict in Israel and other factors, and there is a need

Figure 16. Reasons for Lack of Interest in Biodiversity
0

20

40

Difficulty in understanding biodiversityrelated terminology and regulations

（%）
60

41.5

Lack of specialized human resources within
the company, lack of external experts

32.2

Low awareness of biodiversity
within the industry

31.8

Difficulty in fostering understanding
within the company

26.3

No response request from customers

23.8

Difficulty in collecting biodiversityrelated data of your company

22.2

Nothing to do with biodiversity initiatives

17.5

Response is necessary,
but do not know how to do it

14.7

No response request relevant authorities

10.2

High cost

9.8

No response request from investors,
financial institutions, etc.

9.4

Total: 491 companies
Note：Top 11 items are shown

Figure 17. Reasons for Lack of Progress in Human
Rights Initiatives (by size)
0

20

40
40.5
41.6

Difficulty in understanding
human rights issues
Difficulty in identifying
and understanding the impact
on the company's supply chain
Lack of specialized humanresources within the company andlack of external experts to draw on

20.8

33.0

24.4
32.5

Difficulty in fostering
understanding within the company

18.6
20.3

Progress is being made as expected,
and there are no particular issues.

21.6
14.2

Low awareness of humanrights issues within the industry

13.7
18.3

Lack of requests from customers

12.7
16.8

Difficulty in complying withvarious human rights-related laws andregulations enacted in major countries

15.5
12.2

Response is necessary,
but do not know how to respond

10.0
15.2

Significant costs

8.2
3.0

No request from relevant authorities

6.2
6.1

Large Enterprises(291 companies)（%）
60

SMEs(197 companies)

Note：Top 11 items are shown

2024.363

to continue to monitor the impact on Japanese companies
and how they respond to it. Although most of thecompanies were affected by the global price hikes, about
70% of the companies have passed on prices to their
suppliers. However, some companies have not been able
to pass on prices due to lack of understanding from their
suppliers or competition with other companies. If
understanding of price pass-through is promoted in eachcompany, I believe that this will bring us one step closer
to achieving the government’s goal of a virtuous cycle in
the economy through structural wage increases. With
regard to sustainability, there was a steady progress inefforts among large companies, particularly in the area of
decarbonization. Factors influencing the progress ofdecarbonization efforts include requests from customers
and the progress of the industry and competitors. I believethat we can reach a decarbonized society through theefforts of individual companies and their mutual influence.
Through this year’s survey, I hope that this journal would
lead to deepen our readers’ understanding of Japanesemanufacturers business developing destinations, theimpact on their supply chains and how they are coping,
the impact of the global price hikes and how they aretackling them, and the business development issues ofsustainability in the face of geopolitical risk and the global
economic downturn.
<Biography>
Joined JBIC in 2023, and currently research officer in the Strategic
Research Department of the Corporate Planning Group, collecting
and analyzing information on overseas business development ofJapanese manufacturing companies. Graduated from Keio
University, Faculty of Commerce. Favorite quote: “Be Brave, Be
Humble”


JBIC Strategic Research Department
JBIC Strategic Research Department covers the global
economy, international finance, and overseas businessdevelopment of Japanese firms.
E-mail: fdi@jbic.go.jp

642024.3