ス ポ ッ ト研 究

Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations
by Japanese Manufacturing Companies—Results of the JBIC FY2021 Survey:
Outlook for Japanese Foreign Direct Investment(33rd Annual Survey) —Director KASUGA Takeshi
NIWATA Urara
Strategic Research Department, Corporate Planning Group
Japan Bank for International Cooperation

1. Introduction

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

Japan Bank for International Cooperation 44%
Medium-term plans
Overseas Sales Ratios(FY2024)(JBIC) has released “Survey Report on 42%
Overseas Production Ratios
39.6%
39.3%
40%
38.7%
38.5%
Overseas Business Operations by
37.9%
38%
37.5%
36.8%
Japanese Manufacturing Companies.”
36.3%
36.2%
35.6%
35.4%
35.4%
36%
34.7%
34.7%
34.2%
In this survey, questionnaires were sent
35.8%
35.6%
34.0%
35.2%
35.1%
35.0%
34%
33.5%
34.2%
33.3%
33.9%
out in July 2021 and collected by
33.6% 33.8%
32.9%
32%
October (965 target companies, 515
31.3%
31.0%
29.1%
30%
30.5% 30.6% 30.8%
FY2021valid respondents, 53.4% response rate).
27.9%
29.2%
Projected
28%
28.0%
We would like to express our gratitude to 26%
26.1%
26.0%
Actualthe companies who participated in the 24%
24.6%
survey under the circumstances of 22%
COVID-19.
20%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21（FY）
In this survey, we asked questions
on “Medium-term Prospects for Supply
Chains,” “Initiatives for Digital Transformation” andto bottom out in FY2020-21. However, although the“Initiatives for Decarbonization” as the special themes, inoverseas production ratio is planned to recover to 35.4%
addition to “Overseas Business Performance,” “Business
in FY2024, it is not expected to reach the pre-COVID-19
Prospects,” and “Promising Countries/Regions.”
level of FY2018. (Figure 1)

2. Overseas Production/Sales Ratios
The overseas production ratio1 in FY2020 was 33.6%,
and the overseas sales ratio2 was 35.8%. The overseas
production/sales ratios in FY2020 continued to fall fromlast year due to COVID-19, but the decline was smaller
than that of last year. Although the impact of COVID-19
remained significant in FY2020, many of the respondents
said that the recovery production in the second half of theyear made up for it.
The projected results for FY2021 are expected toshow a slight increase in both of the production ratio andthe sales ratio, and the impact of COVID-19 is expected
72

2022.3Note 1: Overseas Production Ratio = Overseas Production / (Domestic
Production + Overseas Production)
Note 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)
63.7% of the respondents answered that they would“strengthen/expand” their businesses in the medium term
while 34.7% answered that they would “maintain present
level.” In the last fiscal year, the number of the companies
that answered that they would “maintain present level”
increased by 11.2 points, which indicates that the spreadof COVID-19 infection had put their current judgment on

【スポット研究】Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations by Japanese Manufacturing Companies

Figure 2. Medium-term (Next 3 Years) Prospects forOverseas Business Expansion
100%

1.2%

1.5%

2.0%

2.8%

26.7%

22.9%

26.7%

37.9%

75.6%

71.4%

2018
（582）

2019
（562）

80%

1.6%

34.7%

60%
40%

72.1%

59.3%

63.7%

20%
0%

2017
（592）

2021（FY）（504）(No. of
comapnies)
Maintain present level

Scale back/withdraw

2020
（509）

Strengthen/expand

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

3.6%

3.1%

3.9%

7.2%

3.6%

2.3%

3.2%

3.5%

48.7%

50.2%

50.4%

45.9%

42.8%

38.9%

2018
（577）

2019
（568）

2020
（514）

80%
60%

55.2%

0
0.6%
52.1%

40%
20%
0%

37.7%

2017
（591）

47.3%

2021 （FY）（No. of（501）
Companies）

Undecided

Scale back

Maintain present level

Strengthen/expand

Note: The answer choice “undecided" was eliminated from FY2021 survey.

Figure 4. Shifts in Intentions to Strengthen/Expand Business(2002-2021)
100%
90%

Overseas "Strengthen/Expand" ratio
FY2021
63.7％

80%
70%

Domestic "Strengthen/
60% Expand" ratio

65.8%

50%
40%
30%
20%

47.3%
16.4%

10%
0%

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21（FY）(Difference) Overseas "Strengthen/Expand" ratio - Domestic"Strengthen/expand" ratio
Domestic "Strengthen/Expand" ratio
Overseas "Strengthen/Expand" ratio

hold. In this fiscal year, the number of the companies thatanswered that they would “strengthen/expand” in themedium term increased by 4.4 points as the infection is
prolonged and they have adapted to the situation.
However, the percentages have not yet returned to thelevel before the COVID-19 pandemic. Among thecompanies that would “maintain present level,” some said
they “cannot make a decision at this time,” indicating thatthey continue to reserve judgment. (Figure 2)
Due in part to the elimination of the answer choice,“undecided” in this survey, “strengthen/expand” increased
to 47.3%, while “maintain present level” increased to52.1%. In the interviews, some companies chose to“strengthen/expand” their domestic businesses passively,
as it was difficult to foresee their overseas businesses due
to COVID-19. (Figure 3)
Regarding Japanese manufacturing companies’
overseas business expansion, after the financial crisis of
2008, “strengthen/expand” recovered rapidly from 65.8%(FY2009) to 82.8% (FY2010), but in the wake of
COVID-19, it regained only 4.4 points, from 59.3%(FY2020) to 63.7% (FY2021). In the interviews, it wassuggested that the recovery process from the COVID-19
pandemic has caused a semiconductor shortage andlogistic disruptions and that there is still uncertainty about
the impact on businesses. (Figure 4)

4. Promising Countries/Regions
We asked respondents to name up to five countries/
regions where they see promising business opportunities
in the medium term (next 3 years), and the results wereranked as shown in Figure 5.
China remained at the top in the ranking of promisingcountries/regions for overseas business over the mediumterm, with India in second. In terms of the percentage shares,
China saw only a slight decrease of 0.2 points, while India
saw a significant drop of 7.8 points. Only the U.S. and Taiwan
increased their votes among the top 10 countries/regions, andthese two appear to be attracting more attention whereas
most of the ASEAN countries saw their votes decline. In
recent years, the U.S. has been rising close to India, so futurechanges in the ranking will be closely watched. With support
from chemicals and general machinery, Taiwan made it into
the top 10 for the second time in 10 years.
It should be noted that countries/regions from 11th to20th and thereafter have fewer votes and are easy to change
their rankings, but the decline in Myanmar, where the2022.373

political and social situation has become unstable, wasremarkable (from 10th to 16th), with both the votes and thepercentage share falling to less than half.
Figure 5. Promising Countries/Regions for Overseas
Business over the Medium-term (Next 3 Years)
Ranking

No. of Companies Percentage Share（%）
Countries（Total）

2021 ← 2020

2021

2020

345

356

2021

2020

1

－

1

China

162

168

47.0

47.2

2

－

2

India

131

163

38.0

45.8

3

5

US

113

98

32.8

27.5

4

3

Vietnam

105

131

30.4

36.8

4

Thailand

77

111

22.3

31.2

6

Indonesia

67

96

19.4

27.0

5
6

－

7

－

7

Philippines

31

37

9.0

10.4

8

9

Mexico

30

32

8.7

9.0

9

8

Malaysia

27

34

7.8

9.6

12

Taiwan

19

18

5.5

5.1

11

Germany

17

20

4.9

5.6

12

15

Korea

16

12

4.6

3.4

13

16

Brazil

13

11

3.8

3.1

14

Australia

12

14

3.5

3.9

14

16

Singapore

12

11

3.5

3.1

10
11

14

－

－

16

10

Myanmar

10

25

2.9

7.0

16

13

Bangladesh

10

16

2.9

4.5

16

19

Russia

10

8

2.9

2.2

16

20

Turkey

10

7

2.9

2.0

20

28

Canada

7

3

2.0

0.8

5. Medium-term Prospects for Supply
Chains(1) External Shocks
The largest number of the respondents chose “disruption
and pressure on logistics” as the most threatening external
shock (214 companies, 43%). In the telephone interviews,
the following comments were made: “The supply of partsand raw materials was stagnant due to lockdowns”(electrical equipment & electronics), “We were affectedby the Suez Canal obstruction” (automobiles andchemicals), “There were lost opportunities due to ashortage of containers in the U.S.” (chemicals), and“Transportation costs soared due to a container shortage
and reduced air traffic” (ceramics, cement & glass). It canbe seen that companies with long supply chains place thehighest priority on logistics.
The second most chosen was “diseases (including
the COVID-19 pandemic)” (183 companies, 37%). We
heard comments such as “We had no choice but tosuspend factory operations because of the infection
situation, and the impact was greater this year than lastyear since there was a series of lockdowns” (chemicals)
74

2022.3and “We reduced mine operations due to lockdowns”(nonferrous metals). Industries and companies which
require constant monitoring and invest a large amount oflabor place importance on this factor.
The companies that mentioned “political risks(including U.S.-China tensions)” (55 companies, 11%)
appear to have important transactions between the U.S.
and China, such as “Concerned about increased costs
including tariffs on raw materials exported from China to
the U.S.” (textiles) and “U.S. affiliates purchase tools
from China, so there is a risk of additional tariffs due tothe appreciation of the yuan and the friction between the
U.S. and China” (metal products). (Figure 6)
Figure 6. Threatening External Shocks(No. of companies: 497)

Earthquakes, storms andflood damages,
45 companies, 9%
Political risks(incl. US-China
tensions),
55 companies,
11%

Disruption andpressure on logistics,
214 companies, 43%

Diseases(incl. COVID-19
pandemic),
183 companies,
37%
Note: Percentages are calculated using the number of responding companies
in each industry as the population parameter.

(2) U.S.-China Decoupling
The number of companies that responded that they have“already decoupled” increased from 65 to 91 whencompared to the FY2020 survey. In the interviews, many
companies said that their U.S. and Chinese businesses are
originally separate, such as “We deliver products
manufactured locally or in neighboring countries tocustomers in the U.S. and China, so our businesses are
separate” (automobile) and “Our business is based on
local production for local consumption, so there is no
direct communication between the U.S. and China”(metal products, nonferrous metals, ceramics, cement &glass). However, there were companies aware of thefriction between the U.S. and China, such as, “Weseparated our U.S. and Chinese operations in considerationof political risks as we diversified our production bases
from China due to rising labor costs” (electrical equipment
and electronics). Some also pointed out the difficulty of【スポット研究】Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations by Japanese Manufacturing Companies

decoupling, saying “Decoupling is difficult because
manufacturing cannot be completed in either the U.S. or
China” (precision machinery). (Figure 7)
Figure 7. Response to U.S. -China Decoupling (Companies
Responding for 2 Consecutive Years)(No. of companies: 396)

0

100

65

Already decoupled

Under procedure

Under consideration

No need to decouple

200(companies)
300

increased semiconductor-related capital investment”(precision machinery, chemicals, ceramics, cement &glass) and “Sales of semiconductor materials werestrong” (chemicals). The results of this year’s survey
reaffirmed the fact that the semiconductor-related industry
encompasses a wide range of industries.

2020

91

2021

Figure 8. Impact of Semiconductor Shortage

14(No. of companies: 504)

11

Positive,
46 companies, 9%

Not sure,
17 companies, 3%

34
38
29

No influence/ No relevance,
114 companies, 23%

41

No discussion

254
215

Companies that answered that they have “alreadydecoupled”, “under procedure” and “under consideration”,
were asked which of their U.S. and China operations theywould strengthen. As a result, the most common answer(92 companies) was “Strengthen both of U.S. and China
operations,” highlighting the trend of a well-balancedmanner in U.S.-China decoupling. As for the companies
that would strengthen either their U.S. or China operations,many of them have affiliates either in the U.S. or in China
only, and their business policy of prioritizing the existing
affiliates stood out.

Negative,
327 companies, 65%

Note: Percentages are calculated using the number of responding companies
as the population parameter.

Figure 9. Impact of Semiconductor Shortage (byIndustry)(No. of companies: 487, (No.) indicates the number of responding
companies in each industry.)
（％）
0
50
100
Automobiles (107)92.5

5.6 1.9

Transportation Equipment (10)

80.0

20.0

Electrical Equipment &(64)
Electronics

79.7

3.1 17.2

Petroleum & Rubber (14)

78.6

21.4

(3) Semiconductor Shortage

Nonferrous Metals (20)75.0

When asked about the impact of the global semiconductor
shortage, the largest share of 65% (327 companies)
answered that they were negatively affected. On the other
hand, 9% of companies (46 companies) answered thatthey have been positively affected. (Figure 8)
The impact of the semiconductor shortage varied
greatly by industry. (Figure 9) Among companies thatwere negatively affected, comments from the demandside for semiconductors were heard, such as “Orders for
products decreased due to production cuts of automobiles”(automobiles, metal products, textiles and chemicals) and“Procurement of materials used in products was delayed”(precision machinery). Among companies that received apositive impact, many of the comments came from the
supply side of semiconductors, such as “Semiconductor
manufacturing equipment business was strong due toGeneral Machinery (56)67.9

Precision Machinery (31)67.7

Metal Products (21)66.7

Textiles (22)

20.0
23.2
9.7

5.0

22.6
9.5

45.5

52.7

32.4

0.0

8.9

23.8

54.5

Chemicals (74)

0.0

0.0
14.9

Others (17)

29.4

64.7

5.9

Food (21)

28.6

71.4

0.0

Ceramics, Cement & Glass (11)27.3

Paper, Pulp & Wood (11)

27.3

63.6

9.1

Steel (8)

25.0

62.5

12.5

36.4

36.4

Negative
No influence / No relevance
Positive
Note: Percentages are calculated using the number of responding companies
in each industry as the population parameter, excluding companies
that answered “Not sure" in Figure 8.

2022.375

(4) Human Rights Issues

Figure 11. Status of Progress in DX

With regard to human rights issues, 55 companies (11%)
are “already taking active measures” and 65 companies(13%) are “making adjustments,” indicating that about aquarter of the companies are working on the issues.
(Figure 10)
Figure 10. Response to Human Rights Issues(No. of companies: 500)

Not sure,
32 companies, 6%

A certain effect is appearing,and the introduction will be
accelerated in the future,
71 companies, 14%

Full-scale consideration
will be done from now on,
224 companies, 45%

The effects of the projectso far are yet to beassessed, but we willcontinue to work on it,
173 companies, 35%

The pace of DX willslow down to verify
the effectiveness,
0 companies, 0%

The pace of DX will slow
down because the efforts of
DX have progressed a little
too much,
0 companies, 0%(No. of companies: 490)

Already taking active measures,
55 companies, 11%

Making adjustments,
65 companies, 13%

Figure 12. Areas of DX Initiatives

No discussion,
243 companies, 50%(No. of companies: 471, N = 1171)

Under consideration /Nothing yet,
127 companies, 26%
Note: Percentages are calculated using the number of responding companies
as the population parameter.

0Solving problems by collecting and analyzing
data related to production processes

273

Automation and mechanizationof production process

264

Going online such as oﬃce work and coordination
work related to procurement and delivery

183

Going online such as technicalguidance and troubleshooting

In the interviews, many cited “strengthening
traceability of raw materials” (textiles), while other madecomments such as “taking assessments from externalorganizations regarding child labor” (non-ferrous metals),“receiving assessments for use of conflict minerals”(metal products), and “considering on-site visits to
suppliers and the use of surveys in the future” (chemicals).
There was also a comment that “European companies
have stricter requirements” (ceramics, cement & glass),
indicating that there is a growing demand from business
partners.

6. Initiatives for Digital Transformation(1) Progress and Areas of DX Initiatives
When asked about the status of their DX progress, half ofthe respondents answered, “A certain level of effectivenessis appearing, and the introduction will be accelerated in
the future” (14%) and “The effects of the project so far are
yet to be assessed, but we will continue to work on it”(35%). Almost half of the companies (45%) said that fullscale consideration will be done from now on, but none
said that they would slow down, indicating a positive
attitude toward DX. (Figure 11)
Concerning the areas of DX initiatives, there was astrong interest in areas related to the improvement of
production processes. Many of the respondents were also
762022.3(Companies)
200
300

100

132

Visualization of skilled
technique by using AI

97

Remote operation and control ofmanufacturing equipment and robots

89

Utilization of 3D printer57

Utilization of virtual space in productdevelopment and research

50

Others26

interested in introducing DX in back-office operations,such as procurement and delivery to improve work
efficiency. (Figure 12)
We also analyzed differences in areas for DX
initiatives by the levels of DX progress. The result showedthat advanced companies in DX are relatively moreinterested in areas such as “remote operation and controlof manufacturing equipment and robots” and “utilizationof virtual space in product development and research.”
This is interesting because it suggests that leading
companies are embarking on DX in areas that did notnecessarily attract much interest in the overall votes.
The interviews pointed out not only a growing needfor “high demand from clients for online technicalguidance and troubleshooting” (precision machinery),but also the difficulty of evaluating the cost effectivenessof DX investments. Their comments were such as “thescale of SMEs cannot afford to invest for DX except for
production processes” (metal products) and “setting KPIs

【スポット研究】Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations by Japanese Manufacturing Companies

for DX-related IT investments and measuring ROI areissues” (chemicals).

(2) Challenges for DX
Concerning challenges for DX, the most common issue
overall was “lack of human resources” (357 companies),
followed by “difficulty to transfer from the legacy
systems” (212 companies), highlighting how the existenceof so-called legacy systems is hindering the promotion of
DX. In addition, the lack of data infrastructure for data
sharing and inter-system collaboration was also found to
be an issue. (Figure 13)
Figure 13. Challenges for DX(No. of companies: 472, N = 990)
0

100

200

Lack of human resources

357

Diﬃculty to transfer from thelegacy system

212

Diﬃculty to share various data
among multiple departments suchas manufacturing and sales

133

Diﬃcult coordination among
various systems with eachbusiness and factory

127

Concerns about information anddata leakage
Diﬃculty to share various
data among business
partners and customers(Companies)
300
400

89
72

sharing among divisions still takes a lot of time” (precision
machinery) and “Although each system of businessdivisions and factories are connected to the core system,
building a seamless and company-wide systemdevelopment is an extremely difficult task, especially froma cost perspective” (chemicals).

(3) DX Collaboration Partners
Concerning partner companies with which theycollaborate for DX implementation, the most common
answer was “completed working within the company”(224 companies, 41%), followed by “working with otherdomestic companies in different industries” (141companies, 26%). There were also a certain number ofcompanies that chose “other companies in the same
industry” and “working with domestic universities andresearch institutes.” “Others” includes working withgovernments, parent companies, subsidiaries and external
experts such as consultants.
According to the comparison of these DX partnershipby level of DX progress of each company, we found that themore advanced the company is in DX, the less likely it is tocomplete DX projects in-house, and the more likely it is toseek external partnership. In particular, the most advanced
companies that would accelerate DX were likely to choose
overseas companies as partners. We also found a case inwhich the headquarters had reimported a good practice ofcollaboration with local companies by its overseas
subsidiaries (metal products), indicating that Japanesemanufacturers are expanding their partnership abroad forcollaboration in DX implementation. (Figure 14)

We compared the perceptions of the challenges ofDX implementation by company size. As a result, it was
found that “lack of human resources” is the biggest issue
regardless of the size of the companies, but SMEs are
more strongly aware that securing humanresources is an issue in promoting DX. The Figure 14. DX Collaboration Partners (by DX progress)(No. of companies: 447, N = 551)
second most common challenge was
0
20
40
60
80
100
（％）
“transfer from legacy system,” which was
A certain eﬀect is appearing,and the introduction will
also frequently mentioned in the interviews.
25
26
11
16 8
31
3
be accelerated in the future“Coordination among various systems with
The eﬀects of the project soeach business and factory” was a relatively
8064
16 14 7 16 3
far are yet to be assessed, but
we will continue to work on it
strong issue for large enterprises, and “dataFull-scale consideration
sharing among multiple departments, such
108
48
13 9 8 7 19
will be done from now on
as manufacturing and sales” was the next
0 00
most common issue for large enterprises.
Not sure
11
3
1
4
When asked about the coordination among
Completed working within the company
Working with domestic venture companies
existing systems and data sharing in the
Working with other domestic
Working with foreigncompanies in diﬀerent industries
interviews, the respondents said, “Thecompanies and foreign partners
Working with other domestic
Otherscompanies
in
the
same
industry
digitization of office work for each businessWorking with domestic universities and research institutes
division has progressed rapidly, but data
2022.377

7. Initiatives for Decarbonization

Figure 15. Impact of decarbonization(1) Impact of Decarbonization

78

2022.3

Not affected now
and not expectedin the future,
29 companies, 6%

Already affected,
106 companies, 21%

Not yet but expected in the future,
287 companies, 58%

Figure 16. Positive/Negative Analysis on Impact ofDecarbonization(No. of companies: 294, N = 915)0(Companies)
200
300

100

Positive

Promote R＆D of new productsthat address decarbonization

240

Increase in demand forin-house products that
address decarbonization

131

Increase in capital investment
to meet increased demand forin-house products
Consideration of new locations
to respond to increased demandfor in-house products

83

12

Increased manufacturingcosts to support decarbonization

Negative

Regarding the impact of decarbonization, 106 companies(21%) chose “already affected,” and 287 companies (58%)
chose “not yet but expected in the future.” The percentagesof companies which recognized the impact do not muchvary by industry. Those which chose “already affected”
include companies which are advanced in decarbonizing
their business. For example, one of the interviewed
companies said, “We have set a stricter target for
decarbonization than the government’s target and aretaking proactive measures” (ceramics, cement & glass).
(Figure 15)
Companies which chose “not affected now and not
expected in the future” also include both advanced
companies which expect no further new impact because
they had already taken action before decarbonization
became the global agenda and some companies who havenot taken any concrete action because they do not foresee
any impact in the future. Furthermore, one of the
respondents said, “Although we can say that we areindirectly contributing to decarbonization through our
EV-related business, we answered that there was no
impact because we do not label our business as‘decarbonization business.’” (Chemicals).
Moreover, we asked about the impact ofdecarbonization on their operations in detail. The mostcommon positive effect was “promotion of research anddevelopment of new products” (240 companies). On theother hand, the most common negative impact was“increase in manufacturing costs” (236 companies). In
the interviews, we heard many concerns about increasing
prices of energy. (Figure 16)(No. of companies: 495)

Not sure,
73 companies, 15%

236

Review procurers/suppliers to thestatus of decarbonization eﬀorts
Reorganization/elimination ofexisting manufacturing bases that
do not support decarbonization
Review/freeze new investment
plants that do not support
decarbonization

120

55

38

【スポット研究】Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations by Japanese Manufacturing Companies(2) Efforts to Identify Emission Sources
Scope 1 of the GHG Protocol was chosen by the largest
number of companies (370 companies), while Scope 3 wasalso chosen by 330 companies, which indicates a highlevel of interest in decarbonizing supply chains. (Figure
17)
As for the breakdown of Scope 3, many companies
selected the categories shown in Figure 18. These
categories correspond to emissions associated withtransportation of goods and use and disposal of raw
materials and products, which are characteristic of the
manufacturing industry. One of the interviewed
respondents said, “We are measuring and reducing theuse of energy and reviewing delivery routes as part of ourcost reduction efforts in factories. Rather than for the
purpose of ascertaining the amount of emissions, we arenaturally collecting information on emissions as we try to
reduce production cost” (Chemicals).
In addition, when asked specifically what they were
doing to decarbonize their business in the interviews, alarge number of the companies answered that they were
switching to renewable energy.

8. Conclusion
In the course of this FY2021 survey, we found out that the
spread of the COVID-19 infection and its subsequent
spillover effects, such as logistic disruption and asemiconductor shortage, are expected to continue overthe medium term. At the same time, the introduction ofDX, which has been attracting more attention since thepandemic’s onset, is accelerating. In the context ofdecarbonization, there are signs that the manufacturingindustry is trying to adapt to a new era by identifying andmeasuring emission sources and looking for new business
opportunities. Although the business environment
remains uncertain due to the emergence of new variants,
it is important to note that these developments are insteady progress behind the scenes.


Figure 17. Emphasized Emission Sources (by “Scope”)(No. of companies: 455, N = 862)

Scope 2,162 companies
Scope 3,330 companies

Scope 1,
370 companies

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3Note 1: The number of companies for Scope 3 was calculated based on thenumber of companies that selected at least one from Category 1~15.
Note 2: The answer choices were prepared by JBIC strategic research
department with reference to GHG Protocol, Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry, Ministry of the Environment and corporatewebsites, etc.

Figure 18. Breakdown of Scope 3(No. of companies: 330, N = 685)
0100(Companies)
150

40

（116）

50

Category1(Purchased goods
and services)

76

Category11(Use of sold products)

76

27

（103）

Category4(Transportation for
procurement/delivery)

56

29

（85）

Category5(Transportation or
disposal of waste)

51

32

（83）

Category2(Construction/
installation of facilities)

55

24 （79）Category12(Disposal ofsold products)

47

Category3(Purchased fuels
and energy)

40

Others20 （67）9 （49）
72

Large Enterprises（215）

31

（103）

SME（115）

N o te : T h e a n s w e r c h o ic e s w e r e p r e p a r e d b y J B I C s tr a teg ic r es ear ch
department with reference to GHG Protocol, Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry, Ministry of the Environment and corporatewebsites, etc.

2022.379