ス ポ ッ ト研 究

※この記事は、一般財団法人海外投融資情報財団（JOI）ビジネス情報誌「海外投融資」2023年5月号に掲載されたものです（www.joi.or.jp）。

Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations
by Japanese Manufacturing Companies—Results of the JBIC FY2022 Survey:
Outlook for Japanese Foreign Direct Investment (34th Annual Survey) —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)
44%

Japan Bank for International Cooperation
Medium-term plans
Overseas Sales Ratios
42%(FY2025)(JBIC) has released the “Survey Report
39.6%
Overseas Production Ratios
39.3%
40%
38.5%
38.7%
38.5%
37.9%
on Overseas Business Operations by
37.9%
37.5%
38%
36.8%
36.2%
Japanese Manufacturing Companies.” In 36%
35.6%
35.4%
34.9%
34.7%
34.7%
36.3%
34.2%
35.8%
34.0%
35.6%
this survey, questionnaires were sent out 34%
33.5%
35.2% 35.1% 35.0%
35.0%
34.2%
33.9%
33.3%
33.6%
in July 2022 and collected by September 32%
32.9%
30.6%
* Last year's survey. 33.8%
31.3%(946 target companies, 531 valid 30%
29.1%
30.8% 31.0%
Estimated actual results
30.5%
FY202227.9%
for FY2021
29.2%
Projected
respondents, 56.1% response rate.) We 28%
28.0%
would like to express our gratitude to the 26%
26.1%
26.0%
Actualcompanies who participated in the survey. 24% 24.6%
In this survey, we set out not only 22%
the regular questions, such as “Overseas 20% 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22（FY）
Business Performance,” “Business
Note 1: Overseas Production Ratio = Overseas Production / (Domestic
Production + Overseas Production)
Prospects,” and ”Promising Countries/Regions,” but also
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)“Impact of the Invasion of Ukraine,” “Supply Chain andGeopolitical Risks,” and “Sustainability Initiatives” as the
special themes. This article attempts to overview the
3. M edium-term (Next 3 Years) Prospects foroutlook of the survey result.
Business Expansion (Overseas/Domestic)

2. Overseas Production/ Sales Ratios
The overseas production ratio1 in FY2021 recovered to34.9%, exceeding the estimated FY2021 result (33.8%)
in the previous year’s survey and turning upwards for the
first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. The estimatedFY2022 result will remain almost unchanged at 35.0%,
but in the medium-term plan (FY2025), the ratio will
increase to 36.3%; The recovery trend is expected tocontinue.
The overseas sales ratio2 in FY2021 was 37.9%, up
2.1% from the previous year and the largest growth rate in
the past ten years. The FY2022 forecast is for a further
increase to 38.5%, close to the FY2018 (38.7%) level
before the COVID-19 pandemic. (Figure 1)
46

2023.5In this section, we asked about their medium-term (thenext three years) prospects for overseas and domestic
business in general. The proportion of companies thatsaid they would ‘strengthen/expand’ their overseas
business in the medium term this year turns to be 67.2%,
which increased by 3.5 percentage points from theprevious year. While until last year, several companies
said that it was “difficult to make a forecast now” under
the spread of COVID-19, this year’s result suggests thatan increasing number of companies are making businessplans with a view to the new normal after the pandemic.
(Figure 2)
Regarding the domestic business prospect, theproportion of companies ‘strengthening/expanding’ havebeen increasing second year in a row, reaching its highest【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%
80%

1.5%

2.0%

22.9%

26.7%

2.8%

1.6%

1.2%

37.9%

34.7%

31.6%

59.3%

63.7%

67.2%

2020
（509）

2021
（504）

60%
40%

75.6%

71.4%

20%
0%

2018
（582）

2019
（562）

2022（FY）（512）（No. ofcompanies）
Maintain present level

Scale back/withdraw
Strengthen/expand

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

3.1%

3.9%

7.2%

2.3%

3.2%

3.5%

48.7%

50.2%

50.4%

60%

0

0

0.6%

0.4%

52.1%

50.4%

level in the past decade at 49.2%, partly due to theresumption of capital investment plans, including renewal
investment postponed due to COVID-19 and newinvestment for decarbonization. The proportion ofcompanies that will strengthen/expand overseas
operations is also rising, suggesting that strengthening
domestic operations does not necessarily reflect aninward-looking orientation of companies, with somestating that they would like to “strengthen and expand”
their domestic operations and “increase the ability totransmit information from Japan to overseas, assuming
industry-academia collaboration” (a company from metalindustry). (Figure 3)
Overall, the proportion of companies strengthening
or expanding overseas operations continues to rise.
However, although there is a trend towards recovery fromthe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is different
from the V-shaped recovery seen at the time of theLehman shock, and there appears to be a reasonably large
number of companies that show modest attitudes in theirprospect. (Figure 4)

4. Promising Countries/Regions
40%
20%
0%

45.9%

42.8%

38.9%

2018
（577）

2019
（568）

2020
（514）

47.3%

49.2%

Undecided

2021
2022 （FY）（501） （512）（No. ofCompanies）
Scale back

Maintain present level

Strengthen/expand

In this section, we asked the respondents to name up to fivecountries/regions where they see promising business
opportunities in the medium term (next three years), and theresults were ranked as shown in the Figure 5 below.
Figure 5. Promising Countries/Regions for Overseas
Business over the Medium-term (Next 3 Years)

Note: The answer choice “undecided” was eliminated from the previous
year's survey.

90%

Overseas "Strengthen/Expand" ratio
FY2022
67.2％

80%
70%
Domestic "Strengthen/
60% Expand" ratio
50%
40%
30%
20%

65.8%
59.3%
49.2%
18.0%

03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22（FY）(Difference) Overseas "Strengthen/Expand" ratio - Domestic"Strengthen/Expand" ratio
Domestic "Strengthen/Expand" ratio
Overseas "Strengthen/Expand" ratio

2022

2021

367

345

Percentage
Share(%)
2022

2021
38.0

1

2

India

148

131

40.3

2

1

China

136

162

37.1

47.0

3

－

3

US

118

113

32.2

32.8

4

－

4

Vietnam

106

105

28.9

30.4

5

－

5

Thailand

85

77

23.2

22.3

6

－

6

Indonesia

77

67

21.0

19.4

7

9

Malaysia

31

27

8.4

7.8

8

7

Philippines

28

31

7.6

9.0

8

Mexico

27

30

7.4

8.7

10

Taiwan

23

19

6.3

5.5

9

10%
0%

Countries(Total)2022 ← 2021

Figure 4. Shift in Intentions to Strengthen/Expand
Business (2003-2022)
100%

No. ofCompanies

Ranking

10

－

11

－

11

Germany

21

17

5.7

4.9

12

－

12

Korea

17

16

4.6

4.6

13

－

13

Brazil

15

13

4.1

3.8

14

－

14

Australia

13

12

3.5

3.5

14

Singapore

12

12

3.3

3.5
2.9

15
16

16

Bangladesh

10

10

2.7

16

－

24

UK

10

4

2.7

1.2

18

16

Turkey

9

10

2.5

2.9

19

21

France

8

6

2.2

1.7

20

21

Cambodia

7

6

1.9

1.7

2023.547

China and India swapped the first place in this year’s
result, with India gaining 2.3 points increase in vote share to
return to first place for the first time in three years since2019. On the other hand, China dropped to second placewith a significant drop of -9.9 points from the last year’s
result. In contrast to India, where economic activity has
recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic and highexpectations are being placed on future market growthpotential, China has lost a large share of the vote, mainly
due to the economic downturn caused by its strict ‘zero
COVID policy’ and other factors, as well as the intensifying
diplomatic tension between the U.S. and China.
The U.S. stayed in third place with continued strong
support from responding firms. While the U.S. is a maturedeveloped country with a huge market and high expectations
for its growth potential, resulting in the number of votes has
been steadily increasing since 2019, the number ofcompanies cited rising labor costs as an issue due to rapid
inflation happening this year.
The number of votes received by the ASEAN
countries, which all fell in the rankings last year due to the
Delta stock epidemic, increased slightly this year, while therankings of the top countries have been unchanged.
It is important to note that the rankings after the 11th
through 20th places tend to shift around due to the small
number of votes received. Still, Germany remains the topranked country in Europe, with the U.K. and France newly
ranked in the top 20, and Eastern European countries canalso be found in the 21st and lower places. It remains to be
seen whether interest in Europe will continue to grow as thenegative effects of the invasion of Ukraine become more
prolonged.

5. Impact of the Invasion of Ukraine
Given the upheaval of the Ukraine crisis, we exploredwhether the invasion of Ukraine had an impact on theirbusiness operations regardless of the location of theiroverseas bases. In fact, approximately 90% of thecompanies responded that there was a “negative” or“relatively negative” impact from the invasion of Ukraine.
By industry, the chemical industry was the most negatively
affected, suggesting that companies that handle products
derived from crude oil have been affected by the sharp
rise in raw material prices that has accompanied theinstability of energy supplies. The analysis by size showeda more pronounced negative impact on large firms thanon small and midsize firms. This may be due to the fact48

2023.5that large firms have more extensive operations aroundthe world and are more affected by the suspension of local
operations and supply chain disruptions due to thedisruption of raw material supplies following the invasionof Ukraine. (Figure 6)
Figure 6. Impact of the Invasion of Ukraine(No. of companies: 513)

No influence,
52 companies, 10.1%

Relatively positive,
4 companies, 1%

Negative,
225 companies, 43.9%
Relatively negative,
232 companies, 45.2%

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

The following question was designed to explore thespecific reasons for the negative impact; The top three
responses were “Rising fuel prices,” “Logistics
disruption,” and “Increased costs due to exchange rate
fluctuations,” indicating that the responding companies
have suffered a wide range of indirect impacts as a resultof the invasion of Ukraine. On the other hand, directconsequences such as “Downsizing/withdrawal of
business in Russia or Ukraine” and “Increased burden tolegal risks associated with economic sanctions andembargoes” were relatively small. (Figure 7)
Figure 7. Reasons for Negative Impact of the Invasionof Ukraine(No. of companies: 455)
0

200

100

(Comanies)
300
400

355

Rising fuel prices

278

Logistics disruption
Increased costs
due to exchange rate fluctuations

158
138

Rising mineral prices
Downsizing or withdrawal of
Russian Ukraine business
Increased burden to legal risks associatedwith economic sanctions and embargoes
Insufficient supply of parts and RM
produced in Russia/Ukraine

101
62
60

Rising grain prices

25

Change of business plan in theregion adjacent to Ukraine
Increased burden of
responding to reputation risk

16
14

Others14

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

We also asked whether the invasion of Ukraine hadchanged their attitude toward decarbonization. The resultshows that 46% of respondents said there had been nochange in their decarbonization efforts, while the numberof firms that said they would “accelerate” the achievementof their goals far exceeded the number that said theywould “slow down.” (Figure 8)
Figure 8. Impact on Decarbonization Initiatives
(No. of companies: 499)

Acceperate the pace toward
Uncertain
your decarbonization goals
24%, 119 companies 22%, 112 companies

Not significantly changed
46%, 230 companies

Slow down the pace toward
your decarbonization goals
8%, 38 companies
Note: Percentages are calculated using the number of responding companies
as the population parameter.

This result reflects the rising price of fossil fuels in
the wake of the invasion of Ukraine and the resulting
expectations for increased investment in and use ofrenewable energy. Responding firms voiced the view that“the industry-wide efforts are accelerating in line withrequests from suppliers in Europe and elsewhere”(Electrical and Electronics) and that “the industry isfacing pressure to switch to alternative heat sources ascoal prices soar, and as a result, decarbonization isaccelerating” (Ceramic Industry).

6. Supply Chains and Geopolitical Risks
Regarding the importance of geopolitical risk in businessstrategy, a total of 85% of responding companies answeredthat geopolitical risk is “very significant” or “significant,”
indicating that a large majority of companies recognize
geopolitical risk as important when developing overseas
business. A cross-sectional analysis of the importance ofgeopolitical risk and the locations of overseas offices of
the responding companies shows that the importance ofgeopolitical risk is uniformly high regardless of thecountry or region in which the companies have theirproduction bases. This suggests that geopolitical risk is nolonger a specific matter in a particular country or region

but rather a global management issue for Japanesecompanies. (Figure 9)
Figure 9. Importance of Geopolitical Risk in Business
Strategy(No. of companies: 509)

Uncertain
32 companies, 6.3%

Less significant
4 companies, 0.8%
Neither
40 companies,
7.9%

Very significant
124 companies, 24.4%

Significant
309 companies, 60.7%

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

As the importance of considering geopolitical risks
in each company’s business strategy is widely recognized,
the specific measures taken by responding companies areconcentrated on “strengthening functions of gathering
information,” “strengthening risk scenarios and BCP,”
and “strengthening functions of risk analysis andevaluation,” as well as “diversification of suppliercountries/areas,” indicating that companies are
increasingly aware of the need to gather and analyze
information actively. Specifically, some respondents
raised their measures that they “set up a working groupwithin the company to discuss geopolitical risks”(Electrical and Electronics) and “set up a secretariat
focusing on economic sanctions-related geopolitical risks
such as OFAC” (Chemicals). On the other hand, relatively
few companies have taken concrete steps to change theirbases, withdraw from the business, or change theirinvestment plans. (Figure 10)2023.549

Figure 10. Measures to Address Geopolitical Risks
(No. of companies: 494)0（Companies）
200
300

100

Strengthening functions of gathering
information

252

Diversification of supplier countries/areas

207
151

Strengthening risk scenarios and BCP
Strengthening functions of risk analysis
and evaluation

116
39

Change of base placement strategy
Changes/postponements of alreadyexisting investment plans

26

Business withdrawal/sale-offs

25
9Implementation of new investment

55

No plan to implement countermeasures
33

No idea of what needs to be done
Others 4
040

20Strengthening functions of gathering
information

34.2%

Strengthening risk scenarios and BCP

18.4%

Strengthening functions of risk analysis
and evaluation

Business withdrawal/sale-offs
Implementation of new investment

7. Sustainability

47.0%

38.6%
31.5%

11.2%
7.4%
8.7%

Change of base placement strategy
Changes/postponements of alreadyexisting investment plans

58.1%

40.3%

Diversification of supplier countries/areas

（%）
80

60

6.0%
4.1%
4.4%
6.1%

Large enterprises (298)
SMEs (196)

2.0%
1.5%
7.0%

No plan to implement countermeasures
No idea of what needs to be done

2.7%

Others0.7%
1.0%Regarding “U.S.-China decoupling,” which
separates U.S.-bound business and China-bound businessgiven the intensifying U.S.-China friction, the samequestions from the previous year’s survey were set inorder for comparison over time. Although there was no
indication that the U.S.-China decoupling debate has
deepened over the past year, the result suggested that thepercentage of companies that responded that they would“strengthen China operations” decreased from theprevious year, while those who “strengthen US
operations” increased. The main reasons for this trend arelikely to be the sluggish economic activity and uncertain
economic outlook resulting from China’s strict zerocorona policy. Still, it is also believed that companies areaware of geopolitical risks, such as the possibility of a
Taiwan contingency. (Figure 11)

17.3%

12.8%

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

In response to the growing social demand for sustainability,
we asked whether or not they are considering sustainability
in their overseas business management. 76% of all
responding companies answered that they are “considering”
sustainability. In the analysis by company size, nearly 90%
of large companies responded that they “consider”
sustainability, while only about 60% of SMEs answeredthat they “consider” sustainability, suggesting that large
companies are taking the lead in sustainability efforts.
(Figure 12)
Figure 12. Initiatives for Sustainability (by Scale)(No. of companies: 512)

Figure 11. Response to US-China Decoupling0(No. of companies: 406)
0Strengthen China
operations

Strengthen US
operations

20

10

30

16%

40

（％）
60

50

SMEs

4.2%, 13 Companies

Large
Enterprises

8.7%, 27 Companies
8.6%, 44 Companies

51%
54%
15%
12%

Note: Comparison between the respondents that answered this question for
two consecutive years.

50

2023.587.2%, 272 Companies

23%

Strengthen both of
China and US
operations

80

25.0%, 50 Companies

2022

17%

60

59.5%, 119 Companies

2021

11%

40

15.5%, 31 Companies

Total

Under consideration/
not sure20

76.4%, 391Companies
15.0%, 77 Companies

Considering

Not considering

Not sure（％）
100【スポット研究】Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations by Japanese Manufacturing Companies

Figure 13. Initiatives for Sustainability in Stances on
Future Overseas Business

Figure 14. Initiatives for Sustainability in Stances on
Geopolitical Risks

(No. of companies: 501)
100%
80%

Companies
24 Companies

37
Companies

80%

20

Companies

60%
40%

283

40%

97

Companies

Companies

15%
9%

0%

Not considering

86%

76%

Very
significant

Significant

Considering sustainability

Not sure

23%
18%

20%

Strengthen/expand Maintain present level

Considering sustainability

7%
7%

60%

20%
0%

(No. of companies: 504)

100%

34

60%

Neither

25%

50%

Less
significant

Not considering

Figure 16. Initiatives for Decarbonization





0

50

Climate change measures
including decarbonization

230

Diversity
Human rights issues
Circular economy

132

27

118

32

75

Marine plastics

17

Water resources

6

Biodiversity

5
1

Others8058

169

Corporate governance

2

19
39
38
39
Large enterprises (269)
SMEs (119)Cross-analysis of the other questions revealed thatcompanies highly motivated to develop overseas businessand place more importance on geopolitical risks are more
likely to conduct their business operations withsustainability in mind. Companies that are eager to engage
in global business are exposed to a wide variety of risks
on a daily basis, and this suggests that they are highly
aware of and eager to address external factors and global
issues that can have a significant impact on their businessenvironment. (Figure 13, 14)There are a variety of topics within “sustainability.”In the question following the above, those companies that
responded that they “consider” sustainability were asked
about topics of interest within sustainability, with “climatechange measures including decarbonization,” “corporate
governance,” “diversity,” and “human rights issues”
receiving the most votes in that order. Among these,“climate change measures including decarbonization” isby far the most crucial aspect of sustainability for Japanesebusinesses, regardless of size; It was suggested that about

3%

25%

Figure 15. Hot Topics in Sustainability (by Scale)(No. of companies: 388, N: 1087)(Companies)
100 150 200 250 300 350

34%

63%

Uncertain
Not sure(No. of companies: 502)

Not discussed,
45 companies, 9％
The company isinterested in government
goals, but hasn't
started concrete its
own efforts yet,82 companies, 16％
Behind the government target,
but implementing the initiative,
113 companies, 23％

Implementing own
setted initiatives beyond
government goals,
32 companies, 6％

Implementing efforts
in line with government goals,
230 companies, 46％

75% of companies have already started to take someaction on decarbonization, and more than 50% have met
or exceeded the government target of achieving carbon
neutrality by 2050. (Figure 15, Figure 16)
When we asked the companies to choose between“proactive” and “reactive” motives for theirdecarbonization efforts in response to various external
requests and pressures, the active motive of “strengthenbrand image, acquire new customers” came out on top,indicating that Japanese manufacturers are proactively
working to decarbonize their operations, seeing it as abusiness opportunity. (Figure 17)2023.551

Figure 17. Motivations for Decarbonization
(No. of companies: 372, N: 944, % shows voting rate)
0

50

100

150

(Companies)
200 250

Strengthen brand image,acquire new customers

66%, 246 companies

Requests from business partners

44%, 162 companies

Strengthen production
competitiveness

43%, 160 companies

Industry trends

38%, 143 companies

Requests from investors
Requests from parent company
or group company

24%, 90 companies
11%, 40 companies

Requests from consumers

9%, 35 companies

Acquisition of new financing(equity, loan) to the company

8%, 28 companies

Request from the local government
Others7%, 27 companies
3%, 13 companies

Lastly, we asked each company about its efforts toaddress “human rights issues” in its supply chain. In theprevious year’s survey, the total of “no discussion” and“under consideration/ nothing yet” accounted for 76% of
the respondents. However, in this year’s survey, thepercentage of companies that have not taken any action
has decreased to less than 50%, suggesting that Japanesemanufacturers have made considerable progress inaddressing human rights issues in light of the recent
increase in social demands related to business activities
and human rights. It seems that the increased demand ispartially induced by the enactments of laws andregulations on business and human rights, particularly inEurope and the United States since last year and theformulation of the “Guidelines on Respecting Human

Rights in Responsible Supply Chains” by the Japanese
government in September 2022. (Figure 18, 19)

8. Conclusion
This year’s survey result shows signs of recovery in theoverseas business development of Japanese manufacturers,
which had slowed or stagnated until the last fiscal year due
to the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine last year February greatly affectedmany companies’ business operations. Combined with the
U.S.-China conflict, many companies have recognized theimportance of geopolitical risk in their business strategies.
Given this context, the survey also revealed that many
companies are working to diversify their procurement
sources and strengthen their information-gathering andanalysis functions. In addition, concerning sustainability,
which has become a global issue in recent years, Japanesecompanies are placing particular emphasis on
decarbonization initiatives; They are actively addressing
this issue while taking it as a business opportunity. Besides,
significant progress has been made over the past year in
addressing human rights issues in the supply chain in
response to rapidly growing social demands. In thefollowing year’s survey, we will continue to monitor theefforts of Japanese companies in each of these areas anddevise the survey design to capture the trends in a moredetailed manner.


Figure 18. Initiatives for Human Rights Issues Survey(FY2021)

Figure 19. Initiatives for Human Rights Issues Survey(FY2022)(No. of companies: 490)

Already taking active
measures55 companies, 11%
Making adjustments
65 companies, 13%
No discussion
243 companies, 50%
Under consideration/
Nothing yet
127 companies, 26%

We have not formulated a
HR policy and have not
implemented HR due
diligence
210 companies, 43%(No. of companies: 486)

We have formulated HR policies
and conducted HR due diligence
100 companies, 21%

HR policy is being formulated,but HR due diligence has not been
implemented
129 companies, 26%

HR due diligence has been
implemented, although HR
policy has not been formulated
47 companies, 10%522023.5