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」
2021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 FY2020 Survey:
Outlook for Japanese Foreign Direct Investment(32nd Annual Survey) —KASUGA Takeshi, Director
FUJII Risa
Strategic Research Department, Corporate Planning Group
Japan Bank for International Cooperation

1. Introduction

Figure 1. Overseas Production/Sales Ratios
44%

Medium-term plans

Overseas Sales Ratios(FY2023)
42%
Japan Bank for International
39.6%
Overseas Production Ratios
39.3%
40%
38.5%
38.7%
Cooperation (JBIC) has released
37.5% 37.9%
38%
36.2%
36.8%
“Survey Report on Overseas Business
35.6%
35.6%
35.4%
36%
34.7%
34.7%
34.6%
Operations by Japanese Manufacturing
34.2%
34.0%
35.6%
35.2% 35.1%
35.0%
34%
33.5%
34.2%
33.9%
33.3%
Companies”. In this survey,
33.2%
32%
32.9%
questionnaires were sent out in August
31.3%
31.0%
29.1%
30%
FY202030.5% 30.6% 30.8%
27.9%2020 and collected by November (954
Projected
29.2%
28%
28.0%
target companies, 530 valid
Actual
26%
26.1%
26.0%
respondents, 55.6% response rate).
24% 24.6%
We would like to express our gratitude
22%
to the companies who cooperated
20%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 （FY）
under the situation of COVID-19.
In this survey, we asked “Impact
Note 1: Overseas Production Ratio = Overseas Production / (Domestic
Production + Overseas Production)of COVID-19 on Supply chain” and “Prospects for
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)
SDGs” as special themes, in addition to “Overseas
Business Performance”, “Business Prospects”, and“Promising Countries/Regions ”.
3. Mid-Term (Next 3 Years) Prospects for

2. Overseas Production/Sales Ratios
Overseas production ratio for FY2019 was 33.9% and theoverseas sales was 36.2%, recording the largest drop ever.
Although the level of overseas sales ratio until theprevious year was close to 40%, sales and production
were significantly affected by the spread of COVID-19
toward the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, the overseas
sales and production ratios, which had been on an upward
trend until the previous year, have returned to the level of
10 years ago. In the future, the overseas production ratio
is expected to reach 34.6% in 2023. Although this does
not reach the pre-COVID-19 level, a gradual recovery is
expected. (Figure 1)
442021.5Business Expansion (Domestic/International)

37.9% of companies answered that they would “maintainpresent level” in their overseas business. It is a significant
increase of 11.2 points from the previous year. Along with
this, the ratio of “strengthen/expand” dropped sharply to
59.3%, which was lower than after the 2008 financial
crisis (65.8%) and set a new record since the survey
started. In the interview, one automobile parts company
said “We will minimize overseas investment because of
COVID-19”. (Figure 2)
Regarding the mid-term prospects for domestic
business expansion, the number of companies thatanswered “strengthen/expand” decreased to 38.9%, and“undecided” increased to 7.2%. “Maintain present level【スポット研究】Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations by Japanese Manufacturing Companies

Figure 2. Mid-Term (Next 3 Years) Prospects for Overseas
Business Expansion
100%

0.5%

1.2%

1.5%

2.0%

23.0%

26.7%

22.9%

26.7%

72.1%

75.6%

2017
（592）

2018
（582）

80%

2.8%

37.9%

60%
40%

76.6%

71.4%

59.3%

20%
0%

2016
（623）

Scale back/withdraw

20192020 （FY）（562） （509）（No. ofCompanies）

Maintain present level

Strengthen/expand

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

4.2%

3.6%

3.1%

3.9%

3.5%

3.6%

2.3%

3.2%

58.3%

55.2%

48.7%

50.2%

34.0%

37.7%

2016
（623）

2017
（591）

7.2%
3.5%
50.4%

(50.4%)” and “scale back (3.5%)” were at the same level
as last year. (Figure 3)
The gap between “strengthen/expand” ratio of overseas
business and domestic business has narrowed to 20.4
points, which is the lowest ever since last year. It indicatesthat the proactive attitude toward overseas business isextremely weak. However, depending on the measuresagainst COVID-19 or the economic recovery of eachcountry, the attitude of strengthening and expanding may
recover. (Figure 4)

4. Third Party Alliance
When we asked companies about the overseas businessunder the third party alliance (Figure 5), 30% of the
respondents answered “in cooperation”. Since the answer“for future” was only 4%, it seems that there is a clear
distinction between companies that choose the third party
alliance and those do not.
Looking at the details of the alliance, Western company(104 companies) was the most popular partner, followed
Figure 5. Overseas Business Under Third Party Alliance

40%
20%
0%

45.9%

42.8%

38.9%

2018
（577）

2019
（568）

2020（FY）（No. of（514）
Companies）

Undecided

Maintain present level

Scale backStrengthen/expand

In cooperation
150 companies, 30%

Not in cooperation
333 companies, 66%

Overseas "Strengthen/Expand" ratio
FY2020

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

65.8%
Domestic "Strengthen/Expand" ratio

59.3%

38.9%
20.4%

10%
0%

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20（FY）(Difference) Overseas "Strengthen/Expand" ratio - Domestic"Strengthen/expand" ratio
Domestic "Strengthen/Expand" ratio
Overseas "Strengthen/Expand" ratio

Westerncompany

Subtotal

3

21

24

Singapore

5

2

9

16

Thailand

12

5

10

27

Indonesia

6

5

9

20

Malasia

2

1

4

7

Philippines

7

1

3

11

Vietnam

6

0

3

9

Cambodia

1

0

0

1

Laos

1

0

0

1

Myammar

0

0

0

0

India

7

10

17

Africa0

1

1

2

Others

11

2

34

47

Subtotal

58

20

104

China

Country

90%

Company
IndianCompany

Chinesecompany

Figure 4. Shift in Intentions to Strengthen/Expand Business(FY2000 - FY2020)
100%

For future
22 companies, 4%2021.545

by Chinese company (58 companies) and Indian company
the pandemic, however India’s recession is worsening(20 companies). As for the countries that carry out projects
due to prolonged lockdown.
in cooperation, Thailand (27 companies) was mostFigure 6. Promising Countries for Overseas Businesspopular, followed by China (24 companies) and Indonesia
over the Mid-term (Next 3 Years)(20 companies). As for “others (47 companies)” , Taiwan
Ranking
No. of Companies Percentage Share（%）
was mentioned through the interview.
2020
2019
Countries
2020 ← 2019
2020
2019
In the matrix analysis between the partner company（Total）
356
404
and the project implementing country, the Chinese company
2
China
168
180
47.2
44.6
1
2
1
India
163
193
45.8
47.8
cooperates in a wide range of Asian countries, e.g. Thailand
3－
3
Vietnam
131
147
36.8
36.4
(12 companies), Philippines (7 companies), India (74－4Thailand
111
133
31.2
32.9
companies), Indonesia (6 companies), and the Mekong
5
6
US
98
93
27.5
23.0
6
5
Indonesia
96
102
27.0
25.2
region. On the other hand, in cooperation with Western
7－
7
Philippines
37
48
10.4
11.9
companies, China (21 companies) stands out, far exceeding
8
9
Malaysia
34
41
9.6
10.1
Thailand and India (10 companies). In Africa, there was one
98
Mexico
32
47
9.0
11.6
10
9
Myanmar
25
41
7.0
10.1
company in collaboration with Indian company (petroleum
14
Germany
20
14
5.6
3.5
11
and rubber) and one with Western company (chemicals).
12
11
Taiwan
18
18
5.1
4.5
There were various ways of cooperation e.g.
13
21
Bangladesh
16
7
4.5
1.7
“Receiving licenses from the western company and14
15
Australia
14
13
3.9
3.2
15
12
Korea
12
15
3.4
3.7
developing the Chinese market together” (Cooperation
16
12
Singapore
11
15
3.1
3.7
with Western company in China, Nonferrous metals) and16
17
Brazil
11
11
3.1
2.7
“Producing parts in India and selling them to Chinese
18
26
UK
9
4
2.5
1.0
19
18
Russia8
9
2.2
2.2
automobile companies” (cooperation with Chinese20－ 20
Turkey78
2.0
2.0
company in India, Automobile parts). As an overall trend,
cooperation with Chinese companies
Figure 7. Promising Countries: Potential Countries/Regions in the Mid-Termis cost-oriented, and many companies- Trends in Votes
cooperate to procure/purchase someChinaparts. Cooperation with Western
India
（%）
companies
ismarket-oriented,
100
VietnamThailandproducing products with licenses
US
Indonesia
from Western companies and develop
Philippines
80
the market together.
Malaysia

5. Promising Countries:
Potential Countries /Regions in the Mid-Term

20

01992 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20（FY）
COVID-19 outbreak

US-China trade war,
BrexitStart of Trumpadministration

Trouble withneighboring countries“The 2008 ﬁnancial
crisis”

Anti-Japanese protests
in China

BRICs Report

SARS outbreak

China’
s entry into the
WTO, 9/11 attacks

Bursting of the
IT Bubble

2021.540

Asian currency crisis

46

60

Southern tour lecture

We asked the companies to nominate
up to five medium-term Promising
Countries. The ranking is as shown in
Figure 6.
India returned to the top for the
first time in three years last year, but thisyear China has regained the lead by anarrow margin (5 votes). According to
the interviews, comparison of China
and India’s correspondence to
COVID-19 was pointed out; China
resumed economic activities early in

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

6. Impact of COVID-19 on Supply Chain(1) Overview (impact on production side)
In order to measure how COVID-19 affected Japan’s
production activities (supply chain), we asked questions① the most impacted month (Figure 8) and ② the mostimpacted country/region (Figure 9).
As a result, the supply chain of Japanese companies
was most impacted from April to May, and it can be seenthat the impact has almost disappeared recently. Regarding
the impacted country/region, China (283 companies) wasmost impacted, followed by ASEAN (264 companies). It
shows that COVID-19 has almost the same impact on the
production networks of China and ASEAN. Comparing
the number of responding companies, the number of
respondents far exceeds that of Japan (178 companies)
and North America (146 companies), which suggests theimportance of the production network of China and
ASEAN. According to the interviews, as for China, “thespread of infection and lockdown had a greater impact
earlier than in other countries” (chemicals), and as for
ASEAN, “in Thailand, inventory adjustments are required
due to the suspension of operations at delivery destinations.
For stopping the plant in operation, it gave a blow tobusiness performance” (general machinery).

Figure 8. The Most Impacted Month(No. ofCompanies)(No. of companies: 508/ N = 1542)

400

338

350
300

313

236
193

O

ct
pa

o

Im

Ju
l

41 33
22

N

D

67

Au

9

-1

Ja 9
n20
Fe
b
M
ar
Ap
r
M
ay
Ju
n

2

ov
-1

0

1

33

ec

50

p

96

100

～

150

ct

167

g

200

Se

250

N

Moreover, there was a difference of 17 points in thevote rate between Indonesia (6th) and the Philippines(7th), and it became clear that bipolarization is progressing
even in the top 10.
Among the high-ranking teams, China and India withhuge market, Thailand with a well-established production
base, Vietnam, etc. are firmly popular. One company is“considering transferring from Thailand to Vietnam as
customers expansion” (electrical equipment & electronics).
On the other hand, the lower-ranking team is divided into
countries that have boomed in the past, such as Russia,
Mexico, and Brazil, and inconspicuous but persistently
popular countries such as Philippines, Myanmar, andMalaysia.
The future focus will be on whether the US andIndonesia will remain in the high-ranking teams, andwhether any country will break out of the 7th or lower
group.

Note: For the convenience of the answer period, this question is collectively
referred to as “October~” after October

Figure 9. The Most Impacted Country/Region(No. ofCompanies)

300
250
200

283

(No. of companies: 501/ N = 1045)

264

178
146

150
100

73

50
0

China ASEAN Japan

50

30

North Europe Latin
NIEs3
America
America

2021.521
No
Impact47

Figure 10. Impact on Foreign Investment Plan

Figure 11. Impact on Foreign Investment Plan by SARS

(No. of companies: 488/ N = 545)

Reform of product andbusiness allocation,
86 companies

Revised medium-term
outlook for business operations
due to the impactof SARS,
10 companies(No. of companies: 536)

Revision of medium-term
outlook for business
operation is a possibility
in the event of prolongation
or recurrence of SARS
in future,
49 companies

Suspension,
78 companies
No change,
307 companies

Reform of regional allocation,
63 companies

No change,
477 companies

Return to domestic investment,
11 companies(2) Implications of COVID-19 for Investment
Plan
When we asked if they would change their foreign
investment plans in response to the COVID-19 (Figure 10),approximately 60% of respondents answered “no change”.
However, according to the interview, many companies said,“Immediate response to COVID-19 is prioritized, so wecannot reconsider the investment plan right now”. Therefore,
it seems that investment decisions have not been madebecause the situation is not calm. On the other hand, theother 40% said they were considering some kind of
response. Specifically, “reform of product and businessallocation (86 companies)” was the most common, followedby “suspension (78 companies)” and “reform of regional
allocation of FDI (63 companies)”. When we asked thesame question in 2003, when SARS were sweeping theworld, approximately 90% answered “no change” (Figure11). Compared to this result, it seems that impact of
COVID-19 have had a huge impact rather than SARS.
Figure 12. How to Reinforce Supply Chain(No. of companies: 499/ N = 823)
050(Companies)
100
150

86

Multiply factories by prodoct

78

45

（123）

Expand investment for automationand labor saving

73

49

（122）

Enhance local procurement
and local sales

68

50

（118）

Review distribution network
including identiﬁcation of alternatives

73

38

（111）

27

Expand ﬁnancial support for
10 7（17）
supplier/procurer
None

48

2021.5

47

（133）

70

We asked ①How to reinforce Supply Chain (Figure12)
and ②How to cope with COVID-19 other than Supply
Chain Reforms (Figure13).
As for the majors to reinforce Supply Chain, it was
found that many companies are considering supply chain
reinforcement; “expand working capital (133 companies)”
was the most common, followed by “multiply factories
by product (123 companies)”, “expand investment for
automation and labor saving (122 companies)”, “enhance
local procurement and local sales (118 companies)” etc.
In the interview, it was pointed out that “strengthening
inventory control and addition of inventory”, “securingmultiple bases in China”, and “shortening the supply
chain by local production for local consumption” areimportant to reinforce the supply chain.
On the other hand, the reorganization of bases such as“return to Japan (43 companies)” and “move to third
country (28 companies)” seems to be cautious at this point.

(No. of companies: 500/ N = 785)
050(Companies)
200
150

100

Reconsider BCP

110

68

（178）

Reconsider regional sales plan

118

58

（176）

Reconsider internal
communication system
Enhance relationship withrelated overseas companies

44 （117）73
45

23（68）

Drastic reconsideration of business 33 13（46）16（43）

Move to third country 18 10（28）(3) Correspondence to COVID-19

Figure 13. How to Cope with COVID-19 other than Supply
		 Chain Reforms

Expand working capital

Return to Japan

Note: Single answer

Large enterprises
SMEs
58

（128）

Expand IT investment for
24 17（41）overseas bases
Enhance relationship with
19 11（30）local ﬁnancial institutions
None

73

Large enterprises
SMEs

56

（129）

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

Figure 14. Correspondence to US-China Decoupling Theory
By industry, electronic equipment(Companies)(No. of companies: 502)
and electronics (17 companies)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
are at the top, followed bychemicals (11 companies) and58
8 （80）
Already decoupled
automobiles (11 companies).
410
4
One chemicals company said,
Under procedure 18 （23）“We are not sure what to do in the0
company. The future is uncertain
5
1
with COVID-19 and cannot
8
Under consideration 36 （44）Bases in China and US
make a drastic decision.” It is
Bases only in China (no bases in US)
12
expected that it will take time toBases only in US (no bases in China)
0
review the bases.
No need to decouple 30 （36）
No bases in China and US
As for “How to Cope with
60
COVID-19 other than Supply
150
111
28 30 （319）
No discussion
Chain
Reforms”,
manycompanies answered “reconsider
BCP (178 companies)” and“reconsider regional sales plan (176 companies)” as
the supply chain triggered by the impact of COVID-19, in
measures. Specifically, many respondents said that theyorder to reduce distribution costs and avoid risks, we arewould review their BCP in order to respond to the second
going to change the business strategy like ‘In China forand third waves of COVID-19 and next pandemic.
China’ and ‘In Mexico/US for US’.”In addition, a certain number of respondents answered,“reconsider internal communication system (117
7. Prospects for SDGs
companies)” and “expand IT investment for overseas bases(41 companies)”. With COVID-19, it seems that companies(1) Degree of Efforts towards SDGs
are reaffirming the importance of IT and digitization, andWhen asked about the status of SDGs implementation
investment priorities are rising.
(Figure 15), 22% (127 companies) answered that they
“implemented in business/in its strategy” and 24% (142companies) answered that they “implemented in PR/CSR(4) US-China Decouplingetc”. A little less than 1/2 companies are working on SDGs.
We asked companies about the correspondence to USIn addition, about 1/4 are “considering implementing in
China decoupling (Figure 14). While many companies
business or in its strategy”, indicating well-spread ofsaid “no discussion (319 companies)”, 80 companies (58awareness, even if they didn’t step into concrete action yet.
companies have bases in China and US) answered“already decoupled”, followed by “under procedure (23Figure 15. Degree of Efforts towards SDGs
companies)” and “under consideration (44 companies)”.
(No. of companies: 504/ No. of answers: 586 (denominator))
Therefore, about 30% of the respondents, which is 40%of companies that have bases in both US and China, arecorresponding to the US-China decoupling.
Implemented in business /In response to rising labor costs in China, there havein its strategy,
Not yet implemented
127 companies, 22%in business,been some moves to relocate or change the suppliers to
158 companies, 27%
Southeast Asia or Mexico, which have attractive inexpensive
source. Some company pointed out that his move have been
accelerated by US-China conflict. One company which has
Implemented in PR / CSR,
142 companies, 24%already decoupled said, “In the past, we manufactured in
Considering implementing
China and supplied products to the US, but after Trump wasin business / in its strategy,
159 companies, 27%
inaugurated, we changed the business like ‘In China for
China’ and ‘In Mexico/US for US’”(automobile parts). In
Note: Denominator = No. of companies of each category
addition, some companies said “While aiming to reinforce
2021.549

(2) Motivations behind Efforts towards
SDGs
We asked questions from various angles about
the motives for working on the SDGs (Figure 16).
As for the social awareness, consumer awarenessare the main reported motives followed by selfmotivation in all companies. As for the financing,pressures from investors much rather thanfinancial institutions in large companies. One
chemicals company said, “We frequently receive
inquiries about SDGs from overseas investors,
and we exposed to a strict looks”. As for the
supply chain transmission, SDGs becoming a
keyword among companies within the same
supply chain in SMEs. “European customers arestrongly expected to work on the SDGs”(nonferrous metals).
Regarding the fact that many respondents
answered “self motivated” in this survey, there
was an opinion that “It is inevitable because of
our products deeply related to the environment”(electrical equipment & electronics). In
addition, there was an opinion that “We were
surprised by high number of ‘self motivated’”(US pension fund), which is perceived as an
unexpected result for overseas investors.

(3) Implementation Hurdles regarding
SDGs
When asking about the obstacles to implement/
have implemented SDGs (Figure 17), 50.5%(230 companies) answered “compatibility
between business and SDGs”, followed by“luck of understanding of field side (39.3%)”,“lack of HR (38.9%)”, and “lack of information(28.1%)”.
In order to find out the difference in how toperceive obstacles, we compared the distributionof obstacles by dividing them into companies
that are advancing the SDGs and those that arenot (Figure 18). We found that there wereperception of incompatibility between businessand SDGs (even for companies alreadyadvancing towards SDGs).
Moreover,“Reluctance from field side”(53.8%) is the biggest issue for companies thatare making efforts, while “lack of information”
and “reluctance from management side” are50

2021.5Figure 16. Motivations behind Efforts towards SDGs
(No. of companies: 451/ No. of answers: 906)
Increased interest from consumers,
buyers and professional federations

0

10

20

30

40

50

（％）
70

60

59.9
53.0

Self motivated

57.5

29.9

Relationship management with investors

45.3

6.7

Relationship managementwith ﬁnancial institutions

11.8
7.3
17.4

Request from procurers/suppliers

28.7

11.5
17.1

Inﬂuence from competitors

Large enterprises（287companies）

10.5
10.4

Parent company, group company

7.0

Requirement from local authority

SMEs（164companies）

12.8

Note: Denominator = No. of companies of each category

Figure 17. Implementation Hurdles(No. of companies: 455 (denominator) / No. of answers=821)
0
20

（％）
60

40

Compatibility between business and SDGs

50.5

Reluctance from ﬁeld side

39.3

Lack of HR

38.9
28.1

Lack of information

23.5

Reluctance from management side
Note: Denominator = No. of companies of each category

Figure 18. Implementation Hurdles
		 (by Implementation Degree)
0

20

47.1
47.4

Compatibility between business and SDGs
Reluctance from ﬁeld side

Reluctance from management side

53.8

25.5
35.6
36.5

Lack of HR
Lack of information

（％）
60

40

12.5
7.7

44.5
34.3

Implemented in business/ in its strategy（104companies）
Not yet implemented in business (137companies)

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

8. Conclusion

conspicuous for companies that are not working on it.
Since these two issues are generally being resolved fromthe perspective of the companies that are working onthem, it was suggested that top-down efforts for the SDGs
are effective.

In our process of conducting this survey, there were quite
a few voices recognizing that the Covid-19 and the US
presidential election as a game changer. Although thesituation is very volatile and it is difficult to draw a pictureof the mid-term business, some are looking for a shift andoptimization to a“local production for local consumption”
production network to adapt this new businessenvironment and some are putting more resources on
their network digitalization. Other than these, we foundthat the efforts to rediscover corporate value using a newframework of SDGs have begun.
(4) Goals Popular for Japanese Companies
We asked what SDGs goals are you currently working on
and would like to work on in the future (Figure 19) (*This
time, we distributed a reference including examples
assumed for each goals based on the United Nations
Global compact.) As the result, focus on goals compatible
with Japanese manufacturers business model: sustainableconsumption and production, clean energy and innovation(3,7,8,9,12 and13) and some intention to take onchallenging social issues, such as poverty, hunger, andinequality, in the future are observed.

Figure 19. Goals Popular for Japanese Companies (Present/Future)(No. of companies “Present”: 346, No. of companies “Future”: 374)

Present
FutureNo Poverty
Partnerships
for the Goals

Peace, Justiceand Strong
Institutions

17

Zero Hunger

Good Healthand Well-being

1
250

2

200

16

3

Life on Land

15

4

100

Life Below
Water

Gender Equality

50

14

Climate Action

Quality Education

150

5

0

6

13

Responsible
Consumption
and Production

7

12

Aﬀordable andClean Energy

8

11
Sustainable
Cities andCommunities

Clean Waterand Sanitation

10
Reduceinequalities

9

Decent Work andEconomic Growth

Industry, Innovation
and Infrastructure

2021.551