Encouraged actions to create “Value for Society” bycorporations to achieve SDGs

March 2020
Business Policy Forum, JapanCSR Forum of JAPANi

Contents
Executive Summary・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ⅲ
1.

“Value for Society” that is encouraged to be created by corporations
today・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ⅳ

2.

Concepts of “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” and “Value for Society”・・ⅵ
2-1“Value for Multi-Stakeholders”・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ⅵ

2-2“Value for Society”・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ⅷ

2-3

Relation between “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” and “Value forSociety”・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ⅸ

3.

Steps to measure and evaluate activities to produce “Value for Society” bya corporation・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ⅺ
3-1

Terms concerning evaluation objects with respect to creation of“Value for Society”・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ⅺ

3-2

Actions to construct common framework to measure and evaluate
activities to produce “Value for Society” by corporations・・・・ⅺ

3-3

Corporate efforts to create “Value for Society” and actions tomeasure and evaluate the outcome・・・・・・・・・・・・・xiv

4.

[Suggestions] Encouraging corporate creation of “Value for Society” toaccomplish SDGs・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・xvii
4-1

Leadership by top management to create an integrated set of “Valuefor Multi-Stakeholders” and “Value for Society”・・・・・・・・xvii

4-2

Self-evaluation of the information regarding creation of “Value forSociety”・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・xvii

4-3

Positive disclosure of information and upgrading activities toshared value type with dialogue and engagement・・・・・・・xviii

4-4Inviting to cooperative activities with other corporations andentities・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・xviii

4-5

Role of stakeholders to encourage creation of “Value for Society” bya corporation・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・xviii

Outlines of CSR Forum of Japan・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・xx
Member of CSR Forum of Japan・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・xxⅰ

ii

Executive Summary
PrefacePurpose of this paper
Based on the understanding that more contribution by corporations in achieving
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is increasingly encouraged among society,this paper aims to:

Put together the framework to explain and clarify basic words and concepts
concerning the creation of values through corporate activities to solve social
problems including SDGs.



Carry out research and disseminate the critical problems to be solved andthe possible approaches to evaluate achievements of corporate activities aswell as to invite engagement from stakeholders.



Background recognition

Whereas words and phrases relating to SDGs or Environment, Social andGovernance (ESG) are widely used these days, it is not clear if the situation
brings out material effects in solving social problems in environmental or social
areas or not.



Various concepts such as “Non-Financial Value,” “Social Value,” “Outcome,” and“Impact” are utilized in different ways without common clear definitions forthem. This seems to have caused confusion in communication.

Japanese corporations have traditionally placed value on behaving as social
components, which brought them strong momentum to address social issues,
but that may, on the other hand, possibly have disturbed potential systemic
reforms to solve complicated social issues that can’t easily be achieved within
the traditional social framework.

Many Japanese firms are having a hard time finding ways to solve social issues.

iii

1. “Value for Society” that is encouraged to be created by corporations today

A corporation is an entity that attracts customers by supplying goods andservices that match the needs of society, and that makes profits through providing
value to customers and society. The profits are to be distributed in the long run toshareholders that have provided financial capital to the corporation, after
distributing some portion to other stakeholders. Based on this fundamental
understanding, the up-to-date background situation as to why corporations areencouraged to create “Value for Society” is explained as follows, especially from theviewpoint of transition of the relation between a corporation and society.

1) Accommodating customers’ needs and contributing to solve social issues

In the period when customers’ needs and social issues are closely connected
and when the relationship among corporations, their supply chains andstakeholders is not very complicated, such as the period in Japan decades after WW
II, many corporations solved social issues mainly through supplying goods orservices. Corporate philosophies and initial intentions of corporate founders
motivated and urged such activities together with revised legal restrictions.

2) Increased negative impact on society by corporate value chains and introduction of
the concept, “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)”

Especially after the 1990’s, the negative impact on society from corporate
activities attracted wide global concern in the middle of the development of
globalization and interconnected value chains. In these circumstances, more andmore requests were raised to corporations to voluntarily and positively manage
their negative impact on society and to contribute to cover external social costs
through activities based on CSR, as well as to be accountable for the results of theactivities.

Related Concepts, Guidelines: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Global
Compact, ISO 26000, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standard.

iv3) Attention to the reverse impact on a corporation from social issues and the following
integration of the issues into corporate management

While an increasing number of corporations are trying to voluntarily andpositively manage their negative impact on society regarding the problems stated inparagraph 2), some stakeholder groups have come to appreciate those corporate
actions. At the same time, more attention was drawn to the effects that social issues
cause on corporate operations or competitiveness. Key elements of the attention arerisks and opportunities for corporate management, in which investment risks andreturns are examined more intensely. The idea started to circulate gradually thatsocial problems were actually new future business opportunities.

Related Concepts, Guidelines: Creating Shared Value (CSV), Environment, Socialand Governance (ESG), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), Task
force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

4) Creation of “Value for Society” to contribute to solve social issues that may possibly
damage sustainability in society and businesses

Overviewing the transition from 1) to 3), the 3 phases are best considered tobe piled up layer upon layer.
It has been commonly recognized that social problems are high risk elements
in promoting business activities that can hinder further growth. Whereas central
and local governments, international organizations and NGOs have tackled social
issues in the past, other entities including investors, financial entities and nonfinancial businesses are now encouraged to take a significant part in solving social
issues as well.
Corporations are now urged not only to gain profits by providing value to theircustomers and society grounded in their traditional purposes, but also to create“Value for Society” by significant contributions and material performance to solve
social problems.

v

2. Concepts of “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” and “Value for Society”

Many different words and phrases are used as terms relating to “Value forMulti-Stakeholders” and “Value for Society.” Many of those meanings are notclearly determined as common definitions. The traditional concept of “Corporate
Value,” which has placed the main emphasis on profits for shareholders, may not
fully imply the up-to-date value of corporations by itself.
New concepts, “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” and “Value for Society” areproposed here in this paper to embody a set of fundamental concepts. The former isdifferent from the traditional concept of “Corporate Value.”

2-1“Value for Multi-Stakeholders”

The concept of “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” in this paper stands for thevalue that is created by businesses not just for shareholders but also forstakeholders. It is evaluated from the following three viewpoints:

Viewpoint of finance:

Monetary value at present or in the past which is obtained as a total sum or
evaluated figures of revenues and costs from corporate operations. Major tools or
measures used in evaluation on the viewpoint of finance are financial documents,
e.g. a balance sheet and an income statement, or such indexes as sales, operating
profit, operating income margin, return on equity.



Viewpoint of ESG:

Value that is not presented in financial documents such as the distribution of
profits to stakeholders, arrangements for human rights, effects of businesses on
local societies or global environments, internal governance framework of acorporation to manage and audit corporate activities. An example of the measures
to evaluate from this viewpoint is the ESG index method.

vi

Viewpoint of impact:

Values that are created by producing material effects in solving social
problems that go beyond individual or corporate merits. The effects can be positive
to strengthen or negative to ruin momentum to solve social issues.

(*) The viewpoint of ESG and that of impact are correlated. In many cases, thefocus of the ESG viewpoint is the result of corporate activities, and the focusof the impact viewpoint is its core consideration on what kind of influence theresults of corporate activities have made and what kind of social effects theoutcome has generated.

The practical scope in evaluating “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” may vary by
the principles of evaluation. Evaluation views from the corporate side may havevaried sets of attention points depending on the management policy andphilosophy or pursuant corporate activities. Evaluation views from otherstakeholders may have different perspectives according to their areas of interestor their attitudes.

Chart 1: The Concept of “Value for Multi-Stakeholders”

vii

2-2

“Value for Society”

The concept of “Value for Society” proposed in this paper indicates the value thatis generated through bringing society into a more desirable condition in the light ofthe common rules under some social consensus. This concept is fundamentally shared
among various bodies including central and local governments, internationalorganizations, NGOs and civil societies, investors and financial entities and private
corporations who are all respectively involved in the processes of solving social issues.
The methods and benchmarks to evaluate “Value for Society” may vary from thestandpoint of what kind of social issues should be focused on. Some kinds of values
should be easy to be measured, whereas some others may not. Or some other values
may take considerable time before their real effects become clearly evident. In
addition, the range on which each body or element produces its outcome in thecreation of “Value for Society” may not be easily separated from other factors.

Chart 2: Players related to the creation of “Value for Society”

viii

2-3 Relation between “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” and “Value for Society”

Among the three viewpoints that form “Value for Multi-Stakeholders,” boththe impact viewpoint and ESG viewpoint are the factors closely associated tocreating “Value for Society,” and these two values do influence each other.



Eradication of child labor at a factory in the supply chain (“Value for MultiStakeholders”) brought total eradication of child labor in that community andthese developments caused the school attendance rate and common knowledge
level to rise (“Value for Society”).

Increase in local school attendance rate (“Value for Society”) enabledneighboring firms to hire well educated workers and to raise productivity andprofits accordingly (“Value for Multi-Stakeholders”).

Whether the “Value for Society” created by a corporation is evaluated andregarded as “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” depends a great deal on social
perception of the related social issues, longtime relationship between the social
issue and the corporate behaviors, and on the sense of values of judging bodies.
Therefore, the relation between “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” and “Value forSociety” should be understood that it does dynamically vary by surrounding
conditions, like time and venue. For example, global climate change has now cometo be widely accepted in society to affect corporate financial figures. In other words,
corporate operations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to cope with global
warming currently gets positive recognition as actions of “Value for MultiStakeholders” even by traditional shareholders and investors as well as otherstakeholders or conscious investors who highly value ESG activities and impact
investments.
An example of abstraction models to help understand these dynamic changes
is shown in chart 3.

ix

Chart 3: Change in the accepting process of “Value for Multi-Stakeholders”

The horizontal and vertical axes in chart 3 show the degree of “Value forMulti-Stakeholders” for shareholders & investors and that of “Value for MultiStakeholders” for other stakeholders respectively. The top-right block indicates thearea of “Shared Value” which has significant value both for shareholders &investors and other stakeholders.
When a company tries to create “Value for Society” through solving social
problems, enhancing projects in area A and area B toward ones in the “Shared
Value” area is essential. In the background, coinciding actions from both
corporations and public sectors are important to increase activities in the “Shared
Value” area.

x

3. Steps to measure and evaluate activities to produce “Value for Society” by acorporation

There are various views regarding procedures to produce “Value for Society”
and the potential scope of it. Clear and unified definitions are not yet shared. In
these circumstances, many groups in public sectors, such as NGOs, civil societies,
central and local governments, who have long been working to solve social problems,
are trying to search for how to measure and evaluate activities to create “Value forSociety” by a corporation. Some other activities are now being promoted to establish
a common framework for it among several stakeholder groups.

3-1 Terms concerning evaluation objects with respect to creation of “Value for Society”

When trying to measure and evaluate “Value for Society,” many approaches
take similar procedures to break down the steps or factors that were created inbusiness activities and to explain them as a series of actions to tackle andaccomplish targets. Dividing the series of processes into several major stages
makes these complex facts a simple-framed story in many cases.
In these attempts, most of the methods use concepts like “Input,” “Output,”“Outcome” and “Impact.” The definitions for “Input” and “Output” are shared incommon among the international community, whereas those of “Outcome” and“Impact” are not unified but made use of for various implications.

3-2

Actions to construct common framework to measure and evaluate activities to

produce “Value for Society” by corporations

Several actions are now being carried out among investors, academia,
corporations and government bodies to establish a common framework to measureand evaluate “Value for Society” produced by a corporation. Some groups try to
add relevant elements of non-financial information into international accounting
standards. These common frameworks are now needed in order to prevent “ImpactxiWashing” which disguises its level of “Value for Society” to be larger than it is, or
to limit free-riding that earns indirect merits with little contribution in creating
it. It will also serve as one of essential rules for establishing a level playing fieldamong corporations.

1) Developing benchmark indexes to evaluate corporate performances for achieving
SDGs- World Benchmark Alliance (WBA)WBA is trying to devise benchmarks that provide an essential tool formeasuring and comparing corporate performances regarding SDGs by 2023. In thisprocess, WBA has identified 2,000 companies whose contribution are definitely
needed in accomplishing SDGs in seven areas where structural transformation is
unavoidable to realize a sustainable world, namely, society, food & agriculture,
decarbonisation & energy, circulation, digital, urban city and financial system.
(WBA was established in 2018, by core members of the UN Foundation, an insurancecompany in UK, Aviva, a NGO in the Netherlands, Index Initiative.)2) Developing new structure of financial statements with the concept of externality- Impact-Weighted Accounts (IWA)

IWA projects to create financial accounts that reflect a company’s financial,social and environmental performance. The final goal is to create accounting
statements that transparently capture external impacts in a way that drives investor
and managerial decision making and to organize a practical methodology that is
adopted and widely used by investors and companies.
(IWA is a project started in 2019, headed by Prof. George Serafeim at Harvard
Business School.)3) Model scheme building by frontier corporations- Value Balancing Alliance (VBA)

VBA is a non-profit organization that tries to change the way company
performance is measured and valued. The alliance is trying to create a global impactxii

measurement standard for disclosing positive and negative impacts of corporate
activity and to provide guidance on how these impacts can be integrated into business
management. The project focuses on standardizing how to assess and monetize thevalue of a company and its contributions to society, designing a disclosure frame tocompare performance across companies, developing a blueprint in business
management and scaling the uptake of impact measurement and valuation
methodology.
(VBA was founded in 2019 and is currently joined by 9 international corporations.
Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings has joined the group from Japan.)4)

Evaluation of social impact by classification - Taxonomy

EU has placed “sustainable finance” as one of the important pillar policies
under the need to build a single market for capital. In March 2020, the European
Commission’s Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (TEG) published its
final report on “EU Taxonomy,” which set forth its recommendations regarding thedesign and implementation of a unified classification system. The EU Taxonomy
shows what economic activities are considered environmentally sustainable withconcrete standards and clear criteria, and contains a draft of 68 climate change
adaptation activities in 7 sectors.
Shortly before this final report, in December 2019, the European Council andthe European Parliament reached political agreement on the text of a proposed
Regulation on the Establishment of a Framework to Facilitate Sustainable
Investment – the so-called “Taxonomy Regulation.” The regulation will require
financial firms and non-financial firms to provide the degree of environmental
sustainability of their businesses with regard to the taxonomy standards andcriteria.
In the near future, the regulation of taxonomy standards and criteria of eachbusiness activity will be legislated as an EU delegated act by the European
Commission in line with the TEG final report.

5) Creation of impact through investment- Impact Investment

Several international groups intend to measure and evaluate investmentxiii

effects on SDGs with regard both to investment impact on society and to financial
value of risk and return. For example, the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN)
set up the definition of “impact investing” and estimated the amount of related
investments. SDG Impact seeks to establish standards to certify investors andenterprises that have authentic alignment with the standards.
(GIIN is organized with leadership of the Rockefeller Foundation. SDG Impact is agroup powered by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).)

6) A initiative by the accounting standards body to set up a framework to describe
related information

The International Accounting Standards Board(IASB) that developinternational financial reporting standards (IFRS) is now projecting to draft
guidance of Management Commentary (MC) which is a narrative report on nonfinancial information that complements the financial statements and is part ofgeneral purpose financial reporting. This guidance is a non-binding framework for
preparing management commentary, and it is different from prerequisite rules forfinancial statements.
At the same time, EU intends to lead drafting of disclosure standards regarding
non-financial information, and a European group proposed in public to establish
another international non-financial reporting standards board apart from IASB.

3-3

Corporate efforts to create “Value for Society” and actions to measure and evaluate

the outcome

1) Corporate efforts to create “Value for Society”

When reviewing corporate creation of “Value for Society,” one practical way is
to break down the effects by scope of corporate businesses. However, methods ofmeasurement and evaluation or actual reliability of the results depend largely on thescope of the target.
The basic unit of a corporate activity is a specific business project, which is abusiness project for acquiring profits or, in some cases, a philanthropic activity. The

xiv

largest unit, on the other hand, is a corporation as a whole. The scope of evaluation
for this unit covers the entire organization, and its main target is the behaviors of
top management.
The level of expenses to measure “Value for Society” also vary widely by thescope and methods of measurement or the reliability level of the output, which should
be designed based on the purpose of the research.

2)

An organized internal management system to increase “Value for Multi-

Stakeholders” and to create “Value for Society”

An organized internal management system is essentially needed to create
integrated values by incorporating social demands into business operations. The
arranged management system requires its principles to be shared with all membersof top management, project groups and employees. The following steps aresuggested:a) Analyzing mega-trends, revising corporate principles and clarifying businesspurposesb) Establishing long-term corporate vision and introducing back-casting thinkingc) Devising a business model to create shared valuesd) Instituting a strategy for sustainable operatione) Integrating existing projects toward management strategy and implementing
PDCA cycle managementf)Disclosing information to stakeholders and inviting them to engageg) Setting the playing field and controlling businesses activities to be sustainable3) Current ideas to measure and evaluate “Value for Society” of a corporation

A logical explanation as a consistent story is substantial in disclosing
information on the created “Value for Society” to stakeholders. Some means havebeen devised in this regard. The Logic Model method, the approach to organize thepathway to achieve goals or to clarify the causality between inputs and impacts, isperceived as a useful standard these days. The London Benchmarking Group (LBG)
Model puts focus on the quality and quantity of inputs. The Social Return on

xv

Investment (SROI) Model tries to monetize and quantify values created for society.
Other methods of corporations that show their unique indexes concerning the effects
on society of their own products and services should be helpful to their employees
and investors & shareholders. At the same time, this approach should be objectively
examined or monitored so as not to be “washing” to disguise the real situation, forexample by showing clear linkage to SDGs targets.
Recently some corporations in the US and Europe have attempted to put
together and disclose their own “Integrated Profit & Loss Statements” or “Value
Added Statements” that quantify “Value for Society” of the whole corporation inmonetary figures.

xvi

4. [Suggestions] Encouraging corporate creation of “Value for Society” to accomplish
SDGs

4-1

Leadership by top management to create an integrated set of “Value for Multi-

Stakeholders” and “Value for Society”

A corporation is required to find the best process to perform value creation fromclear target setting to acquiring proper results as well as to allocate necessary
resources under both short-term and long-term timeframe management, while havingin mind the importance of integrating “Value for Multi-Stakeholders” and “Value forSociety.” It is the privilege and the competence of top management to establish the
pursuant strategy of the firm, select suitable steps among alternative choices, andestablish an internal structure to implement the processes. The critical elements inthese points are to envision a long-term business environment on the basis of
scrutinized analysis of mega trends in the global society, to build up a practicalbusiness model that enables both financial profit and solution of social issues, todesign and carry out tactics to pursue the model with improved company structure,
to arrange governing programs for supporting sufficient progress of the processes, andto invite engagement from stakeholders for related discussion, cooperation andcoalition.

4-2

Self-evaluation of the information regarding creation of “Value for Society”

An important element of the creation of “Value for Society” by a corporation is toassess the created value by itself to move the management cycle forward by making
proper decisions in allocating management resources in a balanced way and to acquiresufficient understanding among stakeholders. Management is asked to determine thetarget of its businesses, the clear and logical roadmap to reach the target with methods,
e.g. logic model, and to internally share the situation of actions and results as a visible
workflow from inputs to outputs. Furthermore, the scope of produced outcome should
be examined during these tasks.
In these processes, negative effects should be sufficiently taken into account,xvii

and perfunctory measurement to obtain superficial figures should be avoided.

4-3

Positive disclosure of information and upgrading activities to shared value typewith dialogue and engagement

It is essentially significant for a corporation to disclose its information in apositive manner and to promote dialogue and engagement with shareholders, sothat their activities to create integrated value of both “Value for Multi-Stakeholders”
and “Value for Society” can be appreciated by stakeholders including investors, civilsocieties, with the aim of boosting the idea of “Shared Value” among all related
stakeholders keeping in mind that creation of “Value for Society” is its own “Valuefor Multi-Stakeholders”.
The target of the approach is not limited to outside of the company.
Management policies under the integrated thinking should be sufficiently shared
among internal employees. This is not always easy to perform, and may, in somecases, require constructing a new culture of the whole organization.

4-4

Inviting to cooperative activities with other corporations and entities

Coinciding activities among various entities are crucial in creating more
substantial “Value for Society” to solve complicated social issues. Corporations areencouraged to urge other companies in the supply chains to collaborate, to take partin initiatives of each business sector, or to cooperate with related NGOs in dealing
with specific issues. Collective impact, or producing wide-ranged effects throughcollaborative actions in the eco-system made up of varied entities should be
developed and supported, which may not be accomplished by one company.

4-5

Role of stakeholders to encourage creation of “Value for Society” by a corporation

Suppliers of financial capitals like institutional investors are encouraged tosupport corporate creation of integrated value of both “Value for Multi-Stakeholders”

xviiiand “Value for Society” in the medium and long-term timeframe based on theirvalue standards. Industry associations are also requested to lead the constructionof a system of coalition framework that is not performed by just one company.
Examples of this framework are to identify the prior and common targets, to develop
cooperative initiative for tackling the issues, or to put together concrete measures
to evaluate the results. NGOs are also invited to provide their specialized
experiences in establishing an effective framework for cooperative actions.
The Japanese government is asked to arrange an institutional scheme for thatcooperative framework and to help establish a platform for collective actions and toencourage actual cooperative actions through that framework.

/END/

xix

Outlines of CSR Forum of JapanCSR Forum of Japan was established by Business Policy Forum, Japan in
2004, with support from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, so as
toencourage

effortsofJapanesecompanies

for

Corporate

SocialResponsibility (CSR).
Since then, the forum that consists of major Japanese companies, businessorganizations and NPOs in related fields, has been a unique CSR network inJapan that has worked to put together and disseminate survey reports every
year in the following viewpoints;-

Providing relevant experiences, insights and the up-to-date
information on CSR to companies.

-

Studying the ways to enhance CSR policies and related businesses
activities.

-

Promoting communication and collaboration between companies andrelated organizations.

(Survey Reports from 2015 to 2020)
2020-

Encouraged actions to create “Value for Society” by corporations toachieve SDGs

2019-

Investigative Research on How “Business and Human Rights”
Should BE for the New Era

2018-

Investigative Research Report on Ideal Non-financial Information
Disclosure in the New Era

2017-

Investigative Research Report Concerning the Desirable State ofEfforts and Partnerships with International Organizations, theGovernment, and the Industrial World Aimed at Resolving Social
Issues (Such as the SDGs)

2016-

Research report on international strategies of CSR towards
strengthening Japanese companies’ competitivenessxx

Member of CSR Forum of Japan（the chair）
Tetsuyuki Kagaya

Associate Professor,

Hitotsubashi University

Department of Business Administration（the adviser）
Yoshihiro Fujii

Research Institute for Environmental
Finance

Representative Director（the committee）
Youzou Nakao

Talent Development Group,

AJINOMOTO CO,INC

Human Resources Department
General Manager,

Akihiro Inatsugi

Bridgestone Corporation

Corporate Sustainability Department,
Corporate Communication Division

Katsuji Imata

CSO Network Japan

Managing Director
Associate , Innovation Promotion Office,Yasuaki Tojo

Development Bank of Japan Inc.

Business

Planning&

Coordination

Department
Japan CCaSS Leader, Principal, Climate
Keiichi Ushijima

Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC

ChangeandSustainability

Services(CCaSS)
Akiko Izumi

FUJI OIL HOLDINGS INC.

Manager,
CSR Team, ESG Management Group
Director, corporate Environmental andMimi Togoe

CSR Strategy Unit ,CSR and SustainableFujitsu limited

Development

Strategy Div, Responsible

Management Dept.
Norio Masuda

Sato Kan Hiroshi

Senior Manager , Planning Department,

Hitachi, Ltd.

Sustainability Promotion Division

Institute ofChief Senior Researcher ,Developing Economies

Research Planning Departmentxxi

Hitoshi Suzuki

Fumi Sugeno

Masaru AraiJapan Network for Public Interest
Activities
Japan Social Innovation
and Investment Foundation (SIIF)

Deputy Secretary General

Head of Businesss Development

Japan Sustainable Investment Forum Chair
Hermes EOS

Senior Consultant
Vice

Haruo Hatanaka

Kao Corporation

President, Sustainability PlanningGroup,
Corporate Strategy

Keidanren ，Director,

Japan Business Federation

SDGs Promotion Bureau

Hidemi Tomita

Lloyd’s Register Japan KK

Senior Project Principal

Yohko Sekizaki

MARUI GROUP CO. , LTD.

Namiko Akashi

Panasonic Corporation

Masao Seki

SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE INC.

Tomoko Hasegawa

General Manager ,Sustainability Department
Assistant Chief, CSR & Planning Section,
CSR & Citizenship Department
Senior Advisor on CSR
General Manager , Corporate

Mitsu Shippee

Sony Corporation

Social Responsibility Section, Corporate
Communications & CSR Department

Tsukasa Kanai

Eiichiro Adachi
Shigeki Matsui

SUMITOMO MITSUI TRUST BANK,LIMITED
The

Japan

Executive Manager andChief Sustainability Officer,
Corporate Planning Department

Research

Institute,

LimitedToray industries, Inc.

Counselor
General manager , CSR Operations Dept.
Group

Noriko Nakano

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATIONManager,External

Affairs

Research Group,
Sustainability Management Dept.

xxii

&

（Observer）
Kayo Matsumoto

Ministry of Economy, Trade Industry

Director,

Corporate

Accounting,Disclosure and CSR Policy Office
Accounting Standard Chief,

Yuko Ishikawa

Ministry of Economy, Trade Industry

Corporate Accounting,Disclosure andCSR Policy Office（Secretariat）
Kenyu Adachi

Business Policy Forum,Japan

Chairman of the boad of Directors

Tetsu Fukuoka

Business Policy Forum,Japan

Director general

Eiichi Shida

Business Policy Forum,Japan

Hiroaki Konishi

Business Policy Forum,Japan

Takeshi Nozawa

Lloyd’s Register Japan KK

Researcher

Keiko Kondo

Lloyd’s Register Japan KK

Researcher

xxiii

General manager ,Planning & research div.
Senior researcher ,Planning & research div.