Survey Report on Overseas Business Operations
by Japanese Manufacturing Companies-Results of JBIC FY2003 Survey:
Outlook for Japanese Foreign Direct Investment (15th Annual Survey) -November 2003

JBIC InstituteJapan Bank for International Cooperation

p.1【Contents 】

Ⅰ．Overview of the Survey Method……………………………………… 2
Ⅱ．Summary……………………………………………………………… 4
Ⅲ．Survey Results………………………………………………………… 5
4. Topics

1. Prospects for Overseas and Domestic Business Operations
over the Medium Term
・ Prospects for Overseas Business Operations over the Medium
Term ………………………………………………………………

5

・ Overseas Sales Volume Ratio and Overseas Production Ratio……

6

・ Prospects for Domestic Business Operations over the Medium
Term (Effect of Overseas Business Operations)…………………

7

2. Prospects for Overseas Business Operations by Region
・Regions for strengthening and expansion…………………………… 8
・Functions for strengthening and expansion…………………………10
・External factors……………………………………………………… 11
・The Impact of SARS………………………………………………… 12
3. Evaluation of Overseas Business Performance・All regions………………………………………………………………13・ASEAN4 and Time series comparison……………………………… 14
・Time series comparison of evaluation reasons………………………15
・Comparison of evaluation reasons for major industries……………16・Free Trade Agreements…………………………………………17
・The impact of China’s WTO Entry……………………………18
5. Promising Countries for Overseas Business
Operations over the Medium Term
19
・Ranking and the existence of business plans……………………
・Reasons for promising prospect…………………………………20
・Issues for promising countries………………………………… 21〇 Appendix
Appendix 1・・・・・ External Factors Affecting the Mediumterm Outlook for Business Operations~Competing companies~

22

Appendix 2・・・・・ Promising Countries for Overseas Business
Operations ~Reasons of promisingprospects for the top ten countries~

23

Appendix 3・・・・・ Promising countries for Overseas Business
Operations ~Issues for the top ten
countries~

24

p.2

【Ⅰ. Overview of the Survey Method 】
The purpose of this survey is to identify the current
1/
and future trends of overseas business operations andforeign direct investment (FDI) activities of Japanesemanufacturing companies. This year’s survey was the
15th of an annual series that began in 1989.
The survey covered 932 manufacturing companies
that have three or more foreign affiliates, including atleast one manufacturing base, as of November 2002.
The questionnaire was mailed on July 1, 2003. 571
valid responses were returned over the period from
July to September. The effective response rate was
61.3%. (In the FY2002 survey, valid returns were 508
out of 812 companies surveyed, with the response rateof 62.6%)
This year’s survey additionally looked into “theimpact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome(SARS)” and “Free Trade Agreements”.
Note 1：Overseas business operations are defined as production, sales,
research and development activities in overseas bases, as well as
outsourcing of manufacturing and procurement overseas.

Companies Surveyed, Response Rateand Overseas Affiliates
Number of companies surveyed
Number of respondent
Response rate
Number of overseas affiliates

FY2002
812
508
62.6
8,924

FY2001
792
501
63.3
7,710

FY2000
791
469
59.3
7,285

(1) Number of respondent companies,
by paid-in capital (Individual company base)
Number ofcompanies %45 7.9%less than \100 million
56 9.8%\100 million ～ less than \500 million
29 5.1%\500 million ～ less than \1.0 billion
124 21.7%\1.0 billion ～ less than \5.0 billion
88 15.4%\5.0 billion ～ less than \10.0 billion
less than \10.0 billion or more
229 40.1%
Total
571 100.0%(2) Number of respondent companies,
by annual sales (Consolidated base)
Number ofcompanies %less than \50.0 billion
235 42.0%
97 17.3%\50.0 billion ～ less than \100.0 billion
74 13.2%\100.0 billion ～ less than \200.0 billion
35 6.3%\200.0 billion ～ less than \300.0 billion
44 7.9%\300.0 billion ～ less than \500.0 billion
less than \1.0 trillion
31 5.5%\500.0 billion ～44 7.9%\1.0 trillion or more
Tot al560 100.0%※ 11 companies did not provide this information(3) Number of respondent companies,
by number of employees (Individual company base)(Unit: Companies, %)FY2003
932
571
61.3
9,838

Profile of Companies
Surveyed

FY1999
786
472
60.1
7,225

Number ofcompanies
101
300 employees or less
74
301 to 500 employees
115
501 to 1,000 employees
118
1,001 to 2,000 employees
95
2,001 to 5,000 employees
38
5,001 to 10,000 employees
20
10,001 to 30,000 employees
930,001 or more employees
Total
570
※ One company did not provide this information

%
17.7%
13.0%
20.2%
20.7%
16.7%
6.7%
3.5%
1.6%
100.0%(4) Number of respondent companies,
by industrial classification
Industrial classification
Foodstuffs
TextilesWood and wood products
Paper and pulp
Chemicals[Chemicals (excluding pharmaceuticals)][Pharmaceuticals]Petroleum and rubber
Ceramics, cement and glass
Steel
Nonferrous metals
Metal products
General machinery[Assembled products][Components]
Electrical equipment and electronics[Assembled products][Components]
Transportation (excluding Automobiles)
Automobiles[Assembled vehicles][Components]
Precision machinery[Assembled machinery][Components]
Other
Total

Number ofcompanies

％

22
3.9%
17
3.0%
3
0.5%
7
1.2%
89 15.6%(75) (13.1%)(14) (2.5%)
11
1.9%
15
2.6%
15
2.6%
19
3.3%
23
4.0%
64 11.2%(49) (8.6%)(15) (2.6%)
110 19.3%(33) (5.8%)(77) (13.5%)
12
2.1%
90 15.8%(10) (1.8%)(80) (14.0%)35
6.1%(25) (4.4%)(10) (1.8%)39
6.8%
571 100.0%

p.3

Profile of Companies Surveyed （Continued）(5) Number of overseas affiliates, by type of base and by region
Other Asian
countries(Unit: Companies)
North
America

Latin
America

CentralEastern
EuropeOther
Europeancountries

Russia &other CISSoutheast
Asia PacificMiddle East
& Africa

Total

NIES

ASEAN4

China

Production bases
Sales bases
R&D bases
Other
Total

644
864
21
117
1,646

1,157
418
18
88
1,681

1,105
424
29
90
1,648

161
57
3
10
231

729
719
88
255
1,791

212
155
53
420

460
1,067
48
208
1,783

70
80
3
11
164

17
64
8
89

6
22
3
31

58
138
6
34
236

43
65
10
118

4,662
4,073
216
887
9,838

Outsourcing
production bases

41

58

115

15

37

6

11

-

1

-

1

5

290

EU

※The following is the classification of major regions in this survey:
Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong
Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines
U.S., Canada
U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece,
Luxembourg, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Sweden,
IrelandCentral and Eastern Europe Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania,
Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Yugoslavia (Serbia,
Montenegro), Bosnia and Herzegovina

Northeastern China: Heilongjiang Province, Jilin Province, and Liaoning Province
Northern China: Beijing, Tientsin, Hebei Province, and Shandong Province
Eastern China: Shanghai, Jiangsu Province, Anhui Province, and Zhejiang ProvinceSouthern China: Fujian Province, Guangdong Province, and Hainan Province
Inland China: Provinces other than those mentioned above and autonomous regions

Changing of Overseas Manufacturing Bases in Major Regions

Changing of Overseas Affiliates in Major Regions

NIES：
ASEAN4：
North America：EU：

We divided China into five regions (Northeastern China, Northern China, Eastern
China, Southern China, and inland China) in the FY2003 survey. These five regions
consisted of the following provinces and administrative districts:

2,000(Unit : companies)

1,200(Unit : companies)

EU

North
America

ASEAN4
1,000
1,500

North
America

800

1,000

600

400

200

NIES

EU

500

Other AsianCountries

China

NIES
Other AsianCountries

ASEAN4

China
0

0

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01 02

03

(Unit : year)

89

90

91 92

93

94

95 96

97

98

99

00 01 02

03 (Unit : year)

NIES

ASEAN4

Other Asian countries

NIES

ASEAN4

Other Asian countries

China

North America

EU

China

North America

EU※Data for China starts from FY1993. Data for Other Asian countries starts from FY1996.

p.4【Ⅱ．Summary】■ Continuing trend to strengthening and expansion of overseas business■ Expansion in the size and improvement in the quality of business in China

Questioned on their stance toward overseas business in the medium term (next three
years), an average of 78.3% of respondents in all industries said “strengthen and expand theoverseas business operations”. This shows a decline by 1.3% point from the FY2002 survey,
but the attitude toward overseas business operations remains aggressive.

This year’s survey found an improvement from the preceding year in the evaluation ofbusiness in China. However, while the scale of business in China will be expanded andstrengthened, the question of which way profitability will move is closely related to matters suchas the strategies adopted by Japanese-affiliated business in China, and should be analyzed
carefully. As related companies from Japan move into China, their satisfaction with businessprofitability could rise, with expanding trading relationships and their equipment moving intofull-scale operation. However, competition in the market will intensify for these companies, andit will be important for them to make qualitative improvements in their business management inorder to maintain and enhance their edge.

■ Expanded production of higher value-added products in JapanOn the impact of overseas business development on domestic operations in the medium
term (next three years), the most commonly selected response, by 40.3% of respondents, was“products previously made in Japan will be moved to production at overseas bases, but we will
tackle other products and fields in Japan to fill in the resulting gap”. Of the companies whichgave that answer, 84.3% said “ ’other products and fields’ in Japan would mean ‘specializationin higher value-added products ”. Clearly, most companies have been dividing their production
between domestic and overseas business, aiming to shift production with higher value-added
products to Japan. As for the means of doing so, many companies said “strengthening
cooperation between marketing and related departments with development departments”(52.2%) and “Selection and concentration of R&D resources” (42.1%).

■ Positive action is required to promote use of FTAs
The first FTA for Japan was agreed between Singapore in January 2002 (called the Japan
Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement (JSEPA)). Besides the question of using JSEPA in
business or not, 41.9% of respondent companies said that they were “aware of the content of theagreement”. Of the companies doing business, such as import-export, with Singapore, 5.7% said
they were “making use of the agreement” in their business. In interviews with those respondentcompanies, many said “because we heard that the movement of goods to Japan was smoother”,
and there were a few which said “it is our strategy to set up bases in countries that haveconcluded FTAs and have lower import tariffs”.

■ Strongly positive stance to China, Central and Eastern Europe and North America
Asked for their stance to overseas business operations in the medium term (next 3 years orso), the region for which the highest proportion of companies said they would “strengthen andexpand the overseas business operations” was China (73.9%), continuing the preceding year’s
These results indicate that recognition and use of JSEPA are not so high at present. The
trend towards strengthening and expansion. China was followed by Central and Eastern Europe situation appears to be because companies do not know how to use it in their business, or are(58.1%), North America (52.6%) and the EU (46.6%). One characteristic of this year’s survey
simply unaware of the content of the agreement, and therefore positive action is required tois that companies’ stance to strengthen and expand their business in Central and Eastern Europe promote the use and understanding of the JSEPA and other FTAs.
had reinforced.

■ SARS had an impact on the business of 61% of companies■ Vietnam and India are rising, and Russia entered the top ten for the first time

The outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) which hit Asia and othercountries around the world for several months, starting in March 2003, had some impact on theoperations of 61.4% of respondent companies. Interviews with companies on the specific typesof impact found that some had increased inventory in readiness for factory stoppages (electricalequipment and electronics etc.), but most reported inability to send engineers from Japan forcommissioning overseas factories, delaying startups (automobile components etc.).

When asked about their promising countries for business operations in themedium term, the top three countries in this survey were the same as the preceding
year, but Indonesia, 4th until last year, fell to 6th, replaced by Vietnam in 4th place andIndia in 5th place. In a notable development, Russia, which appeared in 16th place inthe last year’s survey, rose further to enter the top ten for the first time in this year’s
survey.

■ Overall evaluation has improved■ From future expectations to actual businesses

Respondent companies’ evaluation of satisfaction with sales and profitability from theiroverseas business had worsened in all regions other than ASEAN4 in the FY2002 survey, but
the FY2003 survey showed some trend to improvement in all regions and countries. However,while FY2003 survey showed relatively high levels of satisfaction in the NIES, ASEAN4 andChina, business evaluations of Central and Eastern Europe, the EU, North America and Latin
America remained low. Considering the survey result indicating bullish sentiment forstrengthening and expansion of business operations in North America and Central and Eastern
Europe in the medium term, improvement of profitability in these countries and regions is an
important issue for the future.

Inquiring whether actual business plans are in companies for each promisingcountries, a high proportion of companies said of the top three countries, China,
Thailand and the USA, that “we have business plans, including new business entry”.
On the other hand, though Vietnam and Russia made remarkable advances up the
rankings in this survey, around 80% of companies said they had “no actual businessplans at present” for those countries. Companies are growing increasingly interested inthese emerging countries, but their expectations are booming more than action. It will
be important to think how to link these expectations to actual business.

III. Survey Results １．Prospects for Overseas and Domestic Business Operation

p.5【Prospects for Overseas Business Operations over the Medium Term】
Figure1 Prospects for Overseas Business Operations over the
Medium Term (next 3 years or so) (by major industry)

Will maintain thesize of overseas
business
operations at thepresent level
Will strengthen or
expand overseas
business
operations

60%

85

90.9%

40% 78.3%

76.5%
68.8%

80.8%
78.1%

90.0%

0%

FY 2002 Survey
80%
60%
40%

23

21

79

51

97

81

(Companies)

24

30.0

20.0
13.7 14.1

15.1 14.8

16.1

17.3

19.0 19.2

21.7 20.9 21.1

23.0

24.3

27.6
25.9
(Medium-term plan)

Actual value

Planned value

0.0
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02■ Continuing trend to strengthening and expansion ofoverseas business

2.1% 7.4%
12.5%
15.5%
20.0%26.1%
25.5%
29.1%
33.3%

Questioned on their stance toward overseas business in the medium
term (next three years), an average of 78.3% of respondents in allindustries said “strengthen and expand the overseas business operations”.
This shows a decline by 1.3% point from the FY2002 survey, but theattitude toward overseas business operations remains aggressive.

92.6%87.5%
82.5%
79.6%73.9%
74.5%
66.7%70.9%■ Overseas production ratios rose for the fourthconsecutive year

20%
0%Planned value for FY2003
33.1

Overall industrial average for
FY2002：25.9%

10.0

All industries
Textiles Chemicals
Automobiles
Foodstuffs
General machinery
Precision
Electrical equipment & electronics（n = 467）

40.0

70.6%

20%

495
100% 0.4%Note) Definition ofoverseas business: In
addition to activities suchas manufacturing,marketing and R&D atoverseas bases, thedefinition includes
outsourced production,purchasing etc.

16(Companies)

64 104 90
34
100%
1.6%
9.1%
10.0%
FY 2003 Survey
21.5%
23.5%20.3%19.2%
29.4%
31.3%
80%
Will reduce orwithdraw fromoverseas business
operations

22

（％）

558

Figure2 Changing Patterns of Overseas
Production Ratio (overall industrial average)

All industries
Textiles Chemicals
Automobiles
Foodstuffs
General machinery
Precision
Electrical equipment & electronics

When companies were asked for their actual values of overseas
production ratios in FY2002, the average responses of all industries was
25.9%, the fourth consecutive year of increase. When asked for theirplanned values for FY2003, and for the medium term plans to FY2006,
the average responses were 27.6% and 33.1% respectively, indicating thatmany companies plan to expand their overseas production in future.

p.6【Overseas Sales Volume Ratio and Overseas Production Ratio】
Figure 3 Overseas Production Ratio and Overseas Sales Volume
Ratio (FY2002 actual value: by industry)【Overseas Production Ratio】

Overseas Sales Volume Ratio (%)

50％（n=531）

FY 2002 Actual Base
Automobiles [Assembled products]

40％

Figure 4 Overseas Production Ratio and Overseas
Sales Volume Ratio (for major industries)

Precision machinery [Assembled products]
Chemicals (excluding
pharmaceuticals)

Transportation

Electrical equipment and electronics[Assembled products]
Electrical equipment and electronics[Components]
Precision machinery[Components]

General machinery
30％[Assembled products]
General machinery[Components]
Petroleum and rubber
Chemicals
Automobiles [Components]
Nonferrous metals
Ceramics, cement and glass
Metal
products
Other
Wood and wood products

20％

Pharmaceuticals

10％
10％

【Overseas Sales Volume Ratio】

All industries
Chemicals
General machinery
E&E
Automobiles

Number of Fiscal 2002 Fiscal 2003
respondentactualestimated
531
27.8%
29.3%
82
24.6%
26.1%
63
28.0%
30.1%
99
40.9%
42.4%
86
26.4%
28.3%

Overall industrial average(overseas production ratio 25.9%,
overseas sales volume ratio 27.8%)

Steel
Paper and pulp

Number of Fiscal 2002 Fiscal 2003 Mediumrespondent actual value estimated term plan
All industries
467
27.6%
33.1%
25.9%
Chemicals
74
22.4%
26.5%
21.5%
General machinery
54
20.2%
26.9%
18.9%
E&E
87
40.9%
47.2%
38.6%
Automobiles
73
29.1%
34.9%
26.6%

Foodstuffs

20％■ Overseas sales volume ratios are also expected to rise

Textiles30％
40％
Overseas production ratio (%)

50％（n=467）*Overseas Production Ratio = (Overseas production volume) / (Domestic production
volume + Overseas production volume), outsourcing productions are not included.
**Overseas Sales Volume Ratio＝(Overseas sales volume)/ (Domestic production volume＋Overseas production volume)***The points above are based on average values per company in each industry.

Companies reported that an average of 27.8% of their sales, fromall industries, came from overseas operations in FY2002. Their forecasts
for FY2003 average 29.3% over all industries, indicating that Japanesemanufacturing companies expect their overseas sales to increase.

■ Disparities between industries
When overseas production ratios and sales volume ratios in
FY2002 were collated by industry, the production and sales volume
ratios in assembled vehicles, electrical equipment and electronics,
precision machinery were relatively high, at approximately 40%,
showing a difference in overseas business weighting from otherindustries whose ratios were 30% or below.

【Prospects for Domestic Business Operations over the Medium Term (Effect of Overseas
Business Operations) 】
Figure 5 Stance on Domestic Business Operations over the
Medium Term (next 3 years or so)

Figure 6 Details of “Efforts in Other Products andProduct Areas” in Domestic Productionin JapanSpecializingin higher value-added products

Since overseas investment aims at maintaining and expanding the market
share of sales from (and/or exports and imports from) overseas production
bases, there will be no effect on domestic business operations.

80.8%
84.3%

33.1%

Expanding production of standard products

Since products produced overseas differ from domestically produced
products, there will be no effect on domestic operations.

4.7%
6.0%

8.2%

Moving to new product areas

While the production of product lines that used to be produced domestically isshifting to overseas, domestic production will focus on other products andproduct areas, filling in the resulting gap.

36.3%
48.1%
Currently considering specific measures

40.3%

9.8%

Domestic business operations will decrease because overseas production
will replace domestic production

13.4%

15.6%

OthersOthersn = 538

2.8%
0%

5%

0.5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1.4%

40% 45%0%

Figure 7 Ways of Efforts to Raise Added Value inDomestic Products and Services (multiple responses)

10%

FY 2003 Survey（n = 216）

FY 2002 Survey（n = 194)20%

60% 70% 80% 90%

30%

Unclear/ other

6.0%

28.2%
Strengthening cooperation between marketing and related departmentswith development departments

Strengthening and expansion ofoverseas business has reduced
domestic employment.

52.2%
Joint development and expertise sharing with other companies
25.4%
Cooperation with universities and other external research agencies inJapan and overseas
31.8%
Selection and concentration of R&D resources

25.5%

Strengthening andexpansion of overseas
business has helped tomaintain domestic
employment

42.1%
Rapid development of products using the latest technology
33.4%
Others

0%

6.8%
10%

20%

n = 515
30%

40%

50%

50%

Figure 8 Linkage between Domestic Employment
and Overseas Business over the Last Three Years

Cooperation and information sharing between multiple product development projects

2.3%
Under consideration at present

40%

60%

7.6%

Strengthening andexpansion of overseas
business has increased 2.5%
domestic employment

Weak linkage between
strengthening andexpansion of overseas
business and growthor decline in domestic
employment

58.4%

n = 529

p.7■ Expanded production ofhigher value-added products inJapan
On the impact of overseas businessdevelopment on domestic operations in themedium term (next three years), the mostcommonly selected response, by 40.3% of
respondents, was “products previously
made in Japan will be moved to production
at overseas bases, but we will tackle otherproducts and fields in Japan to fill in the
resulting gap”. Of the companies whichgave that answer, 84.3% said “ ’otherproducts and fields’ in Japan would mean
‘specialization in higher value-added
products ”. Clearly, most companies havebeen dividing their production between
domestic and overseas business, aiming toshift production with higher value-added
products to Japan. As for the means of
doing so, many companies said
“strengthening cooperation between
marketing and related departments with
development departments” (52.2%) and“Selection and concentration of R&D
resources” (42.1%).

■ Weak linkage between
expansion of overseas businessand domestic employment
On the impact of overseas business on
domestic employment over the last three
years, 58.4% of companies responded that
there was a “weak linkage”. While thesituation differed between industries, theresults suggest that the construction of aninternational division of labor isprogressing.

p.8

2.【Prospects for Overseas Business Operations by Region ～all regions～】
Figure9

FY 2003 Survey

FY 2002 Survey(n = 588)
（954）
（301）
403 157 322 117 77
70 97 (Companies)（1016）（987）
100%
3.9% 4.0% 0.2% 2.3% 2.5% 5.1% 3.1% 0.9% 2.6% 0.0% 1.0%

53.4%
60% 65.9%

44.9%
56.5%

41.0%
50.3%

100%

69.4%

60%

75.3%

52.6%
41.2%

69

50

79 (Companies)

28.7%
46.8%

64.2%

54.0% 50.0%
68.1% 68.0%

63.8%

25.5%

Will reduce or withdraw from overseas
business operations

30.9%

22.1%

Will maintain the size of overseas business
operations at the present levelNote) Definition of overseas
business: In addition toactivities such as
manufacturing, marketing and
R&D at overseas bases, thedefinition includes outsourced
production, purchasing etc.

44.2%

20%

38.6%36.1%

China
ASEAN4

Will strengthen or expand overseas
business operations

94

77.2%

70.1%
58.1%
46.6%

Middle East &Other European
North
Latin EU
Africacountries
America America
Russia, otherCentral andOther Asian countries,
CIS
Eastern Europe
Southeast Asia Pacific

NIES

289

40%

73.9%
42.7%
30.1%

163

53.0%

61.4%62.9%(n = 492)

372

5.0% 2.7% 1.2% 3.0% 6.7% 2.8% 3.2% 2.9% 2.0% 1.3%

80%

40%

0%

(865)

25.9%

80%

20%

(837)
(822)

0%

NIES

China
ASEAN450.3%

43.3% 46.8%
29.4%

29.0% 30.0%

21.5%

Middle East &Other European
North
Latin EU
Africacountries
America America
FormerCentral andSoviet Union
Eastern Europe* Individual questions about the NIES, ASEAN4 and China have been included since the FY2002 survey, andquestions about other individual Asian and Pacific countries were added for the first time in the FY2003 survey(details on the next page). Shares of total values for each country and area in such regions in the figure above
have been calculated. For other Asian and Pacific countries, the classifications of the countries included havechanged, thus only the figures for this year’s survey are presented here. This year’s survey has also renamed the“Former Soviet Union” to “Russia and other CIS” and moved the three Baltic states to “Other European
countries”. Figures in parentheses are total numbers of responses for each region.

■ Strongly positive stance to China, Central and Eastern Europe and North America
Asked for their stance to overseas business operations in the medium term (next 3 years or so), the region for which the highest proportion of companies
said they would “strengthen and expand the overseas business operations” was China (73.9%), continuing the preceding year’s trend towards strengthening andexpansion. China was followed by Central and Eastern Europe (58.1%), North America (52.6%) and the EU (46.6%). One characteristic of this year’s survey isthat companies’ stance to strengthen and expand their business in Central and Eastern Europe had reinforced.

p.9

2. 【Prospects for Overseas Business Operations by Region ～major Asian regions～】
Figure10
237
100%

1.7%

NIES
287
5.6%

ASEAN4260
5.0%

232 (Companies)
3.0%

80%

331

228

233

CHINA
162

1.2%

4.4%

7.3%

4.3%

80%
66.2%

73.5%

69.0%

54.8%

60%

191
0.5%

351
0.0%

0.0%

17.4%

19.1%

29.8%

60.5%

40%
43.9%

20%
28.2%

0%
Korea

Taiwan

204

241

21.5%

82.6%

226

194

4.9%

6.2%

5.3%

3.1%

80%
60%

293
100% 0.7%
80%

64.7%

70.8%

64.4%

40%

40%

20%

20%

39.2%

32.5%

29.0%

23.9%

TaiwanSingapore Hong Kong

0%
Korea

206

196

142

2.4%

5.6%

3.5%

54.2%

48.3%

Top row: FY 2003 survey
Bottom row: FY 2002 survey

100%

87

146

278

224

87

2.3%

1.4%

0.7%

0.9%

2.3%

18.0%

19.6%

80%

42.7%
63.3%

60%

2.8%

49.6%

51.4%

20%

49.6%

45.8%

61.3%

0%
Vietnam India

94
100%

2.1%

80%

37.0%
49.4%

51.7%
60%

50.0%
60%

40%
56.7%

0.9%

35.2%

52.4%

55.9%

107

40%

80.9%

26.2%
0%
0%
Singapore Hong Kong
Thailand Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Northeastern Northern Eastern Southern Inland
China
China
China China
China

100%

113

80%

60%

20%

40.8%

28.0%

0.0%

100%

60%

40%
59.2%

87

51.7%

69.6%
20%

262

44.8%
66.5%

40%

1.0%

80%
39.6%

54.4%
60%

96
100%

100%

Vietnam・India

81.3%

40%

79.5%

61.6%
45.1%
31.1%

35.2%

20%

46.0%

48.3%

0%
0%
Thailand Indonesia Malaysia Philippines
Northeastern Northern Eastern Southern Inland
China
China
China China
China

20%
0%

47.9%

Vietnam■ Within the region, there are clear differences in enthusiasm for business strengthening and expansion.
■ Stances on business strengthening and expansion are strongly positive for South Korea among the NIES,
Thailand among the ASEAN4 and the Eastern and Southern China.

2. 【Prospects for Overseas Business Operations by Region ~Functions for strengthening and expansion~】
Figure 11 Functions for strengthening
and expansion (averages for all regions)Figure 12 Functions for Strengthening and Expansion(comparison between regions)
Which functions will manufacturing companies
strengthen and expand in which regions?

60%

Function

40% 59.3%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Production Function
Sales Function

100%

50% Production

Sales
Function
58.5%

p.10

①

Stances on strengtheningof each function, broken
down by region
75%②

R&D Function③

Regional control
Function

R&D
Function
16.2% Regional
control function
10.1%

50%

（Total number of responses
from multiple responses: 2,162）

NIES

ASEAN4EU（147）
Central and Eastern
Europe（66）North America（210）
Latin America（38）India（48）Vietnam（55）Inland China（40）Southern China(211）

Eastern China（286）Northern China（130）Northeastern China（50）Philippines（56）Indonesia（92）Malaysia（60）Thailand（195）

Hong Kong（62）Functions to be strengthened and expanded were examined for each field
and region. The results showed characteristic attitudes to each region, including
the following: [1] A relatively strong tendency to strengthening and expansionof sales functions in the NIES. [2] A relatively strong tendency to strengthening
and expansion of production functions in the ASEAN4. [3] A tendency tostrengthening and expansion of both production and sales functions in China.
There are further characteristics to strengthening and expansion in countries andareas of each region as follows: [1] Production functions in South Korea andTaiwan, with regional control functions in Singapore and Hong Kong.[3]Production functions in Thailand and Indonesia, within the ASEAN4. [4]Production functions in Eastern and Southern in China.

Taiwan（77）■ The content of strengthening and expansion varies between
regions and between countries within regions

0%
Singapore（55）When companies which responded that they would “strengthen and expand”
overseas business were asked in which functions they would do so, the mostcommon response was production functions (59.3%), followed by sales
functions (58.5%), R&D functions and regional control functions.

25%

Korea（102）■ Strengthening of production functions: 59.3%,
strengthening of sales functions: 58.5%

China* Figures in parenthesis for countries and regions in the above figure are numbers of respondentcompanies. Companies which responded that they would “strengthen and expand” were asked in whichfunctions they intended to do so, from production, sales, R&D and regional control functions. Multiple
options were presented within each function, and a company which selected any one of them was counted
as one company in the corresponding function.

p.11

2. 【Prospects for Overseas Business Operations by Region ~ external factors ~】

0.2%
25.9%

China

MarketCost

Survey results of “Prospects for Business
Operations by Region” (p.8)

市場

Regional
Integration
10.1%

5.2%

2.8%

0.8%

■ Market : Expansion/ Contraction of local markets for the company’s products【Guidance】

Clients
45.3%

China
中国

■ Cost : Low / High business costs (cost rises) locally

64.8%

56.5%

73.9%

【Positive / Negative factors for each item】

0.8%■ Clients : Entry and business expansion/ Withdrawal and business downsizing by clients

Positive factors in the mediumterm business operations outlook■ Regional integration : Increased/ Reduced role for local bases with the progress of regional integration

Negative factors in the mediumterm business operations outlook

Figure 13 External Factors Influencing the Medium-term Business Outlook (6 major regions)
0.2%

Market China
25.9% Cost 64.8%
56.5%
Clients

3.9%

65.9%

45.3%
73.9%
Regional
Integration
10.1%
China

0.8%
5.2% 2.8%

0.8%

2.5%

44.9%

Market57.3%

NorthAmerica

16.3%

Regional
Integration
4.0%

Cost
0.8%
North
America

3.6% 1.2%
13.4%

9.9%

13.0%

Market
48.7%

46.6%
Cost
0.5%

42.7%

0.9%
E EU
U

41.0%

Regional
ClientsIntegration
12.6% 14.1%

EU
9.4% 7.3%
13.6%

2.1%

Clients
25.5%
Regional
Integration
6.6%

ASEAN4

4.7% 4.9%

Clients
24.9%
52.6%

Market
46.1%
Cost
28.6%

Clients Regional
12.0% Integration
5.9%

NIES

50.3%

ASEAN453.4%
Market37.9%

Cost
30.1% 8.1%

3.1%

4.0%

NIES

5.5%

8.7% 7.7%
Market
52.2%

Cost
22.4%
58.1%

0.5%

CEE

Clients
26.9%Regional
Integration
10.4%

Central and 3.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Eastern Europe■ Positive and negative factors forbusiness operations
The external factors impacting the mediumterm business operation forecasts in each region
were examined (see Appendix 1 for details).
The survey results indicate that the biggest
positive factor influencing overseas business
operation is “Expansion of local markets for thecompany’s products”, but with that exception, theresults also showed that the factors influencing
decisions on whether to strengthen and expand or
to maintain the current position differed between
regions. Motives for business expansion clearly
differ between regions.
The following are examples: [1] China, theASEAN4 and Central and Eastern Europe areparticularly well regarded by cost-oriented
companies. [2] Assessments of both North
America and the EU are negatively affected bycost factors, but compared to North America, theEU is highly rated for regional integration effects.
[3] Negative assessments of the NIES for bothcost and market factors are relatively common,with the result that 65.9% said they would“maintain current position”. In addition to thesedifferences between regions, [4] “Entry andbusiness expansion by clients” is clearly anotherinfluence that cannot be overlooked in all regions.

p.12

2. 【Prospects for Overseas Business Operations over the Medium Term ~The Impact of SARS~】
Figure 14 The Impact of SARS(n = 554)

Figure 15 Impact on the Medium-term Outlook for Business Operations(n =536)

1.9%

No impact from SARS
in this period.
38.6%

9.1%

Suffered impact from SARS
in this period
61.4%

Revised medium-term outlook for business
operations due to the impact of SARS
Revision of medium-term outlook for business
operation is a possibility in the event of
prolongation or recurrence of SARS in future.

No change.
89.0%■ SARS had an impact on the business of 61% of companies

Figure 16 Revision or Potential Revision of theMedium-term Prospects for Business Operations
40
30(Companies)

20

10(n = 128)■ Impact on the medium-term prospects for business operations
Regardless of whether there was any impact from the SARS outbreak, 89% of
respondent companies stated that their medium-term outlook for business operations
was unchanged. Nevertheless, the other 11% had either already revised their mediumterm outlook for business operations or might do so if there was a prolongation orrecurrence of SARS in future. The regions with the largest numbers of companies
making downward revisions in their medium-term outlooks for business operations
due to the impact of SARS were the Eastern China (33 companies), the Southern
China (19) and Taiwan (15). This distribution does not necessarily match the actual
distribution of SARS infection, indicating the presence of ripple effects around theworld, with the expansion of companies’ overseas business. According to interviews
with companies, downward revision for most companies consisted of delays in theimplementation of business plans. Some companies will guard their operations against
shutdowns in Chinese factories by adding backup functions in other countries, andmany named Japan as their backup source.

13
33
19

10

0

Korea
1
Taiwan0Singapore
4
1Hong Kong
8
1
Thailand5
1
Indonesia
20
Malaysia
40Philippines
1
0 North Eastern China
4
1
Northern China
1
Eastern China
0Southern China
0
Inland China
4
1
India
3
0
EU
1
4
Japan
0
1

15

The outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) which hit Asia andother countries around the world for several months, starting in March 2003, had some
impact on the operations of 61.4% of respondent companies. Interviews withcompanies on the specific types of impact found that some had increased inventory inreadiness for factory stoppages (electrical equipment and electronics etc.), but mostreported inability to send engineers from Japan for commissioning overseas factories,
delaying startups (automobile components etc.).

0

Medium-term prospects for business operations revised upwards (right)
Medium-term prospects for business operations revised downwards (left)（※）“Revised upwards” means that expansion plans have been further enlarged or moved forward, planned
maintenance of a current position has changed to expansion, planned contraction has changed to expansion, or tomaintenance of a current position, planned contraction has been abandoned, or planned downsizing has been reduced.
“Revised downwards” means planned expansion has been abandoned or reduced, expansion has been switched tomaintenance of a current position, or to contraction, planned maintenance of a position has changed to a contraction,and planned contraction has been enlarged or brought forward.

p.13

3. 【Evaluation of Overseas Business Performance ～all regions～】
Figure 17 Evaluation of Overseas Business Performance (All Industries)
FY 2003 survey

3.00
2.90
2.80

* Evaluation standards:
Compared to initial objective（ｎ＝529）● FY 2003 survey▲ FY 2002 survey

NIES (3.05 2.92)(3.00 2.91)(3.03 2.87)(2.94 2.83)(2.99 2.86)
ASEAN４China

Central and(2.83 2.71)
Eastern Europe
2.70(2.72 2.65)
EU (2.80 2.61)(2.62 2.60)
2.60
North (2.65 2.55)
America
2.50
Latin (2.65 2.43)(2.71 2.47)
America(2.52 2.44) (2.69 2.45)
2.40
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
Evaluation of Satisfaction with Sales

3.10

Evaluation of Satisfaction with Profitability

Evaluation of Satisfaction with Profitability

3.10

2.40

FY 2002 survey(3.10 3.06)

3.00

2.40

1 Unsatisfactory
2 Somewhat unsatisfactory● FY 2002 survey▲ FY 2001 survey

NIES(3.00 2.91)(2.99 2.86)
ASEAN４(2.99 2.82)
China(2.83 2.71)
Central and(2.79 2.67)
Eastern Europe

3 Can’t say either way(3.08 2.85) 4 Somewhat satisfactory
5 Satisfactory(3.03 2.80)(2.83 2.70)(2.88 2.67)(2.62 2.60)
Latin
America(2.52 2.44)
2.50(2.71 2.47) EU(2.69 2.45) North America
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
Evaluation of Satisfaction with Sales※ Evaluation of satisfaction
with sales means evaluation of
the portion excluding sales tothe parent company. Evaluationof satisfaction with profitability
means evaluation of return on
investment. These evaluations
are of the head office’s
satisfaction with business ineach country. They do not
express simple falls or rises insales volume or profitability.

■ Overall evaluation has improved
Respondent companies’ evaluation of satisfaction with sales and profitability from their overseas business had worsened in all regions other than ASEAN4 in the
FY2002 survey, but the FY2003 survey showed some trend to improvement in all regions and countries. However, while FY2003 survey showed relatively high levelsof satisfaction in the NIES, ASEAN4 and China, business evaluations of Central and Eastern Europe, the EU, North America and Latin America remained low.
Considering the survey result indicating bullish sentiment for strengthening and expansion of business operations in North America and Central and Eastern Europe inthe medium term, improvement of profitability in these countries and regions is an important issue for the future.

■ Expansion in the size and improvement in the quality of business in China
This year’s survey found an improvement from the preceding year in the evaluation of business in China. However, while the scale of business in China will be
expanded and strengthened, the question of which way profitability will move is closely related to matters such as the strategies adopted by Japanese-affiliated businessin China, and should be analyzed carefully. As related companies from Japan move into China, their satisfaction with business profitability could rise, with expanding
trading relationships and their equipment moving into full-scale operation. However, competition in the market will intensify for these companies, and it will be
important for them to make qualitative improvements in their business management in order to maintain and enhance their edge.

p.14

3. 【Evaluation of Overseas Business Performance ~ASEAN4 and Time series comparison ~】

3.4
3.3

FY 2003 survey

Thailand(3.36 3.15)

3.2● FY 2003 survey
3.1 ▲ FY 2002 survey
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5

Malaysia(2.87 2.80)(2.89 2.77)(2.75 2.64)(3.16 3.05)
Average of ASEAN４(3.03 2.87)(2.99 2.86)(2.99 2.80)(2.97 2.78) Indonesia(2.58 2.50)

Philippines

2.42.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
Evaluation of Satisfaction with Sales■ There are inconsistencies between the actual
evaluations of the countries in the ASEAN4 region.
Average evaluation of past overseas business performance in the
ASEAN4 countries was almost identical between the results of the
FY2002 and FY2003 surveys, but there were shifts in results forindividual countries within the region, with gaps opening between
them.
In Thailand, satisfaction with both sales and profitability
exceeded 3 in the FY2002 survey, the highest result, andsatisfaction rose still further in the FY2003 survey. In contrast, thePhilippines had the lowest scores, with both indicators below 3, andit suffered a further decline in FY2003, showing a divergence in theevaluation of business performance within the ASEAN4 region.
There were no major gaps in business performance evaluations
between the NIES countries (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore andHong Kong).

Figure 19
Time series comparison of Profitability
Satisfaction in Major Regions (6 regions)
Evaluation of Satisfaction with Profitability

Evaluation of Satisfaction with Profitability

Figure 18 Evaluations for the
ASEAN4 Countries (FY2003)
3.4

FY 1994～2003

3.2
3.0

NIES
2.8

ASEAN４

China
EU

2.6

North America
2.4

Latin America

2.2
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

（Survey Year : FY）
2001
2002
2003

■ The trend of evaluations of business performance in China tend todiverge from those in other regions
Movements in the evaluations of satisfaction with profitability in each major country
and region show that countries have either leveled off or risen between FY2002 andFY2003, but changes as a time series over a decade show that evaluations of performancein the NIES, ASEAN4, EU, North America and Latin America peaked around FY1997FY1998, and have mainly been declining since then. In contrast, evaluations of
performance in China, while low, have been rising gradually from their lowest score in
FY1996. Thus evaluation of business performance in China has been moving
independently of that in North America and other countries and regions, and theevaluation has been gradually improving.
So what points should we regard to keep the rising trend in profitability satisfaction
with business in China? Companies which responded “satisfactory”, “somewhat
satisfactory”, “unsatisfactory” or “somewhat unsatisfactory” for business profitability in
China were asked to provide reasons for their responses. The following pages analyze thefactors behind the evaluations, focusing on the findings for the reasons for evaluations in
China, with reference to the results for other countries and regions.

3. 【Evaluation of Overseas Business Performance ~Time series comparison of evaluation reasons~】
Figure 20 Reasons for Evaluations of Satisfaction (satisfactory or somewhat satisfactory), as a timeseries comparison of major regions (multiple responses)
Successful sales activities in the
country or region concerned
Successful cost reductions (personnel costs,
raw materials costs, etc.)

90.0% ASEAN4(n =255)

China

Successful cost reduction through theconsolidation of production

Full operation of production facilities
Successful exports from the country or
region(n =124)

North America(n =100)

E U(n =70)

60.0%

30.0%

0.0%

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

The reasons for evaluations of “satisfactory or somewhat satisfactory” in the figure above are based on definitions that differ between survey years, but thosedefinitions which can be deemed equivalent have been consolidated as shown in the key. However, “Successful sales activities in the country or region concerned” and“Successful exports from the country or region” were added in the 2003 survey, thus they have no chronological continuity with previous items. The □(empty square)in the figure for 2000~2002 indicates “successful sales of existing products” and O (empty circle) indicates “successful sales of new products”.

Figure 21 Reasons for Evaluations of Satisfaction (unsatisfactory or somewhat unsatisfactory), as atime series comparison of major regions (multiple responses)

60.0%

Difficult to obtain customers (intensecompetition with other companies)

Shrinking market due to economic downturn

Overseas exchange losses

Yet to reach full operation as the company
has been set up recently

Cost reductions are difficult (personnel expenses,
raw materials costs, etc.)

Demand by customers to
reduce sales prices

ASEAN4(n =282)China(n =151)

North America(n =194)

E U(n =136)

30.0%

0.0%
FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

p.15

■ Characteristics of reasons forevaluations
The time series over the past four years forcompanies’ main reasons for evaluations of“satisfactory” and “somewhat satisfactory” forprofitability in each country and region showed that
“Successful sales activities in the region” was areason for 70~80% of companies every year (Figure20). On the other hand, companies’ reasons forevaluating profitability in the same countries andregions as “unsatisfactory” or “somewhat
unsatisfactory” (Figure 21) show market factors suchas “Difficult to obtain customers” and “Shrinking
market due to economic downturn”, alongside otherreasons such as “Cost reductions are difficult”. There
are large variations over time, indicating that various
factors act together in each country or region forworsening satisfaction.

■ Expansion and improvement inbusiness in China
Comparing the reasons given by companies
expressing high and low satisfaction with businessprofitability in China gives the following insights: [1]More companies tend to become satisfied withprofitability as their equipment moves into fulloperation, thus there is potential for evaluations ofbusiness in China to improve as more equipment in
China reaches full operation. [2] The degree ofsuccess for marketing activities in the country has amajor impact on evaluation.Some companies expand
business as related Japanese companies move into thearea or expand their operations, but others struggle to
win local customers as competition with local
companies intensifies. The business environment
differs from company to company in China.
Thus, it appears that future business profitability
in China is affected not only by quantitative
expansion in production scale or market share but also
by qualitative improvement based on each company’sbusiness model.

3. 【Evaluation of Overseas Business Performance ~Comparison of evaluation reasons for major industries~】 p.16
Figure 22 Reasons for Evaluations of Satisfaction with Profitability (multiple responses),
comparing major regions and major industries
ChemicalsNo. of samples: (Numbers of companies responding “satisfactory” or “somewhat satisfactory”, Numbersof companies responding “unsatisfactory” or “somewhat unsatisfactory”)
General machinery
Electrical equipment and electronics

Chemicals: (n=52,47) Electrical equipment and electronics (n=53, 78) General machinery (n=32, 39)
Automobiles (n=26, 13)

Automobiles(Unit: Number of responding companies)

60

ASEAN453

50 Reasons for “satisfactory" or
40 “somewhat satisfactory” profitability 34
30
20
10
0
10
20
30

7 6
10 7

9

13

8
2

19 17

5
5

17

11 11

6

13 14

13
6
2

11

6

2
0

14

Reasons for “unsatisfactory" or “somewhat unsatisfactory” profitability
Successful cost
reductions/Cost
reductions are
difficult

Full operation of
production
facilities/Yet toreach fulloperation

20

Success/ Failure
in domestic
marketing

7

11

8

5

5

17

15

15

0

0

19 11
Success/ Failurein exports fromthe country(Unit: Number of responding companies)

10

2

2
1

4

China

15 14
13

2
0

4

6

5

10
15
20

5

4
8

9
16

Successful cost
reductions/Cost
reductions are
difficult

Full operation of
production
facilities/Yet toreach fulloperation

1
1

0

0

15
8
3

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

1
8

11 10 12130
1Success/ Failurein exports fromthe country

10Full operation of
production
facilities/Yet toreach fulloperation

21
Success/ Failure
in domestic
marketing

Success/ Failurein exports fromthe country

EU

12
9
6

0

0

0

1

15
20

3
3

5
8

1
1

9

11

(Unit: Number of responding companies)

0
1

0
1

18

21
Successful cost
reductions/Cost
reductions are
difficultNorth America

6

3

15

10

14
Success/ Failure
in domestic
marketing

20

5
4

6

6

25
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25

10
9

6

5

(Unit: Number of responding companies)

1
3

0
0

8

2

1
0

2
6

9

0

1

2

1

0
0

8

12

Successful cost
reductions/Cost
reductions are
difficult

Full operation of
production
facilities/Yet toreach fulloperation

16
18
Success/ Failure
in domestic
marketing

Success/ Failurein exports fromthe country

p.17

4. Topics 【Free Trade Agreements】
Figure 24 The impact on Corporate Activity of
FTAs between Countries other than Japan

Figure 23 The FTA between Japan andSingapore (JSEPA) and Corporate Activity(n = 527)

23.5%
Unaware of the agreement,
and not interested

Aware of the content of theagreement, and using it inbusiness

Other 0.8%(n = 512)

3.2%
27.0%

Aware of the content of theagreement, but not using it inbusiness at present
Unaware of content of theagreement,but interested

41.9%

No particular impression
comes to mind

Japan’s non-participation intheFTA
createsacompetitive disadvantage
不利が生じるwithcompanies from other 20.9%
countries

50.0%
The impact is unclear, but
worrying

38.7%

29.1%

不安を感じる

34.5%

Little or no impact

22.3%

Companies involved in import/export or otherbusiness between Japan and Singapore were selected.

Figure 23 ‐ ②(n = 299)

12.4%

Aware of the content of theagreement, and using it inbusiness

5.7%

Unaware of the agreement,
and not interested

38.8%
Unaware of content of theagreement,but interested

Aware of the content of
the agreement, but notusing it in business atpresent

43.1%■ Positive action is required to promote use of FTAs
The first FTA for Japan was agreed between Singapore in January 2002 (called the Japan Singapore
Economic Partnership Agreement (JSEPA)). Besides the question of using JSEPA in business or not, 41.9%
of respondent companies said that they were “aware of the content of the agreement”. Of the companies
doing business, such as import-export, with Singapore, 5.7% said they were “making use of the agreement” intheir business. In interviews with those respondent companies, many said “because we heard that the
movement of goods to Japan was smoother”, and there were a few which said “it is our strategy to set up
bases in countries that have concluded FTAs and have lower import tariffs”. These results indicate thatrecognition and use of JSEPA are not so high at present. The situation appears to be because companies do
not know how to use it in their business, or are simply unaware of the content of the agreement, and therefore
positive action is required to promote the use and understanding of the JSEPA and other FTAs.
On the impact on corporate activity of FTAs between countries other than Japan, half of the respondentcompanies said “Japan’s non-participation in the FTA creates a competitive disadvantage with companies
from other countries” or “The impact is unclear, but worrying”. In interviews with companies, some hadsuffered concrete losses, such as “tariffs apply when our factory in Mexico (which has no FTA with Japan at
the time) sources raw materials from Japan, and when it exports to the U.S., so we are less cost competitive
than our rivals”, and many gave answers such as “in general, we are worried”. Clearly, many are concernedthat Japan’s non-participation in FTAs could easily harm their business environment.

p.18

4. Topics 【The impact of China’s WTO Entry】
Figure 25 Expectations for Positive Effects due toChina’s WTO Entry (multiple responses)
FY 2003 survey（n = 509）
80.0%

FY 2002 survey（n = 440)

This survey continued from last year’s survey in inquiring the anticipated effects of China’s
WTO entry, and found an increased number of companies anticipating “tariff reduction”,“Abolishment of local content and other business requirements” and “Protection of
intellectual property rights”. We can infer that Japanese companies’ demands for
improvements in regulations and systems are becoming more forceful as they proceed withbusiness development in China.
Examining the degree of progress in each of the anticipated effects since China joined theWTO, only 10.1% of companies responded that China was “progressing” in the protection of
intellectual property rights, but the rate increased in 5.7% from the last year. Several
companies commented that “there are still many problems, but it is slightly better than it wasa long time ago”.
Only 9.0% of companies saw “progressing” on “abolishment of local content and otherbusiness requirements”.
Progress in tariff reduction was seen by 24.1% of companies, a higher rate than the othertwo effects, but down from last year, indicating that an increasing number of companies feeltariff reduction is not proceeding according to plan.

73.3%

70.0%
60.0%

■ China is making little progress in improving regulations and systems,
despite WTO entry

60.9%

68.0%
61.4%

65.8%
56.1%

50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

Tariffreduction

Abolishment oflocal content andother business
requirements

Protection of
intellectual
property rights

Figure 26 Current Status of Progress for Expected Effects due to China’s WTO Entry
Protection of intellectual
property rights
Abolishment of local
content and otherbusiness requirements

FY2002 5.7%

56.5%

37.8%

( n = 246）

FY2003 10.1%

48.4%

41.5%

( n = 335)

FY2002

42.2%

45.6%

( n = 266）

12.2%

FY2003 9.0%
FY2002Tariff reduction

FY2003
0%

40.5%
29.3%

27.8%

24.1%
10%

50.4%

31.7%
20%

Progressing

30%

40%

50%

Not progressing

60%

70%

( n = 343)

42.9%

( n = 270）

44.2%

( n = 369)

80%

90% 100%

Can’t say either way

5. 【Promising Countries for Overseas Business Operations ~Ranking and the existence of business plans~】
Figure 27 Promising Countries for Overseas Business Operations over the Medium Term(next 3 years or so) (multiple responses)
Number of

Note: Left column (No. of responding companies), Right column (%)
Number of
Number of
FY 2001 Companies (%) FY 2000 Companies (%)

Number of

FY 2003 Companies (%) FY 2002 Companies (%)
Rank Survey
490 100 Survey
418 100 Survey
401 100 Survey
372 100
1 China
456 93 China
373 89 China
327 82 China
242 652 Thailand
143 29 Thailand
118 28 U.S.
127 32 U.S.
154 41
3 U.S.
106 22 U.S.
108 26 Thailand
99 25 Thailand
88 24
4 Vietnam
88 18 Indonesia
63 15 Indonesia
56 14 Indonesia
54 15
62 15 India
52 13 Malaysia
43 12
5 India
70 14 Vietnam
6 Indonesia
63 13 India
54 13 Vietnam
48 12 Taiwan
41 11
7 Korea44
9 Korea34
8 Taiwan
44 11 India
37 10
34
8 Korea33
8 Vietnam
35
98 Taiwan35
7 Taiwan33
8 Malaysia
32
8 Korea32
99 Malaysia
31
6 Malaysia
10 Russia
25
5 Brazil
19
5 Singapore
24
6 Philippines30
811 Singapore
23
5Figure 28 Existence of Concrete Business Plans for
12 Philippines
18
4
Promising Countries
13 Czech
17
3
90.0%
70.8%
14 Hong Kong
15
3
Plan exists
70.0%
15 Mexico12249.0% 50.9%
47.7%
16 Brazil
11
2
50.0%
40.0%
38.1%
35.5%
16 Germany
11
2
32.9%
30.0%
18 France
10
2
20.0%
18.2%
China
19 Australia
9
2
10.0%
U.S.
Korea
19 Poland
92
Notes）；(1) In this survey, respondent companies described
the name of their top five countries with promisingprospects for business operations in the medium term.
The number of mentions of each country in the
rankings are tallied and the countries listed according
to that number.
(2) Other than the countries listed above, there wereNorth America (listed by 41 companies, 8.4% share)
and the EU (listed by 39 companies, 8.0% share).

10.0%

Taiwan
Malaysia

Vietnam

30.0% 26.5%
50.0%

Indonesia
India

ThailandRussia

44.1% 41.5%
54.0% 52.3%

70.0%

64.3%

No plan exists

77.3%

60.0%

64.5%

80.0%
90.0%
Note) Some companies did not respond to this question, thus the total of “plan exists” and “noplan exists” does not reach 100% for some countries.

p.19■ Vietnam and India arerising, and Russia entered the
top ten for the first time
When asked about their promisingcountries for business operations in themedium term, the top three countries inthis survey were the same as thepreceding year, but Indonesia, 4th until
last year, fell to 6th, replaced by
Vietnam in 4th place and India in 5thplace. In a notable development, Russia,
which appeared in 16th place in the lastyear’s survey, rose further to enter the
top ten for the first time in this year’s
survey.

■ From future expectations
to actual businesses
Inquiring whether actual businessplans are in companies for eachpromising countries, a high proportionof companies said of the top three
countries, China, Thailand and theUSA, that “we have business plans,
including new business entry”. On theother hand, though Vietnam and Russia
made remarkable advances up the
rankings in this survey, around 80% ofcompanies said they had “no actual
business plans at present” for thosecountries. Companies are growing
increasingly interested in theseemerging countries, but their
expectations are booming more thanaction. It will be important to think how
to link these expectations to actual
business.

5. 【 Promising Countries for Overseas Business Operations ~Reasons for promising prospect~ 】

p.20

Figure 29 Main Reasons for Selection of the Top Ten Most Promising Countries （⇒See Appendix 2 for details)
１. China (447companies)① Potential for growth as a market② Inexpensive labor force③ Low-cost parts and raw materials

２．Thailand （141companies）
82.3%
74.9%
34.2%

① Inexpensive labor force② Potential for growth as a market③ Supply base for final assembly
manufacturers

74.1%
41.2%
35.3%
31.8%

① Potential for growth as a market② Inexpensive labor force③ Excellent human resources

８．Taiwan （30companies）

９．Malaysia （30companies）

66.7%
40.5%
35.7%

① Present market size
57.6%
② Potential for growth as a market
30.3%③ Presence of industrial accumulation 24.2%① Inexpensive labor force
40.0%② Stable political and social conditions 33.3%③ Potential for growth as a market
30.0%

92.0%
16.0%
-

※ Figures in parentheses arenumbers of responding companies.

４．Vietnam （85companies）① Inexpensive labor force② Potential for growth as a market③ Excellent human resources④ For a risk diversification

57.4%
51.1%
34.0%

① Present market size
61.2%
② Potential for growth as a market
48.5%③ Stable political and social conditions 37.9%

76.8%
59.4%
30.4%

① Inexpensive labor force② Potential for growth as a market③ Bases for export to third countries③ Supply base for final assembly
manufacturers

５．India （69companies）

７．Korea （33companies）① Potential for growth as a market② Present market size
③ Developed infrastructure

３．U.S. （103companies）

６．Indonesia （62companies）
67.7%
56.5%
27.4%
27.4%

１０．Russia （25companies）① Potential for growth as a market② Present market size-

■ Potential for growth as a market is the common reason for promising prospects in all countries
The reasons for promising prospects in the top ten countries show that “Potential for growth as a market” is the top reason for all countries. While companies’ main
reasons for entering into any country include motives such as participation in local markets and cost reduction, strong potential for an expanding local market for thecompany’s products is a major factor attracting the interest of many companies.
“Inexpensive labor force” is a common reason for business development in Asian countries such as China, Thailand and Vietnam, and countries with the potential for lowcost production are viewed as promising. In U.S., South Korea, and Taiwan etc., the reason is commonly “present market size”, as the markets these countries alreadypossess are viewed as promising.
For China, viewed as the most promising country, the most common reason was “Potential for growth as a market” (82.3%), followed by “Inexpensive labor force” (74.9%)
and “Low-cost parts and raw materials” (34.2%). Most companies have strong expectations for expansion in the Chinese market, and at the same time it is a country withthe potential for low-cost production, which is why they view business in China as promising.
For Vietnam, in fourth place, the third reasons for the country’s promise was “Excellent human resources” (35.3%), followed by “For a risk diversification” (31.8%). These
are characteristics of Vietnam. This result indicates that many companies are increasingly interested in Vietnam as a way to diverse the risk of over-concentration ofbusiness in China.
For Russia, which entered the top ten for the first time this year, “Potential for growth as a market” was chosen by 92.0% of companies.

5. 【 Promising Countries for Overseas Business Operations ~Issues for promising countries~ 】

p.21

Figure 30 Main Issues for the Top Ten Most Promising Countries （⇒See Appendix 3 for details）
１．China (427companies）① Opaque operation of the legal system② Insufficient protection of intellectual
property rights③ Difficulty in collecting receivables

65.6%
46.1%
41.2%

２．Thailand （106companies）

３．U.S. （78companies）① Intense local competition with other firms 44.3%② Difficulty in securing local personnel
36.8%(management level)③ Increase in local labor costs
29.2%① Intense local competition with other firms 73.1%② Increase in local labor costs
32.1%③ Local labor difficulties
15.4%

５．India （60companies）

６．Indonesia （52companies）

４．Vietnam （71companies）① Under-development of infrastructure② Opaque operation of the legal system③ Insufficient information concerning theinvestment destination

46.5%
39.4%
38.0%

① Under-development of infrastructure② Opaque operation of the legal system③ Local labor difficulties① Unstable political and social conditions② Local labor difficulties③ Currency and price instability

53.8%
38.5%
32.7%

７．Korea （31companies）

８．Taiwan （24companies）

９．Malaysia （21companies）① Intense local competition with other firms 71.0%② Increase in local labor costs
35.5%③ Local labor difficulties
25.8%① Intense local competition with other firms 58.3%② Increase in local labor costs
25.0%③ Insufficient protection of intellectual
20.8%
property rights① Intense local competition with other firms 47.6%② Increase in local labor costs
23.8%② Restrictions on foreign capital
23.8%

１０．Russia （22companies）① Opaque operation of the legal system② Unstable political and social conditions② Insufficient information concerning theinvestment destination※ Figures in parentheses
are numbers of
responding companies.

54.5%
31.8%
31.8%

Figure 31 Numbers of Issues Facing
Each Promising Country2354

No. of responding companies

5.5

No. of issues

2,000

5.0

Average number of issues per company
4.2

1,500

3.9

4.0

3.7
3.1

3.0

2.5

1,000

2.4
2.0

1.8
500 427
261
106

0

6.0

78

140

300
71

2.0

1.6
234
60

194
52

1.0
31 75

22 68

24 38 21 41
0.0
Indon
Korea Taiwan Malaysia Russia
China Thailand U.S Vietnam India-esia

Average number of issues per company

2,500
Number of responding companies – number ofissues (total for each country)

45.0%
28.3%
26.7%

■ China still faces many issues
China, ranked as the most promising, was named as facing the most issues (an average of 5.5
issues per company). The main issues faced by China are “Opaque operation of the legal system(frequent changes etc.)” (65.6%), the most common complaint, followed by “Insufficient protectionof intellectual property rights” (46.1%) and “Difficulty in collecting receivables” (41.2%). Even
though the legal system has been developed after WTO entry, many companies still feel that theopacity and inconsistency of the system as applied to corporate activity in China is a major problem.
There are still many problems in the operation of China’s legal system, in the same way as has been
indicated for Vietnam, India and Russia.“Increase in local labor costs” has been indicated as aproblem in some countries, including Thailand and Malaysia, which are valued for their low-cost
workforce, thus they are losing their competitive edge in labor costs. Many companies indicated“Intense competition with other firms” as a issue in Thailand, the U.S, South Korea and elsewhere,
but that is also proof of growth in the local market, and is a issue that each company should tackle foritself.For Vietnam and Russia, which rose in the rankings in this survey, many companies complainedof “Lack of information on the country as an investment destination”. Companies should be provided
with far more related information so that they can materialize their business plans for these countries,
for which they have great future expectations. “Under-development of infrastructure” was commonly
cited as an issue for Vietnam and India, as those countries are expected to develop their basic
infrastructure. In China (urban areas), there is progress in the development of roads and other basic
infrastructure, but distribution functions are insufficient, and some companies said the quality of suchinfrastructure had to be enhanced for industrial purposes.

Appendix 1 【External Factors Affecting the Medium-term Outlook for Business Operations~Competing companies~】

67

2

9

18

15

34

6

28

26

2

29 144

93

35

6 157

75

48

38

16

44

High cost of local business (rising costs)

80

15

24

26

15

10

11

24

3

20

5

1

2

2

Expansion of the local market for the company's products

186

64

50

35

37 253 1226040

31 250

74

33

33

8 145

1

Middle and Eastern Europe

70 289 191

2

7

EU

19 25319

Contraction of the local market for the company's products

64

8

24

18

14

42

7

11

15

9

11

6

3

2

1

25

8

19

18

1

Entry and business expansion by clients

59

20

19

10

10 14085

29

16

10 175

22

9

10

3

63

4

46

24

18

Withdrawal and business downsizing by clients

23

0

6

13

4

30

2

9

12

7

3

1

0

0

1

9

3

15

14

1

Increased role for local bases with the progress of regional integration

29

4

4

14

7

36

20

9

4

3

39

7

3

3

1

10

4

37

27

7

Reduced role for local bases with the progress of regional integration

24

3

7

5

9

3

0

1

1

1

3

0

0

0

0

3

1

5

4

1

Exchange rate trends

64

20

15

17

12 113

37

38

16

22

71

28

12

10

6

67

33

71

53

11

External factors affecting the medium-term outlook
for business operations Intensifying competition ineach country and region

Middle East, Africa

Intensifying competition
with Japanese companies

Russia, other CIS

Other European countries

EU
Central and East Europe

Latin America
EuropeOthersNorth America

Viet Nam

India

Other Asian countries,
Southeast Asia Pacific

Philippines
China

Malaysia

Indonesia

Thailand

ASEAN4

Hong Kong

10.0%
Singapore

Europe

52

23

12

20.0%

TaiwanLatin America

Others55

28 21815

Intensifying competition with Chinese companies

Korea

North America

India

88 386 126

40

Intensifying competition with European companies

NIES

Vietnam

China

Other Asian countries,
Southeast Asia Pacific

Malaysia

Philippines

Indonesia

Thailand491 128 139 116 108 549 216 129 116

Low cost of local business（Unit：％）

0.0%（Unit：Companies）

Number of respondent companies

40.0%

30.0%

ASEAN4

Hong Kong

TaiwanSingapore

Korea

NIES

External factors affecting the medium-term outlook for business operations

p.22

For the figure below, companies were asked
to identify the countries of origin of theircompetitors (between Chinese, European andJapanese) in each region where they faced
intensifying competition*, and numbers
competitor for each were divided by the total
number of respondents in each country andregion.
* Intensifying competition: Intensifying
competition in local and export markets that
affects local production activity.

Appendix 2 【 Promising Countries for Overseas Business Operations ~ Reasons ofpromising prospects for the top ten countries ~ 】：top three reasons：reasons, which is beyond the forth andits share is under the 20%

Note: Figures in parentheses under each country name are numbers of respondent companies for each country. The
left column shows the number of respondent companies and the right column shows the share.

Excellent human resources
Inexpensive labor force
Low-cost parts and raw materials

Production

Supply base for final assembly manufacturers
Industrial concentration (concentration of sources, buyers and partners)
For a risk diversification
Base for exports to Japan
Bases for export to third countries
Present local market size

Sales

Potential for growth as a market
Product development tailored to the local needs

42

9.4%

33 23.4%

37 35.9%

4

4.7%

2

2.9%

Tax incentives for investment

78 17.4%

35 24.8%

3

2.9%

12 14.1%

3

4.3%

20

4.5%

21 14.9%

6

5.8%

6

7.1%

1

1.4%

6

1.3%

0

0.0%

2

2.4%

1

1.4%

Progress towards regional integration (reduction of tariffs)
Stable political and social conditions

18 4.0%Indonesia

13

9.2%

48 34.0%
Korea

39 37.9%
Taiwan17 20.0%
Malaysia

1 1.4%
Russia（30companies）（25companies）（62companies）（42companies）（33companies）

Product development tailored to the local needs

3
42
8
17
7
5
9
17
11
35
2

4.8%
67.7%
12.9%
27.4%
11.3%
8.1%
14.5%
27.4%
17.7%
56.5%
3.2%

9
3
3
2
8
3
1
4
17
28
4

6
1
2
5
8
2
1
6
19
10
2

Local infrastructure (electric power, communications, transport etc) is well developed

4

6.5%

15 35.7%

6 18.2%8 26.7%1

4.0%

Tax incentives for investment

4

6.5%

2

4.8%

2

6.1%

7 23.3%

0

0.0%

2

3.2%

3

7.1%

1

3.0%

7 23.3%0

0.0%

Progress towards regional integration (reduction of tariffs)

6

9.7%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

6.7%

0

0.0%

Stable political and social conditions

0

0.0%

5 11.9%10 33.3%0

0.0%

Excellent human resources
Inexpensive labor force
Low-cost parts and raw materials
Supply base for final assembly manufacturers
Industrial concentration (concentration of sources, buyers and partners)
For a risk diversification
Base for exports to Japan
Bases for export to third countries
Present local market size

Sales

China
Thailand
India
U.S.
Vietnam(447companies） （141companies） （103companies） （85companies） （69companies）
108 24.2%
26 18.4%
21 30.4%
25 24.3%
30 35.3%
335 74.9%
81 57.4%
41 59.4%
2 1.9%
63 74.1%
153 34.2%
16 11.3%
10 14.5%
1 1.0%
11 12.9%
128 28.6%
48 34.0%
17 24.6%
27 26.2%
12 14.1%
64 14.3%
30 21.3%
2 2.9%
20 19.4%
2 2.4%
20 4.5%18 12.8%
3 4.3%
5 4.9%
27 31.8%
100 22.4%
28 19.9%
7 10.1%0 0.0%
21 24.7%
98 21.9%42 29.8%
12 17.4%
4 3.9%
18 21.2%
88 19.7%
24 17.0%
13 18.8%
63 61.2%
5 5.9%
368 82.3%
72 51.1%
53 76.8%
50 48.5%
35 41.2%
35 7.8%9 6.4%
2 2.9%
17 16.5%
1 1.2%

Local infrastructure (electric power, communications, transport etc) is well developed

Infrastructure
Policies to attract foreign capital are stable
and systems

Production

p.23

Potential for growth as a market

Infrastructureand systems Policies to attract foreign capital are stable

21.4%
7.1%
7.1%
4.8%
19.0%
7.1%
2.4%
9.5%
40.5%
66.7%
9.5%

18.2%
3.0%
6.1%
15.2%
24.2%
6.1%
3.0%
18.2%
57.6%
30.3%
6.1%

6 18.2%

5
12
4
7
1
7
7
4
2
9
2

16.7%
40.0%
13.3%
23.3%
3.3%
23.3%
23.3%
13.3%
6.7%
30.0%
6.7%

1 4.0%
2 8.0%
1 4.0%
1 4.0%
1 4.0%
1 4.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
4 16.0%23 92.0%
0 0.0%

Appendix 3
countries~ 】【 Promising Countries for Overseas Business Operations ~Issues for the top ten：top three issues

Note: Figures in parentheses under each country name are numbers of
respondent companies for each country. The left column shows the numberof respondent companies and the right column shows the share.

：issues, which is beyond the forthand its share is under the 20%

China
Local legal system is under-developed
Opaque operation of the local legal system (frequent changes etc.)
Complexity of local tax collection systems
Opaque operation of the local taxation system (frequent changes etc.)
Strengthened local taxation (income taxation, transfer price taxation, etc.)
Restrictions on foreign capital (restrictions on controlling shares and business types,
frequent changes etc.)
Complexity and opacity of local investment permit procedures
Administration, Difficulty of obtaining local working visas
Insufficient local protection of intellectual property rights
overall
Local restrictions on currency exchange and remittance
Local import restrictions (components, raw materials etc.)
Local anti-dumping measures (abuse of safeguards etc.)
Difficulty in securing local personnel (management level)
Labor problems Increase in local labor costs
Local labor difficulties (labor and management relationship, etc.)
Intense local competition with other firms
Local demands for technology transfer and performance
Difficulty in collecting receivables
Difficulty in local procurement of funds
GeneralLack of local development of peripheral industries (procurement of raw materials andcomponents etc. is difficult)problems
Local currency and price instability
Local infrastructure (electric power, communications, transport etc.) is under-developed
Unstable local political and social conditions
Insufficient information concerning the investment destination

Laws andtaxation
systems

Local legal system is under-developed
Opaque operation of the local legal system (frequent changes etc.)
Complexity of local tax collection systems
Opaque operation of the local taxation system (frequent changes etc.)
Strengthened local taxation (income taxation, transfer price taxation, etc.)
Restrictions on foreign capital (restrictions on controlling shares and business types,
frequent changes etc.)
Complexity and opacity of local investment permit procedures
Administration, Difficulty of obtaining local working visas
Insufficient local protection of intellectual property rights
overall
Local restrictions on currency exchange and remittance
Local import restrictions (components, raw materials etc.)
Local anti-dumping measures (abuse of safeguards etc.)
Difficulty in securing local personnel (management level)
Labor problems Increase in local labor costs
Local labor difficulties (labor and management relationship, etc.)
Intense local competition with other firms
Local demands for technology transfer and performance
Difficulty in collecting receivables
Difficulty in local procurement of funds
GeneralLack of local development of peripheral industries (procurement of raw materials andcomponents etc. is difficult)problems
Local currency and price instability
Local infrastructure (electric power, communications, transport etc.) is under-developed
Unstable local political and social conditions
Insufficient information concerning the investment destination

ThailandU.S.

VietnamIndia(427companies） (106companies） (78companies） (71companies） (60companies）
128 30.0%
4
3.8%
15 25.0%0
0.0%
26 36.6%
280 65.6%
10
9.4%
17 28.3%0
0.0%
28 39.4%
103 24.1%
9
8.5%
9 15.0%
1
1.3%
4
5.6%
175 41.0%
10
9.4%
12 20.0%0
0.0%
12 16.9%
67 15.7%
15 14.2%
5
8.3%
9 11.5%
5
7.0%
141
115
15
197
175
70
19
111
85
60
159
34
176
38

33.0%
26.9%
3.5%
46.1%
41.0%
16.4%
4.4%
26.0%
19.9%
14.1%
37.2%
8.0%
41.2%
8.9%

12
8
5
11
4
5
1
39
31
12
47
6
2
3

11.3%
7.5%
4.7%
10.4%
3.8%
4.7%
0.9%
36.8%
29.2%
11.3%
44.3%
5.7%
1.9%
2.8%

0
1
11
0
1
0
10
9
25
12
57
2
0
0

0.0%
1.3%
14.1%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
12.8%
11.5%
32.1%
15.4%
73.1%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%

19
18
1
14
10
11
1
25
3
8
6
4
7
8

26.8%
25.4%
1.4%
19.7%
14.1%
15.5%
1.4%
35.2%
4.2%
11.3%
8.5%
5.6%
9.9%
11.3%

8
10
4
10
9
7
1
7
6
16
13
5
9
2

13.3%
16.7%
6.7%
16.7%
15.0%
11.7%
1.7%
11.7%
10.0%
26.7%
21.7%
8.3%
15.0%
3.3%

54
17
67
47
21

12.6%
4.0%
15.7%
11.0%
4.9%

5
6
9
3
4

4.7%
5.7%
8.5%
2.8%
3.8%

1
0
0
1
0

1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%

20
5
33
5
27

28.2%
7.0%
46.5%
7.0%
38.0%

13
5
27
11
13

21.7%
8.3%
45.0%
18.3%
21.7%

Indonesia
Laws andtaxation
systems

p.24

Korea

Taiwan

Malaysia

Russia(52companies） (31companies） (24companies） (21companies） (22companies）
8 15.4%
0
0.0%
2
8.3%
0
0.0%
6 27.3%13 25.0%
1
3.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
12 54.5%
5
9.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
4.5%
5
9.6%
2
6.5%
1
4.2%
0
0.0%
5 22.7%
4
7.7%
2
6.5%
1
4.2%
4 19.0%
0
0.0%
1
4
4
10
1
3
1
12
10
20
14
3
1
3

1.9%
7.7%
7.7%
19.2%
1.9%
5.8%
1.9%
23.1%
19.2%
38.5%
26.9%
5.8%
1.9%
5.8%

3
1
0
5
4
1
2
3
11
8
22
2
2
0

9.7%
3.2%
0.0%
16.1%
12.9%
3.2%
6.5%
9.7%
35.5%
25.8%
71.0%
6.5%
6.5%
0.0%

0
0
0
5
3
0
0
3
6
2
14
0
0
0

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.8%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
8.3%
58.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

5
0
1
0
4
0
0
2
5
3
10
1
0
2

23.8%
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
19.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.5%
23.8%
14.3%
47.6%
4.8%
0.0%
9.5%

3
1
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
4
0
4
0

13.6%
4.5%
4.5%
9.1%
4.5%
4.5%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
4.5%
18.2%
0.0%
18.2%
0.0%

11
17
13
28
3

21.2%
32.7%
25.0%
53.8%
5.8%

0
2
0
2
2

0.0%
6.5%
0.0%
6.5%
6.5%

0
0
0
0
1

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%

2
1
1
0
0

9.5%
4.8%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%

1
5
4
7
7

4.5%
22.7%
18.2%
31.8%
31.8%