A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

United Nations

General AssemblyDistr.: General
1 May 2024
Original: English

Human Rights Council
Fifty-sixth session
18 June–12 July 2024
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development

Visit to Japan
Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights andtransnational corporations and other business enterprises*
Summary
The Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations andother business enterprises visited Japan from 24 July to 4 August 2023. The Working Groupwas encouraged by the important advancements of Japan, including developing a national
action plan on business and human rights and issuing the Guidelines on Respecting Human
Rights in Responsible Supply Chains. However, challenges remain concerning the business
community’s capacity to understand and implement human rights due diligence across value
chains. The Working Group also expressed concern about the significant difficulties
observed in addressing deeply embedded harmful gender and social norms, which wasparticularly evident in the workplace discrimination and harassment experienced by women,
Indigenous Peoples, Buraku people, persons with disabilities, migrant workers andLGBTQI+ persons, among other groups. Government and business initiatives to promote
diversity and inclusion and to safeguard the rights of these at-risk groups are crucial moving
forward.

* The summary of the report is being circulated in all official languages. The report itself, which isannexed to the summary, is being circulated in the language of submission only.

GE.24-06979 (E)010524010524

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

Annex
Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights
and transnational corporations and other businessenterprises on its visit to Japan
I. Introduction
1.
Pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 17/4, 26/22, 35/7 and 44/15, theWorking Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and otherbusiness enterprises, represented by Working Group members Pichamon Yeophantong andDamilola Olawuyi, visited Japan, at the invitation of the Government, from 24 July to
4 August 2023. During the visit, the Working Group assessed the efforts made by theGovernment and business enterprises, in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights, to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for the adverse
impacts of business-related activities on human rights.
2.
During the visit, the Working Group met with the then-Special Adviser to the Prime
Minister of Japan on International Human Rights Issues and the Ambassador for Human
Rights and International Peace and Stability. The Working Group also met withrepresentatives of the following Government ministries, agencies and State bodies: Ministryof Foreign Affairs; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry; Ministry of Justice; Instituteof Developing Economies-Japan External Trade Organization; Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare; Cabinet Office; Consumer Affairs Agency; National Contact Point for
Responsible Business Conduct; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Financial
Services Agency; Japan International Cooperation Agency; Japan Bank for International
Cooperation; Ministry of Finance; and Ministry of the Environment. The Working Groupmet with representatives of local governments, including the Osaka Prefectural Government,
the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Sapporo Government, and the Japan
Association for the 2025 World Exposition. In addition, the Working Group held meetings
with members of the National Diet (parliament).
3.
During the Working Group’s meetings in Tokyo, Osaka, Aichi, Hokkaido andFukushima, the Working Group met with representatives of the following businesses andindustry associations: Ajinomoto; Akao Nenshi K.K; Asahi Group Holdings; Fast RetailingGroup and Uniqlo; Fuji Oil Group; Fujitsu; Global Compact Network Japan; Johnny and
Associates (now Smile-Up); Keidanren (Japanese Business Federation); Kirin Group;
McDonald’s; Mitsubishi Corporation; Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group; National Conferenceof Association of Small Business Entrepreneurs; Rakuten; Sony Group Corporation; Suntory;
Takase Kanagata Molding Systems; Tokyo Electric Power Company; and Consumer Goods
Forum. The Working Group also met with civil society representatives, including humanrights defenders, journalists, academics, workers and representatives of trade unions, as wellas with representatives of international organizations operating in Japan, such as theInternational Labour Organization (ILO).
4.
The Working Group is grateful for the open and constructive discussions that it hadwith government officials, members of the business community, civil society, industry
associations, trade unions and academia, workers, lawyers and other stakeholders on the
progress, opportunities and challenges in the implementation of the Guiding Principles inJapan.
5.
For the present report, the Working Group builds on its preliminary assessment fromthe end-of-mission statement on such salient issue areas as diversity and inclusion,
discrimination and harassment, labour-related abuses, including sexual violence, theregulation of finance and value chains, as well as the impact on the right to health, the rightto a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and climate change.
6.
The Working Group drew on written submissions from businesses, civil society,international organizations, industry associations and other stakeholders, received in2

GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

response to the call for input issued before the visit. In addition, it considered the insights
derived from the stakeholder consultations held during the country visit and from the wealthof information, including reports, academic studies, statements and briefing notes, that wereshared with the Working Group before, during and after the visit. It also built on relevant
work done by the Working Group, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) and ILO.

II. Context
A.

State duty to protect human rights
7.
In addition to being the second country in the Asia-Pacific region to develop a national
action plan on business and human rights, in 2020, Japan released the Guidelines on
Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains in 2022. Amid these positive
developments, the Working Group’s visit provided the Government an opportunity to shareits ongoing efforts and growing leadership in promoting responsible business conduct at thenational, regional and global levels. As recognized in its national action plan, 2020–2025,
raising awareness about business and human rights can contribute not only to “the protection
and promotion of human rights for society as a whole”, but also serve to “enhance trust inand the reputation of Japanese business enterprises and contribute to ensuring and enhancing
the international competitiveness and sustainability of Japanese business enterprises”. 1
8.
The Working Group welcomes the Government’s efforts in implementing the current
national action plan and developing a second one. The Working Group also commends efforts
to develop the national action plan through multi-stakeholder consultation processes. The
Working Group further acknowledges the Government’s work to promote business andhuman rights overseas by, for example, pushing for the inclusion of relevant language in the
Hiroshima Leaders’ Communiqué of the Group of Seven2 and deepening dialogue on the
Guiding Principles beyond the Group of Seven countries.
9.
However, the Working Group observed a general lack of domestic awareness of the
Guiding Principles and the national action plan, especially outside Tokyo. There isconsiderably more work to be done to ensure that all relevant actors, including local
governments, businesses and business associations, trade unions, civil society, community
representatives and human rights defenders, fully understand their rights, duties andresponsibilities under the Guiding Principles and the national action plan. Thus far, these
actors seem not to have been sufficiently engaged in the development and implementation of
the national action plan, with many stakeholders at the local level indicating no knowledgeof the plan’s existence. The Working Group also heard from diverse stakeholders about how
the lack of transparency vis-à-vis the implementation status of the plan had contributed topractical barriers in realizing the Guiding Principles and, more broadly, in human rights
protection in Japan. The national action plan review process thus provides an opportunity for
the Government to fully engage with all relevant stakeholders. It also presents an excellent
opportunity to assess and enhance the accessibility of the plan, given that it has yet to bemade available to persons with visual challenges.
10.
The Government also has an opportunity to strengthen efforts so that State-owned
enterprises 3 lead by example. The Working Group highlights its reports on State-owned
enterprises and development finance institutions for further guidance in this regard.4

1

See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Business/NationalPlans/JapanNAP.pdf, p. 4.
2 See https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/hiroshima23/documents/pdf/
Leaders_Communique_01_en.pdf?v20231006.
3 State-owned enterprises are understood here as commercial entities wholly or majority owned orcontrolled by the State to provide public goods or services.
4 A/HRC/32/45 and A/HRC/53/24/Add.4.
GE.24-06979

3

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

11.
While the publication of the Guidelines is a positive development, the Working Group
received reports that the public consultation period was not adequate,5 concerns about the
Guidelines’ voluntary nature and the limited definition of human rights without explicit
mention of international instruments or the environment or climate change as dimensions ofhuman rights due diligence and uncertainty over how the Guidelines would be practicallyenforced among State-owned enterprises. The Working Group was pleased to learn ofadditional positive initiatives, such as the release of the Guidebook for Respecting Human
Rights in Food Enterprises. Adopting mandatory human rights due diligence measures tosupplement voluntary guidelines would however enhance the smart mix of measures in Japanand its position as a leader in addressing business-related human rights issues, in particularin the Asia-Pacific.

B.

Corporate responsibility to respect human rights
12.
Business stakeholders reported emerging positive practices, such as initiatives toprovide employees with continual human rights education and the development ofoperational-level grievance mechanisms, including reporting hotlines. They acknowledged
however that considerable gaps remained, including with regard to the treatment of migrant
workers and technical interns, the culture of overwork and businesses’ ability to monitor andreduce human rights risks in the upstream and downstream of value chains.
13.
The Working Group observed three overarching issues. Significant gaps persist inunderstanding and implementing the Guiding Principles among different businesses.
Especially pronounced are the discrepancies between large businesses, in particulartransnational corporations that have an advanced comprehension of the Guiding Principles
and small and medium-sized enterprises that constitute 99.7 per cent of the total number ofcompanies in Japan and which, according to the 2018 baseline study, provide 70 per cent of
all employment.6 The low level of awareness of the Guiding Principles among small andmedium-sized enterprises led stakeholders to underscore the need for the Government toprovide tailored guidance and capacity-building to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Noting how businesses strongly articulated the need for more robust civil society
participation in such efforts, the Working Group welcomes initiatives by the Sapporo
Government and LGBTQI+ civil society groups to engage local small and medium-sizedenterprises in raising awareness about LGBTQI+ rights and promoting an inclusive society,including through the Sapporo Rainbow Pride event.
14.
Business representatives also spotlighted how increased efforts were required toencourage the uptake of the Guiding Principles by general trading companies and retailers.
Given the diversity of the products that they trade and sell, these businesses are especiallywell-positioned to exercise their leverage in a variety of sectors and encourage national
brands and suppliers along their value chains to apply the Guiding Principles.
15.
Moreover, businesses and industry associations communicated the need for theGovernment to be more active in discharging its duties under the Guiding Principles. Theyrequested more practical guidance from the Government, in particular the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, the Ministry ofForeign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice, on such exigent issues as how to conduct
heightened human rights due diligence, establish and operate grievance mechanisms, exit
responsibly and conduct human rights due diligence along value chains. Most businesses
whose representatives the Working Group met with during the visit, including from thefinancial sector, also indicated the desirability of mandatory human rights due diligencemeasures, which can assist with levelling the playing field and allow for greater coherenceof the Government’s policies and standards with the Guiding Principles. Absent more robust
human rights due diligence requirements, the members of the business community suggested
5

Other publicly available information includes, for example, https://media.businesshumanrights.org/media/documents/WBA-BHRRC_public_comment.pdf; and https://media.businesshumanrights.org/media/documents/CSO_statement_for_Guidelines_on_Respect_for_Human_Rights_
in_Responsible_Supply_R9zQR83.pdf.
6 See https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000455152.pdf.
4

GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

that small and medium-sized enterprises in particular would have little incentive to adopt the
Guiding Principles.
16.
The need for timely, tailored and needs-driven capacity-building measures was arecurring message conveyed by members of the business community. Some stakeholders
noted, for example, the growing demand for auditor training on human rights and on how
small and medium-sized enterprises could better conduct stakeholder engagement. The
Working Group spotlights its reports on capacity-building alongside the important role thatcivil society can play in meeting this demand.7

C.

Access to remedy

1.

State-based judicial mechanisms
17.
During the visit, the Working Group identified salient areas of concern regarding
access to justice and effective remedies, including obstacles to access to courts in Japan. One
critical issue is the low awareness among judges about the Guiding Principles and broader
human rights issues in the context of business activities, including those concerning
LGBTQI+ persons. The Working Group also learned from stakeholders how lengthy court
proceedings could hinder access to remedy and received testimonies about cases whereplaintiffs did not receive adequate financial or other forms of compensation due to a lack ofadequate sanctions and application of court decisions.
18.
The Working Group heard about the work of the State-funded Japan Legal Support
Center in providing legal services to Japanese citizens and foreign nationals lawfully residing
in Japan with limited financial resources. The Working Group welcomes such initiatives by
the Ministry of Justice to facilitate access to remedy, including through human rights
promotion and protection activities and the digitalization of civil proceedings.8

2.

State-based non-judicial grievance mechanisms
19.
While recognizing the critical roles of the human rights bodies of the Ministry ofJustice in investigating instances of human rights abuses 9 and the labour offices of the
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in receiving workers’ complaints, the Working
Group remains deeply concerned by the lack of a national human rights institution in Japan.
Many stakeholders noted that this absence created a significant gap in government efforts topromote respect for human rights among businesses and enforce corporate accountability.
20.
Indeed, although the Human Rights Bureau of the Ministry of Justice can investigate
allegations of human rights violations, this function does not fulfil the role of a national
human rights institution. National human rights institutions are crucial to enhancing
remediation of business-related human rights abuses, facilitating inter-agency coordination
on human rights issues and promoting business and human rights training for private sector
actors, auditors, judges and public defenders.10
21.
The absence of a national human rights institution can substantially encumber accessto justice and effective remedy, in particular among people at risk, and create barriers toseeking remedy based on international human rights standards. It also negatively affects theglobal image of Japan.11 Considering the emphasis in its national action plan on promoting
the business and human rights agenda in the international community,12 the Working Group
views the establishment of a national human rights institution as a vital step towards
achieving this goal.

7

A/HRC/32/45 and A/HRC/53/24.
See https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001404170.pdf.
9 Ibid.
10 See A/HRC/47/39/Add.3.
11 Of the 38 OECD countries, Japan is one of only eight that do not have a national human rights
institution. See https://ganhri.org/membership/.
12 See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Business/NationalPlans/JapanNAP.pdf.
8

GE.24-06979

5

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

22.
Japan established its National Contact Point under the OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, in 2000, with the mandate tohandle disputes related to business and human rights and, more generally, to promoteresponsible business conduct. However, the Working Group received complaints that the
National Contact Point lacked visibility and impact,13 with only 15cases having been taken
up in its 23 years of existence. To address these issues, the National Contact Point must be
deemed independent and credible by all stakeholders. The revision of the national action plan
constitutes an excellent opportunity to enhance its visibility, impact and independence.
23.
The creation of a human rights ombudsperson can also help victims to gain access toremedies.14 The Working Group notes as a positive practice the establishment of specialized
ombudspersons, such as those for children and persons with disabilities. 15
3.

Non-State-based grievance mechanisms
24.
The Working Group emphasizes the importance of effective non-State-based
grievance mechanisms for addressing business-related human rights issues in Japan. A 2021
survey by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
indicated that only about 49 per cent of the 760 businesses surveyed had guidelines andprocedures to provide remedy to victims and correct problems. 16 Although most large
businesses that met with the Working Group had operational-level grievance mechanisms inplace, some workers still feared reprisals (e.g. losing their jobs) for reporting workplacemisconduct.
25.
The 2020 revision of the Whistle-blower Protection Act, which became effective inJune 2022, requiring businesses with over 300 employees to establish a system for internal
whistle-blowing disclosures, is a positive step. However, stronger protections andenforcement are needed. A report found that 70 per cent of businesses with over
1,000 employees had internal hotlines for whistle-blowers, compared with 57.4 per cent ofbusinesses with 301 to 1,000 employees and 36 per cent with 101 to 300 employees.17 The
Working Group notes that, while the scope of protection has been expanded to include
company directors and employees within one year of their retirement, the definition ofwhistle-blowers in the Act remains narrow and excludes those who are self-employed(e.g. actors, artists and television personalities), contractors and suppliers, as well as theirattorneys and family members, unless they are acting with the whistle-blower’s approval andare making the disclosure on behalf of the whistle-blower in accordance with their consent.
Furthermore, while the Act prohibits retaliation, there are currently no criminal oradministrative penalties against businesses that do not have internal hotlines or that retaliate
against whistle-blowers, although those employees who are or were engaged in dealing withwhistle-blowing disclosures, including those managing hotlines, are subject to a penalty
should they fail to respect whistle-blowers’ confidentiality. The Working Group highlights
the importance of ensuring that the Consumer Affairs Agency has sufficient resources andaccess to information to carry out its mandate effectively. To foster an environment where
whistle-blowing is respected, there is a need to combat retaliation and reward those who
speak up. The Working Group underscores the importance of raising awareness and takes
note of the efforts of the Consumer Affairs Agency to share videos about the Act through themedia.
26.
Positive practices that the Working Group observed include establishing grievancemechanisms open to all stakeholders and setting up dedicated grievance mechanisms for thevalue chain. The Engagement and Remedy Platform by the Japan Center for Engagement andRemedy on Business and Human Rights is a notable example, accumulating know-how andoffering a non-judicial platform for its members to achieve redress based on the Guiding
Principles. Another example is Ajinomoto’s multi-language hotline for migrant workers,

13

See also https://www.oecdwatch.org/ncp/ncp-japan/.
See A/75/224.
15 See A/HRC/53/24/Add.2.
16 See https://www.meti.go.jp/press/2021/11/20211130001/20211130001-1.pdf (in Japanese).
17 See https://www.tdb-di.com/2023/11/sp20231130.pdf (in Japanese).
14

6GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

which operates in eight languages and is run in collaboration with a non-governmentalorganization.18
27.
The Working Group was also pleased to learn about some State agencies’ grievancereporting hotlines and commends in particular the establishment of the Japan Platform for
Migrant Workers towards Responsible and Inclusive Society, which includes a grievancemechanism available in nine languages to migrant workers and provides expert consultation
services.

III. At-risk groups
28.
While this section is focused on women, LGBTQI+ persons, persons with disabilities,
Indigenous Peoples, minority groups, including Buraku communities, children and older
persons, it is important to stress that this is not an exhaustive list of at-risk stakeholder groups
in Japan. The Working Group was also informed about issues in relation to, for instance, theexploitation of sex workers and discrimination against homeless people.
29.
The crux of the challenges faced by at-risk stakeholder groups is the lack of diversity
and inclusion in the labour market, on the one hand, and the prevalence of discrimination,harassment and violence in the workplace and society at large on the other. Indeed, ongoingdisparities in these groups’ ability to gain access to employment opportunities, fair wages
and a living income are closely linked to structural inequality, workplace discrimination andrelated problems, including poverty and social exclusion.19 While personal attributes, such as
ethnicity, race, age, gender and sexual orientation, should not prejudice an individual’s job
opportunities or perception of their work competencies, this is often the case in reality.20
Indigenous Peoples, ethnic minorities, migrant workers and women, many of whom work inlower-paid and informal economy jobs, generally receive lower wages than the rest of the
population. Beyond the moral imperative to ensure inclusion, inequality can be economicallyand politically damaging. 21 To achieve sustainable growth and leave no one behind, as
promised in the 2030 Agenda, it is important for government policies and business activities
to champion inclusion and social justice by first reaching at-risk peoples, who are often thoseleft the furthest behind.22

A.

Women
30.
The Working Group expresses its concern about the persistent gender wage gap inJapan, as it was ranked 125 out of 146 countries in the 2023 gender gap index.23 Full-time
female workers earn only 75.7 per cent of their male counterparts’ wages. 24 Moreover,
women are frequently restricted to roles involving assistance, temporary employment, or
part-time work, resulting in limited career advancement opportunities and fewer benefits.
Women account for 68.2 per cent of non-regular workers,25 earning only 80.4 per cent ofwhat their male counterparts earn. The Working Group commends the Government’s
requirement for large businesses to disclose their gender wage gaps 26 as a positive step
forward.
31.
The participation of women from minority groups in the labour market likewise serves
as a revealing indicator of discrimination. In contrast to the average annual earnings among18

See https://www.ajinomoto.com/sustainability/news/ajinomoto-co-inc-started-operating-a-multilanguage-hotline-for-migrant-workers.
19 See https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/full-report.pdf.
20 Ibid.
21 Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA); and Joseph
Stiglitz “The price of inequality”, New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1.
22 See https://sdgpulse.unctad.org/inclusive-growth/#Ref_P56NBYW5.
23 See https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2023.pdf.
24 See https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-l/ordinary2020.html.
25 See https://www.gender.go.jp/kaigi/senmon/keikaku_kanshi/siryo/pdf/ka22-1.pdf (in Japanese).
26 Through the 2022 revisions to the Ministerial Ordinance on the Act on Promotion of Women’sParticipation and Advancement in the Workplace.
GE.24-06979

7

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

women, which stands at about 3 million yen, Buraku women earn only about 2 million yen
and Ainu women receive less than 1.5 million yen,27 despite performing the same job withequal productivity. Resident Korean women also reported fewer job opportunities comparedwith Korean men and Japanese women.
32.
The approval of the fifth basic plan for gender equality, formulated on the basis of the
Basic Act for Gender Equal Society, demonstrates the Government’s commitment toincreasing the representation of women in executive management. Keidanren’s goal toincrease the proportion of women executives to 30 per cent by 2030 further reflects positiveefforts from businesses. However, the current underrepresentation of women in executive
management, at merely 15.5 per cent of employed individuals,28 remains a concerning trendthat demands greater attention from the Government and the private sector. Reports ofwomen being denied promotions and worrying cases of sexual harassment highlight the needto promote gender diversity in leadership and decision-making roles.
33.
The Government’s introduction of one of the world’s most generous paternity leave
provisions marks another positive step in addressing gender inequality in the workplace.
Nevertheless, the low uptake (17.13 per cent in 2022) falls significantly short of theGovernment’s goal of achieving a 50 per cent ratio by 2025. 29 Concurrently, addressing
concerns about instances of pregnant women facing job dismissals requires immediate
attention.

B.

LGBTQI+ persons
34.
Throughout the visit, the Working Group was informed of instances of discrimination
against LGBTQI+ persons. The Working Group is particularly concerned about suchpractices as demanding that transgender individuals disclose their legal names andpretransition photos on job applications. Furthermore, there are notable issues surrounding
hate speech targeting LGBTQI+ communities, in particular online. While the Working Groupacknowledges the Government’s enactment of a law, the Act to Promote Public
Understanding of Diversity of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, the Law lacks a clauseprohibiting discrimination against LGBTQI+ individuals and lacks a clear definition of
discrimination.
35.
Despite these challenges, there have been positive developments, such as the Supreme
Court’s ruling on restroom access for transgender individuals and an increasing number of
local governments implementing partnership systems for same-sex couples. Notably, theTokyo Metropolitan Government and the Sapporo Government actively engage with theprivate sector to encourage the utilization of partnership certificates. These initiatives ensurethat LGBTQI+ employees can avail themselves of various benefits. Indicating a growing
awareness and appreciation for LGBTQI+ issues in the private sector, the Pride Center inOsaka is supported by several businesses. Another emerging positive practice is the Sapporo
Government’s LGBT-Friendliness Index System,30 which evaluates and registers businesses
promoting LGBT-friendly initiatives based on specific indicators. Although publicawareness of the system remains limited, it represents an important initiative for greater
inclusion.

C.

Persons with disabilities
36.
A pressing challenge in Japan concerns the inclusion of persons with disabilities in
the labour market and workplace. The Working Group heard with concern the experiencesof persons with disabilities who were exposed to workplace discrimination and lower salaries.

27

See https://www.nta.go.jp/publication/statistics/kokuzeicho/minkan/gaiyou/2022.htm#a-01 (inJapanese).
28 See https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=54753.
29 See https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/could-japans-paternity-leave-policy-help-narrow-thegender-gap/.
30 See https://www.city.sapporo.jp/shimin/danjo/lgbt/sihyo.html (in Japanese).
8

GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

Moreover, the Working Group has received concerning reports indicating instances of “false
employment” and “proxy employment”, whereby businesses provide a venue for work forpersons with disabilities to fulfil another business’ employment obligations, but these
individuals are often segregated from other employees, working with other persons withdisabilities only, thus contributing to further workplace inequality.
37.
The Act for the Promotion of Employment for Persons with Disabilities, inter alia,
sets legal employment quota rates for persons with disabilities. The legal quota for the private
sector from April 2024 is 2.5 per cent and 2.8 per cent for State entities.31 There are persons
with disabilities and intractable diseases who are not considered eligible in this system,
however. Expanding the narrow and exclusive criteria used to calculate the quota is essential
for promoting employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.
38.
The Working Group also found that the current provision of personal assistanceservices for persons who require more intensive support, does not adequately support persons
with disabilities during commuting and working hours. Feedback received by the Working
Group indicates that the system is complicated to use, posing challenges for employers andexacerbating the marginalization of workers with disabilities.
39.
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare reported a record high of 4,138 persons
with disabilities experiencing abuse, including while working in companies, in 2022. 32
Discriminatory practices, such as denial of the opportunity to travel with infants or rejection
by real estate agents due to landlords’ unwillingness to rent to persons with disabilities,
compound the challenges that they face. It is especially important to consider theintersectionality of disability and gender, as women with disabilities often face aggravateddiscrimination.

D.

Minority groups and Indigenous Peoples
40.
The recognition of the Ainu people as Indigenous Peoples and the passing of the Ainu
Measures Promotion Act of 2019 mark a positive move towards acknowledging their rights.
However, the absence of a comprehensive census of the Ainu population, one that ispredicated on an Ainu definition of their own Indigenous identity, renders discrimination
against them invisible and uncounted, with Ainu people still facing discrimination in various
domains, including education and the workplace.
41.
The Working Group was informed of a lawsuit against the central and prefectural
governments seeking to reclaim the Ainu people’s fishing rights. Article 28 of the Act on theProtection of Marine Resources prohibits, with limited exceptions, the harvesting of
freshwater salmon by all Japanese citizens, including the Ainu people. However, this measuredoes not adequately consider the Ainu people’s traditional salmon fishing rights as an
Indigenous People whose way of living has historically involved the hunting and harvestingof salmon from rivers. The measure only permits harvesting for cultural and ritual purposes,
failing to support the Ainu’s traditional livelihood from salmon fishing. The Working Groupis concerned that this situation limits Ainu rights and instead benefits businesses permitted
to take salmon from the sea, warranting re-examination by the Government.
42.
The absence of free, prior and informed consent from the Ainu people for various
development projects, including those in the renewable energy sector, is likewise troubling.
The Working Group notes with apprehension the adverse impact of these projects on the
Ainu people and their rights. Stakeholders have brought to the Working Group’s attention
issues of grave concern, including the leasing of State-owned forests to businesses toconstruct large-scale windmill complexes and resort developments without the Ainu people’s
consent. Although prior notification of project details to local residents is required for
certification under the feed-in tariff and feed-in premium programmes, this is different fromobtaining free, prior and informed consent from the Ainu people as Indigenous Peoples.
31
32

GE.24-06979

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/001064502.pdf (in Japanese).
See https://barrierfreejapan.com/2023/12/20/japans-ministry-of-health-labor-and-welfare-reports3079-cases-of-abuse-against-disabled-confirmed-by-local-governments-in-2022-highest-recordednumber/.
9

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

Furthermore, the Ainu Measures Promotion Act allows Ainu people to collect forest products
only for the purpose of promoting the Ainu people’s culture. While the Working Groupacknowledges the law’s recognition of the Ainu people as the nation’s Indigenous People, it
is unfortunate that the Government does not recognize the Ainu people’s collective rights toforest management and hunting.
43.
The Working Group has also received reports of a surge in hostile and distorted viewson the Ainu people, which may be categorized as hate speech, in printed materials and on theInternet. Noting the Government’s efforts to promote cultural education about the Ainu
people through tourism, for example, the Working Group is concerned about reports receivedof racial harassment and psychological stress faced by Ainu workers at the National Ainu
Museum and Park.
44.
Equally concerning to the Working Group are the cases of discrimination against
ethnic Korean and Chinese workers, including repeated acts of hate speech by employers.33
Certain hate speech-related cases filed by victims reportedly took many years to go throughthe Japanese court system, and, according to testimonies received, even when the plaintiffs
won, there was no financial compensation, undermining access to remedy.34 It is worth notingthat many of the ethnic Korean workers who continue to suffer discrimination and harassment
are third-generation (or longer) residents in Japan, and their mother tongue is Japanese.
Relatedly, a survey published in 2017 by the Ministry of Justice showed that, of those who
suffered discriminatory treatment at work, 25 per cent were refused employment because
they were foreigners, 19.6 per cent received lower wages and 12.8 per cent experienced
poorer working conditions than their Japanese counterparts.35
45.
Furthermore, the Working Group learned about human rights issues surrounding
Buraku people, who are still subject to various types of discrimination in their daily lives.
Such discrimination severely affects their ability to gain access to the labour market and enjoy
equal employment opportunities. While Japan approved the Act on the Promotion of
Elimination of Buraku Discrimination of 2016, the Working Group was alerted to a patternof hate speech used, in particular online and in the publishing industry, and of workplace
discrimination (e.g. through invasive job screening questionnaires). While some Buraku
people have successfully won lawsuits against discrimination, the Working Group was
notified of how long court proceedings in Japan make it challenging to gain access toremedies effectively.
46.
Despite requests under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, the Personal
Information Protection Commission issued an opinion that information contained in thefamily register, which may be used to discriminate against Buraku people, is not within thescope of “sensitive personal information” covered by the law. Similarly, the Act on the
Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behaviour against
Persons Originating from Outside Japan of 2016 (also known as the Hate Speech EliminationAct) does not define discrimination or include penalty provisions or remedy. Furthermore, it
only covers “foreigners” legally residing in Japan. As such, it does not cover discrimination
against Buraku people. The Working Group was pleased to note however that, during ameeting of the Cabinet Committee of the Upper House, the Secretary-General of the Personal
Information Protection Commission orally agreed that Buraku falls under the definition of“social status”,36 which is within the scope of “sensitive personal information” covered in the
Act and, as such, the Working Group hopes that this opinion will be added to the guidelines
for the Act’s implementation.
47.
The Working Group did learn of positive practices, which include coordinationcommittees comprising businesses that work with affected stakeholders to reduce
33

See, for example, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55345080 andhttps://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14714919.
34 See https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/japan-lawsuit-against-leading-real-estatefuji-corp-over-alleged-distribution-of-documents-containing-racist-expressions-constituting-hatespeech-company-comments-compensation-orders-unacceptable/.
35 See https://www.moj.go.jp/JINKEN/stophatespeech_chousa.html (in Japanese).
36 Recording available on https://www.webtv.sangiin.go.jp/webtv/index.php (in Japanese) by navigating
to 7 December 2023 and selecting the video of the Cabinet Committee.
10

GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

discrimination through, for instance, providing training programmes to employees. Other
examples include initiatives by local governments to raise awareness and fight discrimination,
the consultation channels of the Ministry of Justice and the guidance of the Ministry of Health,Labour and Welfare on establishing a human rights focal point for businesses with 80 or more
employees. As indicated by the fair recruitment and human rights awareness promoter
scheme, employers are required to ensure “fair recruitment selection based on theunderstanding and recognition of human rights issues, such as [Buraku] issues”.37
48.
The Working Group underlines that, without adequate regulation or laws that prohibit
discrimination, it is extremely difficult for victims of discrimination to file complaints or gain
access to remedy. Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples and ethnic Korean, Chineseand Buraku people falls under the scope of the International Convention on the Eliminationof All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Japan has acceded. Furthermore, theWorking Group specifically reiterates the role that social media and technology businesses
should play in promoting respect for human rights across their platforms and preventing
harm.38

E.

Children49.
The Working Group was informed about child labour concerns both in Japanese value
chains and in Japan. 39 While the Labor Standards Act provides for special protective
provisions concerning work for those under 18 years of age, the legal framework does notdefine child labour, and the Government does not currently have an action plan on theeradication of child labour. Moreover, stakeholders indicated a low level of understanding ofchildren’s rights in general and the impact of businesses on these rights specifically. Given
that the Government enacted the Basic Act on Children’s Policy and the General Principles
for Child-Related Measures, having also created the Children and Families Agency in 2023,
this presents a timely opportunity for increased awareness-raising and mainstreamingchildren’s rights into the context of business and human rights. This could include, forexample, marketing and advertising that respects and supports children’s rights and raisingawareness of how children are also stakeholders for business. In this regard, the Working
Group welcomes initiatives by Japan International Cooperation Agency and Japanesebusinesses to eradicate child labour within high-risk areas like cocoa value chains.40

F.

Older persons
50.
Japan has one of the fastest ageing and declining birth rates in the world, resulting ina growing labour shortage.41 Among OECD countries, Japan has one of the highest rates ofolder persons’ participation in the labour force. 42 According to the Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communications, the number of workers 65 years of age and older represented
an all-time peak of 9.12 million in 2022.43 A study by the Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare also indicated that 39 per cent of businesses in Japan had hired someone over theage of 70 in 2022.44
51.
The Working Group heard concerns of discriminatory employment practices targeting
older persons. Over 70 per cent of those employed at age 65 or older are non-regular37

See https://kouseisaiyou.mhlw.go.jp/system.html (in Japanese).
See, for example, communication OTH 125/2022 and associated communications. All
communications mentioned in the present report are available fromhttps://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
39 See, for example, https://acejapan.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/ACE_Report_Child_Labour_in_Japan(E).pdf.
40 See https://www.jica.go.jp/Resource/english/news/press/2022/20221012_42.html.
41 See https://www.mhlw.go.jp/churoi/roushi/dl/R050313-1.pdf (in Japanese).
42 See https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/Working-better-with-age-Japan-EN.pdf.
43 See https://www.stat.go.jp/data/topics/pdf/topi138_02.pdf (in Japanese).
44 See https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/08/japan-working-age-labour-shortage/.
38

GE.24-06979

11

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

workers, 45 which can lead to situations of homelessness among older persons due toprecarious job contracts. Contracts for people between 60 and 65 years of age, in many cases,
provide for reduced wages for the same work, and there is a lack of protections for older
persons who are prone to illness or injury. 46 Crucially, approximately one fourth ofwork-related injuries or deaths occurred among workers 60 years of age or older, making
older persons the most affected group.47 Structural issues, such as the ability of employers to
set a mandatory retirement age and poor-quality jobs for older persons, are hindering efforts
to extend the years of work for older persons in productive and high-quality jobs.48 All of thisspotlights the need for dedicated policy attention on the labour rights of older persons, inparticular considering that Japan does not have general age discrimination legislation, unlike
other OECD countries.

IV. Thematic areas of concern
52.
In this section, the Working Group delves into key thematic areas of interest to it, by
probing specific cases that are emblematic of the many serious concerns repeatedly raised bystakeholders. This allows for a grounded analysis of the progress made and the myriad
challenges that remain for realizing the business and human rights agenda of Japan.

A.

Health, climate change and the natural environment
53.
During the visit, the Working Group observed weak levels of awareness of theinterconnection between human rights and the environmental impact of business activities.
The Working Group stresses that businesses have the responsibility to respect human rights,
which include the right to a healthy, clean and sustainable environment.
54.
The Working Group urges the Government and businesses to do more to secure atransition to a zero-carbon economy,49 especially given that Japan is the world’s sixth largest
emitter of carbon dioxide and, despite government efforts to decarbonize the power sector,
coal remains a substantial part of the country’s energy mix.50 The Working Group recalls its
report on the extractives sector, a just transition and human rights.51
55.
The Working Group observed some promising efforts, specifically by civil society, toensure corporate accountability and respect for the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable
environment. For instance, environmental non-governmental organizations have filed
shareholder proposals with major Japanese businesses listed in the prime market of the Tokyo
Stock Exchange, calling for more disclosure of their climate change policies. 52 Climate
lawsuits have also been brought against power companies and the Government,53 although,as of January 2024, rulings were either pending or unsuccessful.54 Noting various government

45

See https://www.stat.go.jp/data/topics/topi1322.html (in Japanese).
See https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/Working-better-with-age-Japan-EN.pdf; andhttps://social.un.org/ageing-working-group/documents/eleventh/Inputs%20MS/Japan-Right-towork.pdf.
47 See https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/201402 (in Japanese).
48 See https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/Working-better-with-age-Japan-EN.pdf; and https://www.oecdilibrary.org/sites/bae148a3-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/bae148a3-en.
49 See communications JPN 2/2023, OTH 89/2023 and OTH 86/2023.
50 See https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2022/100/article-A004-en.xml.
51 A/78/155.
52 See https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/japan-environmental-ngos-fileshareholder-proposals-to-major-japanese-companies-in-tokyo-prime-market-calling-for-greaterdisclosure-of-climate-change-policies/.
53 See http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/citizens-committee-on-the-kobe-coal-fired-power-plantv-japan/; http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/yokosuka-climate-case/; andhttps://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/market-forces-v-smbc-mufg-and-mizuho/.
54 See https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2022/06/01/climate-litigation-in-japan-citizensattempts-for-the-coal-phase-out/.
46

12

GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

and private sector environmental, social and governance initiatives, 55 the Working Grouphighlights its report on this topic.56
56.
The Working Group welcomes the environmental due diligence initiatives of the
Ministry of the Environment, which include reference to the Guiding Principles and humanrights. 57 Noteworthy efforts by some businesses include establishing supplier codes ofconduct that incorporate an environmental or value chain lens on the practice of human rights
due diligence.58 The Government has committed to carbon neutrality by 2050,59 taking steps
to increase transparency, including by requiring non-financial information disclosure frombusinesses on sustainability-related initiatives. 60 To attain a just transition, the Working
Group spotlights the need for increased policy coherence at the national level.
57.
Concerns persist about the effectiveness of existing Government mechanisms toaddress environmental issues raised by stakeholders. The Working Group expresses serious
apprehension in particular over reports of inadequate public consultation in environmental
impact assessment processes, especially for large-scale development schemes. One caseraised by stakeholders is the Jingu Gaien District Urban Redevelopment Project, which could
result in adverse human rights impacts. 61 The Working Group emphasizes that meaningful
consultation, in particular with at-risk and minority groups who are likely to bedisproportionately affected by climate change, is required under the Guiding Principles.
1.

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
58.
The Working Group met with stakeholders affected by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
disaster. While the Tokyo Electric Power Company62 has established a human rights policy,
a procedure for human rights due diligence and a grievance mechanism, in 2021, affectedstakeholders, including workers, informed the Working Group of problematic labour
practices relating to the power station’s decommissioning, clean-up and decontamination
efforts. The Working Group listened with deep concern reports from interlocutors about
instances of forced labour, predatory subcontracting practices and unsafe working conditions.
Some of the same concerns had also been raised by special rapporteurs, in 2018,63 and by
non-governmental organizations on several occasions,64 but remain unresolved. The Working
Group also heard about the issues hospital workers and schoolteachers faced in the aftermathof the disaster, highlighting the continued need for remedies for all stakeholders affected.
59.
In terms of forced labour, the Working Group was informed that some workers of
subcontractors of the Tokyo Electric Power Company were forced to work on thedecontamination and the decommissioning of the nuclear power station to pay off debts. The
Working Group also learned that the Company had five subsidiary layers of subcontractors,
with workers on lower tiers of the subcontracting ladder reportedly receiving lower wages
while performing the same job.65 Other workers were promised certain wages and hazard pay,
but once they were on the job, they were paid considerably less. When some workers
attempted to file a class action lawsuit to claim their hazard pay, they lost the case because

55

See https://www.jbic.go.jp/en/information/press/press-2021/1028-015365.html;
https://www.mufg.jp/english/csr/society/esg/index.html; andhttps://www.mizuhogroup.com/investors/esg.
56 A/HRC/56/55.
57 See https://www.env.go.jp/content/900497033.pdf (in Japanese).
58 See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/case-studies-on-environmental-due-diligence-english-version.pdf.
59 See https://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/energy_environment/global_warming/roadmap/.
60 See https://www.fsa.go.jp/en/newsletter/weekly2023/524.html.
61 See https://www.icomos.org/en/get-involved/inform-us/heritage-alert/current-alerts/125573-heritagealert-jingu-gaien.
62 The Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation was establishedby the Government of Japan and holds over 50 per cent of the Company’s shares.
63 See https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/08/1017232.
64 See https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-japan-stateless/2021/03/ff71ab0b-finalfukushima20112020_web.pdf; and https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-japan-stateless/2019/03/b12d8f83frontfksm_en.pdf.
65 The Working Group notes that these predatory subcontracting practices also occur across otherindustries in Japan.
GE.24-06979

13

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

their labour contracts with subcontractors did not stipulate the payment of hazard
allowances.66 The Working Group also heard with distress from workers whose colleagues
had died from workplace accidents and about workers who were afraid to speak up due tothe retaliatory practice of dismissing those who had voiced concerns.
60.
The Working Group was deeply concerned to learn about workers who had developed
cancer-related illnesses after their clean-up and decontamination work but had been denied
financial compensation or medical assistance by the Company’s subcontractors, as
employment records did not accurately reflect radiation exposure. Specifically, the Working
Group heard of cases where workers were required to submit materials proving a causal
relationship between exposure to radiation and the onset of cancer. This places an
unreasonable burden on individuals and goes against the principles outlined in the Guiding
Principles. Business entities, not individuals, are responsible for ensuring a safe working
environment and shouldering the burden of proof.67
61.
In addition to operational health and safety issues related to the disaster, the Working
Group repeatedly heard serious concerns about the discharge of treated water through theadvanced liquid processing system from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station,commencing in August 2023. On this issue, several special rapporteurs have also expressed
concern.68
2.

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances
62.
The Working Group heard several cases of water contaminated with per- andpoly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa, Kanagawa and Aichi,
reportedly linked to business operations. The Working Group notes the link between PFAS
and negative health effects, as previously highlighted by several special procedure mandate
holders.69 In January 2023, the Ministry of the Environment established an expert group to
discuss comprehensive PFAS measures based on scientific evidence and to contribute to thesafety and security of the people by disseminating easy-to-understand information.70 The
expert group has since published guidance for the Government to, inter alia, continuously
monitor rivers and groundwater, conduct general human exposure assessments, including
blood concentration surveys, on a large scale and review the current PFAS provisional target
values based on the latest scientific evidence.71 In response, the Ministry of the Environment
prepared a policy to prevent negative health effects and ensure proper PFAS management,72
including plans to enhance scientific knowledge on the negative effects of PFAS on humanhealth. The policy is not slated to involve large-scale studies of PFAS blood concentration
among residents in affected areas, however. To date, the Working Group understands that
there is limited government initiative to conduct health studies of people living near
PFAS-contaminated water sources. 73 This is despite an academic study indicating thatwestern Tokyo residents have been exposed to four harmful PFAS chemicals. 74
63.
The Working Group notes that the Tokyo Metropolitan Government has taken
positive steps, including conducting groundwater surveys, suspending some intake wells andsetting up a hotline.75 Another positive practice is a PFAS consultation clinic established bya private hospital in Tokyo.76 Despite this, additional measures are needed at the national
level to address PFAS contamination and its negative health effects in all affected regions.
Given that PFAS contamination in many of these cases is allegedly linked to business66

See https://jp.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0GY091/ (in Japanese).
See A/HRC/38/20/Add.2 and A/HRC/47/39/Add.2.
68 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/04/japan-un-experts-say-deeply-disappointeddecision-discharge-fukushima-water.
69 See communication USA 6/2023 and associated communications.
70 See https://www.env.go.jp/water/pfas/pfas.html (in Japanese).
71 See https://www.env.go.jp/content/000150418.pdf (in Japanese).
72 See https://www.env.go.jp/content/000182770.pdf (in Japanese).
73 A pilot study in 2021 by the Ministry of the Environment covered just 119 residents across Japan.
74 See https://plaza.umin.ac.jp/khh/TamaPFAS20230921.pdf (in Japanese); andhttps://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1931.
75 See https://www.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/tosei/hodohappyo/press/2023/04/28/18.html (in Japanese).
76 See https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/234470 (in Japanese).
67

14

GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

operations, the Working Group highlights the business responsibility to address this issue,
under the Guiding Principles and the “polluter pays” principle.

B.

Labour rights
64.
The Working Group also examined a range of labour rights-related issues, such as
overwork, occupational health and safety and the ability of workers to unionize.

1.

Labour unions
65.
The Working Group received information concerning arrests and prosecutions
targeting labour union members, including in Osaka. These members faced legal action undercharges of the alleged forcible obstruction of business and attempted extortion, stemmingfrom their participation in daily union activities focused on advocating for corporate
compliance with laws and regulations. In other instances, employees were denied entry to
work for unionizing.
66.
The Working Group notes the essential role of labour unions in promoting fair andlawful workplace practices, which help to ensure that business enterprises respect humanrights, as outlined by the Guiding Principles. Therefore, the Working Group reiterates theimportance of labour unions being able to carry out their activities in a legitimate manner.

2.

Overwork
67.
Stakeholders notified the Working Group about long-standing challenges associatedwith karoshi (death by overwork). The Working Group welcomed the efforts made by theGovernment to address these issues, evidenced by the enactment of laws aimed at raisingawareness, capping overtime hours and preventing workplace harassment. The Working
Group remains concerned however by reports of increases in compensation claims involving
work-related illnesses, in particular in relation to mental health.77 The Working Group is also
apprehensive about exceptions to the overtime cap, notably for medical doctors who may belegally compelled to work up to 1,860 overtime hours per year.

3.

Migrant workers and the technical intern training programme
68.
The Working Group met with foreign workers under the technical intern training
programme, their employers and businesses whose value chains involve the use of workers
from the programme. Those workers were the second largest category of foreigners in Japan
in 2022.78 While the stated purpose of the programme is human resource development, theseworkers also play an indispensable role in addressing the country’s labour shortage andstimulating the economy.
69.
The Working Group heard cases of foreign workers being fired after suffering fromworkplace accidents, and thus having their medical treatment discontinued. Reports were also
received of workplace violence, cramped living conditions, difficulties opening and gaining
access to bank accounts in Japan, the payment of exorbitant fees to agencies in workers’
home States and workers performing the same duties for lower wages than their Japanesecounterparts. In 2022, 7,247 employers in the technical intern training programme were
found liable for illegal practices, including breaches of safety rules and unpaid wages. 79
While the Technical Intern Training Programme Act of 2017 prohibits forced labour, theWorking Group notes the existence of reports indicating cases of technical interns and otherforeign workers being forced to work by having their passports confiscated 80 and employees
being forced to come to work or work overtime against their will.81

77

See https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11402000/001113802.pdf (in Japanese).
See https://www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/930004452.pdf.
79 See https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/08/09167237d52f-over-7200-japan-firms-employingforeign-trainees-broke-law.html.
80 See, e.g. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221020-2022-TIP-Report.pdf.
81 Ibid.
78

GE.24-06979

15

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

70.
The Working Group was nonetheless alerted to positive practices, such as recipient
unions assisting workers with understanding their rights and acting as grievance mechanisms.
The Working Group heard of the work undertaken by associations of small and mediumsized enterprises in encouraging responsible hiring practices and management and how
several large businesses had supplier codes of conduct that forbade recruitment fees forforeign technical workers and required their suppliers to repay the fees to employees.82
71.
Equally noteworthy is how the human rights bodies of the Ministry of Justice canprovide human rights counselling services in multiple languages to foreign nationals andcarry out awareness-raising activities.83 The Technical Intern Training Organization can also
conduct inspections, and it provides native language counselling to technical interns.
However, stakeholders expressed concerns that the counselling can be superficial and thatthe effectiveness of on-site inspections is questionable.
72.
The expert panel reviewing the technical intern training programme submitted its final
report in November 2023, listing human rights protections for foreign workers as one of theobjectives for the review.84 The expert panel suggested, inter alia, that employer changes
should be allowed under certain conditions, that requirements for supervisory bodies should
be tightened and that the roles of related organizations should be clarified to strengthen
human rights protection. Based on the expert panel’s final report and other opinions, theGovernment decided to review the technical intern training programme and subsequently
proposed a new system to the Diet. However, the Working Group stresses that it continues
to be crucial to conduct differentiated assessments on the salient human rights issues for eachof the sectors covered in the programme. Should Japan achieve sustained economic growth,
the country’s foreign labour force is expected to increase to approximately 4.5 million people
by 2040. 85 In view of this estimate, the Government must take steps now to establish
frameworks that will ensure the universal enjoyment of human rights. The Working Grouphighlights the guidance of OHCHR on this topic.86

C.

Media and entertainment industry
73.
The Working Group observed deeply troubling issues within the media andentertainment industry, especially in the idol and animation sector. The animation market in
Japan has seen a significant increase in profits, reaching 2.74 trillion yen (approximately$20 billion).87 But despite this growth, the annual starting salaries of animators stand at amere 1.5 million yen (roughly $10,000).88 This disparity is particularly worrying considering
that, in 2023, approximately 30.8 per cent of those employed in the industry worked as
freelancers or independent contractors, who were reportedly not receiving protection under
the current labour laws.89 This enables excessively long working hours and perpetuates unfair
subcontracting relationships. However, animation production companies, along with theirsubcontractors, face no penalties. Furthermore, creators often sign contracts that inadequately
protect their intellectual property rights, creating an environment ripe for exploitation.
Combined with a major labour shortage, it is imperative that businesses in this sector,
including anime production committees, address these issues and exercise leverage toenhance decent work for animators and prevent the potential collapse of this industry.
Similarly, in the idol industry, the Working Group was informed about young talents being
coerced into signing contracts obliging them to comply with every demanding requirement

82

See e.g. https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/csr_report/sourcing/Sony_Supply_Chain_CoC_E.pdf.
See https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001412238.pdf.
84 See https://www.moj.go.jp/isa/policies/policies/03_00033.html?hl=en (in Japanese).
85 See https://www.jil.go.jp/press/documents/20240311.pdf (in Japanese).
86 See https://bangkok.ohchr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Report-on-temporary-labour-migrationprogramme-final-250123.pdf; https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/
Issues/Migration/GlobalCompactMigration/IrregularMigrants.pdf; andhttps://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Migration/PrinciplesAndGuidelines.pdf.
87 See https://aja.gr.jp/download/2022_anime_ind_rpt_summary_en (in Japanese).
88 See https://www.jftc.go.jp/cprc/katsudo/bbl_files/258th-bbl.pdf (in Japanese).
89 Ibid.
83

16

GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

of producers, advertisers and agents, while also subjecting them to exorbitant penalties for
non-compliance.
74.
This alarming environment fosters a culture of impunity and exacerbates sexual
violence and harassment, such that these issues within the broader media and entertainment
industry remain inadequately addressed. The Working Group was informed about the sexual
harassment and abuse of female journalists and the lack of remedial action taken bybroadcasting stations, which, at best, send them on leave, transfer them to another department
or advise them to consult a doctor. According to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare,
more than 20 per cent of actors have experienced sexual harassment at work. 90 Key
businesses, such as broadcasting stations, publishing companies and advertising giants, arefailing to uphold their responsibility to respect human rights by preventing sexual abuse andusing leverage in their business relationships to address human rights risks.
75.
The Working Group remains profoundly alarmed by allegations of sexual exploitation
and abuse involving several hundred talents signed with Johnny and Associates (recently
renamed Smile-Up). As noted in the Working Group’s end of mission statement, media
companies in Japan have been implicated in covering up such scandals for decades. While
the Working Group welcomes the various actions taken by businesses associated with
Smile-Up to take on greater accountability, it is still important to carefully consider thehuman rights implications of disengagement and exercise leverage as a first step, in line with
the Guiding Principles.
76.
Since the Working Group’s visit, Smile-Up has extended offers of compensation
through a remediation committee to 282 victims and provided monetary compensation to 201
out of 206 victims who accepted such offers.91 This is still a long way from meeting the needsof the victims who have requested timely remediation, including those whose compensation
claims are under appeal.92 While the Working Group acknowledges Smile-Up’s efforts, it isconcerning for the Working Group to receive regular reports about the difficulties faced by
victims in seeking mental health-care assistance through Smile-Up’s Mental Care
Consultation Desk. Moreover, although Smile-Up has purportedly been offering lawyers or
clinical psychologists to be present during interviews at no cost, victims with whom theWorking Group has engaged reported not having received this offer. It is also unacceptablethat the monetary compensation offered by Smile-Up does not cover legal fees, leaving
victims to bear these costs themselves.

D.

Regulating value chains and finance77.
The Working Group met with representatives of businesses, government agencies andState-owned enterprises operating in high-risk contexts, including conflict-affected areas.
Throughout these meetings, it became clear that these stakeholders needed guidance,
including on responsible exit that incorporated human rights considerations.
78.
Stakeholders informed the Working Group of the need for updated legislation andimproved implementation related to transparency and information disclosure, as well as forgrievance mechanisms for human rights disputes outside of Japan.
79.
In many instances, it is difficult to establish93 to what extent Japanese businesses andState-owned enterprises operate in conflict-affected areas, including in Myanmar94 and theRussian Federation, because they usually do not disclose information fully on their businessdealings, citing commercial confidentiality.95 This hinders the public’s right to information90

See https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15005538.
See https://www.smile-up.inc/s/su/group/detail/10012?ima=2647 (in Japanese).
92 Ibid.
93 See https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/russia-japanese-trading-co-mitsuimitsubishi-plan-to-retain-interests-in-sakhalin-2-energy-project/.
94 See https://bangkok.ohchr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023.04.28-End-of-MissionStatement.pdf; and https://www.fairfinance.jp/media/eralapvo/ffgj-myanmar-en20220215.pdf.
95 See https://bangkok.ohchr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023.04.28-End-of-MissionStatement.pdf.
91

GE.24-06979

17

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

and reinforces the need for legislation on transparency and disclosure. Furthermore, it isunclear whether Japanese businesses operating in conflict-affected areas are conducting
heightened human rights due diligence. 96 Businesses operating in conflict-affected areas
should engage in heightened human rights due diligence to investigate the possibility of theircomplicity in human rights abuses.97 The Working Group has previously urged businesses to“act in line with the [Guiding Principles] to avoid contributing to human rights violations or
becoming complicit in crimes if they continue to operate in Myanmar”.98 The Working Groupstresses that terminating business relationships should be considered a last resort and calls
upon Japanese businesses to exercise their leverage to identify, prevent, mitigate and address
adverse human rights impacts, as stated in the Guiding Principles.99 In addition, the Working
Group notes that stakeholder engagement across value chains can serve as the foundation forrespect for human rights.
80.
The Working Group also heard concerns of risks related to forced labour along
Japanese supply chains, such as operations linked to forced labour of ethnic minority
Uyghurs,100 or trafficking in persons, including children, for purposes of forced labour in
tobacco farms in Malawi.101 In fact, in 2023, Japan ranked second in the world in terms of
the scale of its economic involvement, through its imports, in supply chains at risk of modern
slavery, which includes issues of child labour discussed above.102 A survey conducted by theInstitute of Developing Economies-Japan External Trade Organization in 2018 showed that
only 29 per cent of Japanese businesses had established policies on labour, health and safety
and the environment for their suppliers and required compliance. 103 Suggesting an
improvement, a 2021 survey by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and theMinistry of Foreign Affairs showed that 52 per cent of the 392 businesses surveyed indicatedthat they were conducting human rights due diligence. 104 Opportunities for further
improvement notwithstanding, the Working Group welcomes efforts by Japanese businesses
to address forced labour in supply chains. 105
81.
Regarding development finance, the Japan International Cooperation Agency and theJapan Bank for International Cooperation exemplify some of the positive practices in thefield. However, the Working Group also received reports about the human rights impact ofprojects that had received financial support from development finance institutions, such as
the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, in countries like Myanmar106 and Viet Nam.107
The Working Group emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement, especially withat-risk groups, and refers to the findings and recommendations included in its reports ondevelopment finance institutions 108 and heightened human rights due diligence in
conflict-affected areas.109
82.
The Working Group was pleased to learn that human rights language had been or
would be included by all ministries in public procurement. The Working Group also
96

See, e.g. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/russian-invasion-of-ukraine-whatcompanies-have-to-say-about-their-human-rights-due-diligence/.
97 See A/75/212.
98 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/05/myanmar-time-business-take-stand-againsthuman-rights-violations-un-experts?LangID=E&NewsID=27087.
99 See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/business/bhr-in-challengingcontexts.pdf.
100 See e.g. communication JPN 2/2020 and associated communications.
101 See e.g. communication JPN 1/2022 and associated communications.
102 See https://cdn.walkfree.org/content/uploads/2023/05/17114737/Global-Slavery-Index-2023.pdf.
103 See https://www.ide.go.jp/library/Japanese/Research/Project/2018/pdf/2018110007_06.pdf (inJapanese).
104 See https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2021/1130_002.html.
105 See https://knowthechain.org/company/sony-corp-japan/.
106 See https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/16/joint-submission-concerning-japanese-business-entitiesoperating-myanmar; and https://www.jbic.go.jp/en/information/press/press-2018/1218-011714.html.
107 See https://www.banktrack.org/project/nghi_son_2_coal_power_plant;
https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/100138168.pdf; and https://www.jbic.go.jp/en/information/press/press2018/0413-010921.html.
108 A/HRC/53/24/Add.4.
109 A/75/212.
18

GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

commends the initiatives by local governments to include human rights in their public
procurement strategies.

V. Conclusions and recommendations
83.
Advancing the implementation of the Guiding Principles in Japan is critical not
only for consolidating the country’s reputation as a leader in promoting the businessand human rights agenda regionally and globally, but also for enhancing the positive
human rights impact and competitiveness of Japanese businesses at home and overseas.
The Working Group commends the ongoing efforts of the Government, businesses andcivil society to build capacity and raise awareness of the Guiding Principles and thenational action plan.
84.
The Working Group remains concerned however that systemic human rights
challenges in Japan are not being sufficiently tackled as part of State and private sector
initiatives in the business and human rights space. There is an urgent need to fully
dismantle structures of inequality and discrimination against at-risk groups, such as
women, older persons, children, persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, minority
groups, including Buraku communities, technical interns, migrant workers andLGBTQI+ persons. There is a clear need to accelerate the realization of the Guiding
Principles through inclusive and candid multi-stakeholder dialogue.
85.
In addition to previous recommendations and guidance issued by OHCHR andother United Nations human rights mechanisms, the Working Group recommends that
the Government:(a)When reviewing the national action plan:(i)
Pay special attention to business-related human rights abuses experienced
by at-risk communities;(ii)
Strengthen access to remedy and corporate accountability, in line with theWorking Group’s previous guidance;110(iii)

Include a gap analysis of business and human rights policies;(iv) Clarify the modalities for implementation, including the identification ofclear responsibilities, time frames and human rights indicators to monitor andevaluate progress;(v)
Develop effective mechanisms to ensure the meaningful participation of
relevant stakeholders, including victims and civil society actors, in monitoringand evaluating the progress made during the implementation;(b)
Continue training and awareness-raising activities on the Guiding
Principles and the national action plan;(c)

In relation to the Guidelines:(i)
Include businesses supported by public funds and explicitly cover risks
and impacts in the end-use phase;(ii)
Expand the definition of “human rights” to encompass environmental
impacts and international instruments;(iii) Explicitly consider environmental and climate change impacts as an
aspect of human rights due diligence;(d)Adopt national legislation mandating human rights due diligence, in
consultation with relevant stakeholders;(e)Require systematic and meaningful reporting on human rights criteria
and ensure victims’ access to remedy by, inter alia, requiring businesses’ full110

GE.24-06979

A/69/263.
19

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

cooperation with judicial and non-judicial grievance mechanisms and a reversal of theburden of proof;(f)Increase awareness about and build capacity on the Guiding Principles
among all actors in society, including civil servants, members of the judiciary andlegislators, to build their capacity to fulfil their respective obligations to protect,investigate, punish and redress business-related human rights abuses. Allocate
sufficient resources to this end;(g)
Improve access to judicial and non-judicial remedies by removing thebarriers identified in the present report, ensuring effective protection and assistance forall victims of business-related human rights abuses, including by:(i)Increasing the visibility of the Japan Legal Support Center;(ii)
Establishing, without further delay, a robust and independent national
human rights institution in line with the principles relating to the status ofnational institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris
Principles) to better promote access to effective remedy and corporate
accountability. It should be equipped with an explicit mandate and resources toaddress human rights abuses, including providing civil remedies, raisingawareness, building capacity on business and human rights and protecting
human rights defenders. It should also develop close collaboration with national
human rights institutions of other countries and the OECD National Contact
Point;(iii)

Creating a human rights ombudsperson to facilitate access to remedy;(iv) Enhancing the visibility, institutional capacity and expertise of the OECD
National Contact Point to provide meaningful remedial outcomes, including
through raising awareness of the Contact Point’s mandate and procedures toaffected stakeholders in overseas jurisdictions;(v)
Continuing efforts to increase the visibility of the Japan Platform for
Migrant Workers towards Responsible and Inclusive Society and build trust
among migrant worker communities in Japan;(vi) Further strengthening whistle-blower protection in the next review of the
Whistle-blower Protection Act, including by applying the Act to those who are
self-employed, contractors, suppliers, workers’ family members and attorneys,establishing sanctions for businesses who retaliate against whistle-blowers andproviding financial incentives or similar rewards systems for whistle-blowers;(h)Ratify the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Convention, 1958 (No. 111), Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981
(No. 155), Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), andIndigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), the International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members ofTheir Families and the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;(i)Strengthen measures to implement the principle of equal pay for work ofequal value to close the gender pay gap and promote the equal representation of womenin leadership positions, including by adopting mandatory quota initiatives for the
representation of women in the private sector;(j)
Officially prohibit and sanction discrimination, including by amending
existing anti-discrimination legislation to enhance its comprehensiveness andeffectiveness and by incorporating a clear and inclusive definition of discrimination,accompanied by efforts to address targeted discrimination against minorities, including
by prohibiting businesses from asking questions that could lead to discrimination in job

20

GE.24-06979

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

screenings and increasing efforts to address sexual harassment and violence inworkplaces and online, in line with international standards;(k)
Provide comprehensive training to employers on respecting andimplementing individualized support and reasonable accommodations for persons withdisabilities;(l)Ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities in official documents,
such as the national action plan, to promote their full inclusion and participation insociety;(m) Include explicit human rights protections in the revision of the technicalintern training programme based on international human rights standards, including
abolishing recruitment fees, conducting mandatory on-site human rights training at
businesses employing technical interns, simplifying the application system, increasing
flexibility to switch jobs, ensuring safe working and decent living conditions, providing
opportunities for Japanese language learning and vocational training and guaranteeing
the enforcement of equal wages for work of equal value as required under Japanese law;(n)
Intensify labour inspections and enhance victim identification for forced
labour and trafficking in persons;(o)Expand the scope of the Hate Speech Elimination Act to include all
persons, regardless of their origin and residence status, to address such issues as hatespeech in the workplace or any hate speech that might affect employment opportunities;(p)
Ensure that government entities and the private sector uphold the rights
of Indigenous Peoples to free, prior, and informed consent, in accordance withinternational standards, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples;(q)
Carry out a survey on discrimination against Buraku people and regularly
conduct comprehensive surveys on the status of the Ainu people to adapt relevant
programmes and policies accordingly;(r)
Raise awareness of the applicability of labour laws to all workers,
irrespective of their migration status, including by guaranteeing equal access toemployment opportunities, without discrimination, reasonable wages and safe working
conditions;(s)
Step up efforts to address climate change, keeping in mind human rights
considerations for a just transition;(t)
Recognize the heroic efforts of those involved in the clean-up efforts
following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, take steps to reduce multiple
subcontracting structures, ensure that workers are properly and retroactively
compensated, recognize workers’ health concerns as work-related illnesses, ensure safe
working conditions and accurate recording of radiation exposure and guarantee
continuous medical check-ups and care for exposed workers;(u)Continue to make all information related to the treatment of water
released from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station publicly available;(v) Address the presence of PFAS in the water supply and its effects on people,
including by ensuring that PFAS provisional target values are based on the latest
scientific evidence and compliant with environmental standards;(w) Incorporate explicit references to the Guiding Principles, the national
action plan and the Guidelines in its Development Cooperation Charter and relevant
official development assistance policies;(x)
Promote the use of the Children’s Rights and Business Principles forhuman rights due diligence;(y)Provide guidance to businesses on a responsible exit, in line with the
Guiding Principles.

GE.24-06979

21

A/HRC/56/55/Add.1

86.

The Working Group recommends that businesses and industry associations:(a)Establish operational-level grievance mechanisms, following the Guiding
Principles, and ensure that all criteria for effective non-judicial grievance mechanisms
are interpreted in a gender-sensitive manner;111(b)Provide effective remedies for harm caused to individuals andcommunities;(c)bodies;Increase the representation of women in corporate decision-making(d)
Step up efforts to address climate change, keeping in mind human rights
considerations for a just transition;(e)Take responsibility for the presence of PFAS in the water supply due tobusiness activities and address the issue, as required under the Guiding Principles andthe “polluter pays” principle;(f)Eliminate questions that could lead to discrimination in job screenings
and address all types of discrimination, exploitation, harassment, power abuse andother forms of violence in the workplace;(g)
Incorporate the Children’s Rights and Business Principles when
conducting human rights due diligence;(h)Conduct heightened human rights due diligence when operating inconflict-affected areas or high-risk sectors;(i)
Promote freedom of association, the right to organize and the right tocollective bargaining of their workers, in addition to fostering meaningful stakeholder
engagement, in particular with those in vulnerable situations, including when operatingtransnationally;(j)
Provide transparent and accessible communication channels and safe
environments for employees and talents to report workplace sexual harassment without
fear of reprisal.
87.

The Working Group recommends that civil society actors continue:(a)
To raise awareness and build capacity on the respective duties andresponsibilities of the State and businesses under the Guiding Principles;(b)
To document cases of human rights abuses, especially those committed
against individuals and communities living in at-risk situations, and assist in facilitating
access to judicial and non-judicial remedial mechanisms, including operational-levelgrievance mechanisms;(c)
To contribute to initiatives aimed at strengthening existing legal andpolicy frameworks on business and human rights and facilitate the participation of all
stakeholders in such initiatives.

111

22

See A/HRC/41/43.
GE.24-06979