6 Common Pitfalls Japanese Companies Face in EcoVadis Assessments

Overlooked “Blind Spots” When Viewed Through a Global Lens

“Why doesn’t our EcoVadis score improve, even though we’re doing our best with environmental measures and compliance?” This is a question many Japanese companies ask. In reality, the issue is rarely about the initiatives themselves—it is usually a matter of how the evidence is presented.

EcoVadis is a sustainability assessment platform used by over 150,000 companies worldwide. It scores organizations across four themes: Environment, Labor & Human Rights, Ethics, and Sustainable Procurement.

The average score for Japanese companies in 2024 was 50.9—showing steady improvement—yet according to EcoVadis’ 2024 regional data, Japan ranks mid-tier within APAC and tends to score lower than South Korea and Taiwan. In particular, “Ethics” (46.7) and “Sustainable Procurement” (41.3) remain the weakest themes.

Hidden Blind Spots Common Among Japanese Companies

Many Japanese companies have strong internal regulations and management structures. However, several gaps emerge when their systems are assessed against global standards:

• Lack of external disclosure: Internal rules are robust but not publicly available
• Insufficient KPI management: Many initiatives remain qualitative rather than data-driven
• Weak supplier monitoring: Companies collect compliance pledges but lack ongoing oversight
• Underdeveloped ethics programs: Ethical topics exist only as part of employment rules, not as an independent compliance framework
  

In short, there is often a mismatch between what companies are doing and what EcoVadis evaluates.

Understanding the EcoVadis Assessment Logic

EcoVadis assessments are structured around three pillars:

• Policies: 25%
• Actions: 40%
• Results: 35%

The most critical point is that Actions carry the highest weight at 40%. Having policies alone is not enough—EcoVadis evaluates whether structured systems exist to implement them.

With this in mind, let’s look at the six pitfalls Japanese companies most frequently fall into.

1. Policies Exist, but They Aren’t Visible Externally

Common situation

Environmental policies, internal regulations, and compliance rules are well developed, but many are only stored on the company intranet and cannot be accessed externally.

Why public disclosure matters

Globally, supplier evaluations heavily rely on publicly accessible information. No matter how strong a policy is, if it cannot be confirmed by external stakeholders, it is effectively treated as “non-existent.”

EcoVadis perspective

Publicly disclosed, signed, and dated policies for each of the four themes are considered stronger evidence.

Common pitfalls among Japanese companies

• Assuming internal documentation is sufficient for external evaluations
• Using group-level policies without specifying applicability to the assessed entity/site

How to improve

Publish a minimum policy set on your website (Environment, Labor & Human Rights, Occupational Health & Safety, Ethics, and Responsible Procurement).
Group-level documents may be accepted only if they clearly state that the assessed entity is covered.

2. Actions Are Limited to “One-Off Events”

Common situation

Companies conduct annual safety training or harassment seminars, but the activities remain one-off events without defined scope, frequency, or processes.

Why program-level structure matters

Since Actions account for 40% of the score, EcoVadis looks for structured systems—plans, procedures, and recurring processes—not isolated events.

EcoVadis perspective

EcoVadis evaluates whether processes such as training, audits, risk assessments, and certifications are institutionalized and recurring (recurrence = at least once per year).

Common pitfalls

Campaign-style activities or commemorative events are not considered structured management.

How to improve

Define and document the following:

• Annual training curriculum (target audience, timing, content)
• Audit plans (frequency, checklists, responsible personnel)
• Risk assessment procedures
• Training logs, audit reports, and corrective action records

3. Results Are Not Quantified—Relying Only on Qualitative Statements

Common situation

Statements such as “zero accidents” or “working to reduce overtime” are common, but companies lack continuous quantitative data (energy use, waste volume, incident rate, etc.).

Why KPIs matter

Results (35%) are the primary evidence showing whether initiatives are effective. Without quantitative data, outcomes cannot be proven.

EcoVadis perspective

Companies must submit two years of recent quantitative data, with a clearly defined validity period.

Common pitfalls

• KPI targets and results are not shown together
• Data is managed inconsistently across sites, preventing accurate group-wide reporting

How to improve

Define KPIs and prepare at least two years of data.

Example KPIs:

• Energy intensity (kWh per production unit)
• CO₂ emissions (Scopes 1 and 2)
• Waste recycling rate (%)
• Lost-time injury frequency rate
• Employee training completion rate (%)

Present graphs or tables as evidence of results.

4. Supplier Management Ends After Collecting a Pledge

Common situation

Companies include CSR clauses in contracts and obtain compliance pledges but perform no monitoring or risk assessment afterward. This is especially common in Japan.

Why continuous management matters

A pledge shows only intent; it does not demonstrate risk control. EcoVadis evaluates the full cycle: identify → assess → improve.

Global trends & EcoVadis perspective

Sustainable procurement is among the lowest-scoring themes globally—and Japan’s average of 41.3 reflects this challenge.

EcoVadis places high weight on:

• Supplier risk analysis by country, industry, and material
• Assessment coverage rates (expressed as percentages)
• Corrective Action Plan (CAP) follow-up
• Management of major incidents

How to improve

Build a structured supplier management system:

• Create a supplier risk map
• Set assessment coverage targets and track progress
• Use EcoVadis scores in supplier evaluations
• Issue CAPs and follow up on improvements

5. Ethics & Compliance Embedded Only in Employment Rules

Common situation

Topics such as anti-bribery, antitrust, or information security are included in employment rules, but standalone policies or hotline systems are underdeveloped.

Why a standalone ethics program is needed

Globally, ethics and compliance programs operate independently from HR rules. Housing them inside employment regulations alone weakens credibility.

Current situation in Japan

EcoVadis data shows Japan’s average Ethics score at 46.7—lower than other themes.

EcoVadis perspective

EcoVadis evaluates:

• Anti-bribery policy
• Compliance training
• Whistleblowing channels
• Investigation and disciplinary procedures

How to improve

Develop and publish standalone documents such as a Code of Ethics or Anti-Bribery Policy, and build an effective compliance program including:

• Publicly available ethics policies
• Regular compliance training (with records)
• Accessible whistleblowing channels (including external access)
• Investigation procedures and reporting

6. Evidence Is Rejected Due to Formatting Issues

Common situation

Documents exist but lack dates, signatures, company names, logos, or clear applicability to the assessed entity.

Why formatting matters

EcoVadis focuses on the validity and traceability of documents. Poorly formatted documents appear disconnected from actual management and are deemed unreliable.

Rules and key points

• Policies and Actions must be within 8 years
• KPIs must be within 2 years
• Documents without revision history may still be valid if within the period
• Newly created “EcoVadis-only” documents are often rejected

Examples of commonly rejected evidence

• Internal documents not publicly available
• Documents without dates, signatures, or logos
• Unclear or incomplete scans
• Draft Excel files
• Generic industry association documents used as-is

How to improve

Ensure all documents include:

• Company name and logo
• Issue/revision dates
• Signatory or responsible person
• Clear applicability to the assessed entity
• Final approved version

Conclusion: The Key to a Higher Score Lies Not in “Doing More,” but in “Showing It Properly”

Japanese companies are often strong in environmental initiatives, yet their EcoVadis scores remain lower because evidence is not organized according to Policies–Actions–Results.

Crucially, Actions (40%) carry the highest weight. Whether you have a structured system that links your policies to measurable results is what ultimately determines your score.

The fastest way to improve is to identify which theme and which pillar (Policy / Action / Result) is weak—and address it systematically.

If you feel, “We’re doing the work, but we’re not being recognized,” reviewing these six points will likely uncover hidden gaps.

Need Support Improving Your EcoVadis Score?

We provide end-to-end assistance—from current-state diagnosis to action planning and evidence preparation.
If you’re unsure where to start, feel free to reach out.

Contact Us

*For inquiries related to this article, please select “Other” in the contact form above.