Companies that say “we measure our impact” have multiplied. Compared with ten years ago, far more companies publish ESG reports, line up SDG badges on their websites, and proclaim purpose statements. But the question is simple: is it making the business stronger?
Impact Management Review conducted third-party evaluations of 12 companies—six Japanese and six overseas—using our own maturity-assessment framework (five dimensions: Purpose, Proof, People, Transparency, and Power, each out of 5). We prioritized rigor. The results were both expected and unexpected.
The three leading overseas companies (Tony’s Chocolonely, Interface, d.light) scored 4.0 or above overall. The six Japanese companies scored 3.2–3.8. What this gap means is not “Japanese companies care less about society.” The issue lies elsewhere.
1. The structural difference the data reveals
Looking at the five axes in detail, the structure of the difference emerges.
Strategy (Purpose) scores are strong even among Japanese companies. Heralbony (4.5), Borderless Japan (4.5), and Sakanotochu (4.5) approach the level of Tony’s Chocolonely (5.0). In terms of “the will toward social impact,” Japanese companies are by no means behind.
The problem lies in the next two axes.
Measurement (Proof) scores: the Japanese average is about 3.2; the overseas leaders average 4.5. The lowest are Heralbony and Mother House at 2.5. Quantifying social outcomes, verifying causality, and independent third-party evaluation—among the six Japanese companies, only Sakanotochu does these systematically.
Application (Power) scores: the Japanese average is about 3.2. As symbolized by Amekaze Taiyo’s 2.5, for many companies there is no evidence in public information that impact data is actually used in management decisions, capital allocation, product development, or hiring. The difference between a culture that treats impact as “something to report” and one that treats it as “something to use” appears here as a number.
2. Not a “gap in awareness” but a “gap in integration”
It would be a mistake to read these results as “Japanese companies are simply less aware.”
If anything, a paradoxical fact emerges. Borderless Japan bundles a large number of group companies (48 businesses across 15 countries as of 2026) under a clear vision of “building an ecosystem of social business.” Mother House has practiced its belief—“a brand from developing countries that the world recognizes”—for 20 years (founded in 2006). Heralbony continues a management style backed by the conviction of “changing the world through the cultural and artistic power of people with disabilities.”
You cannot say these leaders lack “awareness” of social impact. What they lack is “systems.” Specifically, three systems are not in place.
(1) Systematizing impact measurement: outcomes and outputs are confused, and measurable indicators stop at recording activity volume. “400 farmers supported” is an output, but the heart of an outcome is the question “did farmers’ incomes improve sustainably?” and “are new farmers still farming three years later?” Sakanotochu’s development of its own IMM to face these questions deserves recognition as an exceptional case in Japan.
(2) Integration with management KPIs: at most companies, impact metrics are not on the agenda of management meetings. An “impact report” is produced separately, but quarterly management reports speak only of financial KPIs. This “dual structure” is the biggest factor dragging down application scores.
(3) Reflection in capital allocation: in Japanese companies, there is no public evidence of investment decisions, staffing, or product-development priorities being changed based on impact data. Impact becomes “an end in itself to measure,” and the cycle of “measuring changes the business” is not created.
3. How overseas leaders embody the “businessification of impact”
Look at Tony’s Chocolonely. Transparent disclosure of a social issue (child labor) paradoxically creates competitive advantage. Consumers feel they are “on the good side” by buying Tony’s, and partners can accelerate their own supply-chain reform by working with Tony’s. Impact functions not as a “cost” but as the “core of the business.”
Interface went through an even more fundamental transformation. After founder Ray Anderson declared “Mission Zero” (zero environmental footprint by 2020) in 1994, the company redesigned everything—raw-material procurement, manufacturing, product design, and logistics—by working backward from the mission. The result was simultaneous cost reduction and technical innovation. “Bringing negative impact to zero” became the source of the business’s competitiveness.
d.light reached close to 200 million people through a single point—off-grid solar power—and built the poorest customers in developing countries into its revenue model through carbon-credit revenue and a PAYG (pay-as-you-go) model. It is a model in which the scale of impact converts directly into business competitiveness.
Impact Management Review’s view
What Japanese companies need to move to the next level is not “to care more about society.” What is needed are three management decisions.
First, don’t make impact the job of a measurement department. Measurement should be done by the business units, and the principle is that measurement results are reflected in business plans. A structure where “the sustainability department writes the report” pushes impact to the periphery of management.
Second, don’t fear “roughness” in measurement. If you try to disclose only after building a perfect IMM system, you will never begin. Sakanotochu published “Report vol.1” while acknowledging it was incomplete, and kept improving. “Starting to measure” itself accelerates organizational learning.
Third, disclose impact data to investors and markets. The significance of Amekaze Taiyo choosing an impact IPO is large. By disclosing impact KPIs, investors who value impact can join the shareholder base, creating the possibility of “impact capital” that protects management from short-term earnings pressure.
What others can learn
From the comparison of 12 companies, we extract three of the most broadly applicable lessons.
1. Connect purpose to measurement indicators. A purpose of “agriculture that lasts 100 years” connects directly to indicators such as “the retention rate of new farmers” and “the amount of pesticide reduction.” Companies whose purpose is not yet a “measurable question” should start from this connection.
2. Keep asking “what changed.” Continually asking about change rather than activity volume is the heart of impact measurement. Euglena’s GENKI program has continued measuring effects since 2016, but that it has not published long-term analysis of nutritional improvement even after nearly ten years is a challenge to recognize honestly.
3. “Share the problem” with competitors. Tony’s Chocolonely invites rival companies into Open Chain because, without solving the industry-wide problem, its own impact cannot be achieved either. Given the nature of social issues, few can be solved by a single company.
Conclusion
The challenge for Japanese companies is not “a lack of interest in social impact” but “a lack of management application.” The tendency of high strategy scores and low application scores reflects the gap between “what is said” and “what is done.” This, rather, means the location of the problem is clear.
Companies that turn impact into business advantage are shifting impact from “something to report” to “something to use.” At the moment that shift happens, impact becomes not a company’s weakness but a source of competitive advantage.
