[Scope of Data] Lion and consolidated subsidiaries
[Period Covered] January 2022 to December 2022: However, data for PRTR-designated chemical substances is for April 2022 to March 2023
Domestic | Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Absolute quantity | Thousand t-CO2 | 77 | 70 | 67 | 74 | 73 |
Reduction from 2017 | % | — | — | — | 5 | 5 |
Overseas | Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Absolute quantity | Thousand t-CO2 | 94 | 93 | 96 | 86 | 77*1 |
Reduction from 2017 | % | — | — | — | 8 | 19 |
*1 Excludes carbon credit purchases. Including these, the amount is 92,000 tons, a 2% reduction.
Domestic and overseas total | Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Absolute quantity | Thousand t-CO2 | 171 | 163 | 163 | 160 | 150*2 |
Reduction from 2017 | % | — | — | — | 7 | 13 |
*2 Excludes carbon credit purchases. Including these, the amount is 165,000 tons a 4% reduction.
More about related initiativesUnit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Domestic | TJ | 840 | 817 | 799 | 841 | 839 |
Overseas | 1,183 | 1,118 | 1,139 | 1,275 | 1,143 | |
Domestic and overseas total | TJ | 2,509 | 2,404 | 2,409 | 2,632 | 2,507 |
Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | Target for 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total non-renewable energy consumption | Domestic | GWh | 233 | 227 | 222 | 233 | 232 | — |
Overseas | 329 | 310 | 316 | 313 | 316 | — | ||
Domestic and overseas total | GWh | 562 | 537 | 538 | 546 | 549 | 540 | |
Total renewable energy consumption | Domestic | GWh | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.18 | 0.45 | — |
Overseas | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 42 | 1 | — | ||
Domestic and overseas total | GWh | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 42 | 1.8 | — | |
Total renewable energy consumption/ total energy consumption |
Domestic and overseas total | % | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 7.12 | 0.33 | — |
Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scope 1 | % | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.5 | |
Scope 2 | % | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.8 | |
Scope 3 | Purchased goods and services | % | 21.8 | 20.4 | 23.1 | 23.5 | 23.7 |
Capital goods | % | 0.8 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 1.2 | |
Fuel- and energy-related activities not include in Scope 1 or Scope 2 | % | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | |
Upstream transportation and distribution | % | 3.4 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 3.9 | |
Waste generated in operations | % | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | |
Business travel | % | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Employee commuting | % | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
Downstream transportation and distribution | % | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
Processing of sold products | % | 5.3 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.2 | |
Use of sold products | % | 54.2 | 55.8 | 52.8 | 54.5 | 54.3 | |
End-of-life treatment of sold products | % | 9.5 | 10.4 | 10.2 | 9.9 | 10.0 | |
Investments | % | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | |
Total | Million t-CO2 | 4.62 | 4.50 | 4.83 | 4.92 | 5.03 |
Notes:
Scope: Lion and domestic and overseas consolidated subsidiaries
Scope 1: Direct emissions from operating sites
Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy (electricity generation, etc.)
Scope 3: Emissions from the supply chain not included in Scope 1 or Scope 2
Domestic | Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scope 1 | Thousand t-CO2 | 22 | 21 | 19 | 21 | 21 |
Scope 2 (location basis) | 55 | 52 | 50 | 52 | 51 | |
Scope 1 + 2 (location basis) total | Thousand t-CO2 | 77 | 73 | 70 | 73 | 72 |
Scope 2 (market basis) | Thousand t-CO2 | 55 | 50 | 48 | 52 | 52 |
Scope 1 + 2 (market basis) total | Thousand t-CO2 | 77 | 70 | 67 | 74 | 73 |
Amount of carbon credits purchased | Thousand t-CO2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Overseas | Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scope 1 | Thousand t-CO2 | 51 | 50 | 54 | 64 | 56 |
Scope 2 (location basis) | 43 | 43 | 42 | 22 | 36 | |
Scope 1 + 2 (location basis) total | Thousand t-CO2 | 94 | 93 | 96 | 86 | 92 |
Scope 2 (market basis) | Thousand t-CO2 | 43 | 43 | 42 | 22 | 36 |
Scope 1 + 2 (market basis) total | Thousand t-CO2 | 94 | 93 | 96 | 86 | 92 |
Amount of carbon credits purchased | Thousand t-CO2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
Domestic and overseas total | Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | Target for 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scope 1 | Thousand t-CO2 | 73 | 70 | 73 | 85 | 76 | 85 |
Scope 2 (location basis) | 98 | 95 | 93 | 74 | 88 | 74 | |
Scope 1 + 2 (location basis) total | Thousand t-CO2 | 171 | 165 | 166 | 160 | 164 | — |
Scope 2 (market basis) | Thousand t-CO2 | 98 | 93 | 90 | 74 | 89 | 74 |
Scope 1 + 2 (market basis) total | Thousand t-CO2 | 171 | 163 | 163 | 160 | 165 | — |
Amount of carbon credits purchased | Thousand t-CO2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
Notes:
Scope 1:Direct emissions from operating sites
Scope 2:Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy (electricity generation, etc.)
Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Raw material usage | Thousand tons | 251 | 245 | 250 | 252 | 233 |
Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plastic | Thousand tons | 18 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 18 |
Corrugated cardboard | 24 | 26 | 27 | 27 | 27 | |
Cardboard | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Glass | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | |
Metals | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
Total | Thousand tons | 54 | 57 | 58 | 57 | 56 |
Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plastic | Thousand tons | 34 | 37 | 42 | 43 | 36 |
Corrugated cardboard | 56 | 57 | 59 | 58 | 56 | |
Cardboard | 8 | 9 | 13 | 13 | 7 | |
Glass | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | |
Metals | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
Total | Thousand tons | 105 | 110 | 119 | 120 | 105 |
Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Domestic | Thousand m3 | 917 | 862 | 823 | 920 | 940 |
Overseas | 670 | 706 | 713 | 704 | 683 | |
Total | Thousand m3 | 1,586 | 1,568 | 1,536 | 1,624 | 1,623 |
Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tap water | Domestic | Thousand m3 | 339 | 353 | 343 | 387 | 365 |
Overseas | 645 | 681 | 690 | 689 | 655 | ||
Total | Thousand m3 | 983 | 1,033 | 1,033 | 1,076 | 1,020 | |
Industrial water | Domestic | Thousand m3 | 538 | 507 | 479 | 507 | 529 |
Overseas | 25 | 25 | 23 | 15 | 28 | ||
Total | Thousand m3 | 563 | 532 | 502 | 522 | 557 | |
Groundwater | Domestic | Thousand m3 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 44 |
Overseas | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Total | Thousand m3 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 44 | |
Rain water | Domestic | Thousand m3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Overseas | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Total | Thousand m3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Unit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Domestic | Thousand m3 | 526 | 448 | 428 | 474 | 512 |
Overseas | 172 | 190 | 183 | 211 | 180 | |
Total | Thousand m3 | 699 | 638 | 611 | 684 | 692 |
Unit | 2021* | 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sewage systems | Domestic | Thousand m3 | 302 | 322 |
Overseas | 64 | 74 | ||
Total | Thousand m3 | 366 | 396 | |
Sea area | Domestic | Thousand m3 | 118 | 130 |
Overseas | 0 | 0 | ||
Total | Thousand m3 | 118 | 130 | |
River | Domestic | Thousand m3 | 53 | 60 |
Overseas | 44 | 5 | ||
Total | Thousand m3 | 97 | 65 | |
Other (industrial park treatment facilities) | Domestic | Thousand m3 | 0 | 0 |
Overseas | 103 | 101 | ||
Total | Thousand m3 | 103 | 101 |
* Disclosed from 2021
Unit | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Raw material procurement | % | 19.3 | 19.3 | 19.4 | 19.8 |
Production | % | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Transport | % | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Use by consumers | % | 76.8 | 76.2 | 76.2 | 75.8 |
Disposal by consumers | % | 3.8 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.3 |
* Scope: Lion and domestic and overseas consolidated subsidiaries
More about related initiativesUnit | 2017 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Water Usage | million m3 | 2,178 | 2,230 | 2,273 | 2,291 | 2,303 |
Usage intensity per unit net sales | thousand m3/million yen | 6.36 | — | — | 6.26 | 5.91 |
Decrease in usage intensity per unit net sales from 2017 | % | 0 | — | — | 2 | 7 |
Domestic | Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Waste Generation | Thousand tons | 8.29 | 8.59 | 10.43 | 9.08 | 11.22 |
Total Waste Consigned to Final Disposal in Landfills | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | |
Total Resources Recovered | 3.16 | 4.05 | 3.13 | 3.73 | 3.22 |
Overseas | Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Waste Generation | Thousand tons | 4.49 | 4.15 | 3.96 | 3.89 | 4.19 |
Total Waste Consigned to Final Disposal in Landfills | 2.83 | 1.04 | 0.74 | 0.54 | 0.38 | |
Total Resources Recovered | 3.59 | 2.76 | 3.13 | 3.22 | 3.15 |
Domestic and overseas total | Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Waste Generation | Thousand tons | 12.79 | 12.74 | 14.39 | 12.97 | 15.41 |
Total Waste Consigned to Final Disposal in Landfills | 2.83 | 1.05 | 0.75 | 0.54 | 0.38 | |
Total Resources Recovered | 6.75 | 6.81 | 6.26 | 6.95 | 6.37 |
Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recycled or reused | Thousand tons | 12.93 | 14.55 | 16.38 | 15.15 | 17.56 |
Landfill | 2.83 | 1.05 | 0.81 | 0.65 | 0.38 | |
Incinerated (with energy recovery) | 3.42 | 3.64 | 3.22 | 3.49 | 3.20 | |
Incinerated (without energy recovery) | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.46 | 0.44 | |
Disposal method unknown | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PRTR-Designated Substance Emissions | Tons | 18 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
Domestic | Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) | Tons | 28 | 25 | 29 | 27 | 26 |
Emissions of Sulfur Oxides (SOX) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | |
Particulate Matter | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Overseas | Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) | Tons | 57 | 107 | 71 | 33 | 31 |
Emissions of Sulfur Oxides (SOX) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
Particulate Matter | 13 | 13 | 8 | 58 | 26 |
Domestic and overseas total | Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) | Tons | 85 | 132 | 100 | 60 | 56 |
Emissions of Sulfur Oxides (SOX) | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | |
Particulate Matter | 14 | 15 | 9 | 59 | 28 |
Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions | Tons | 78 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 57 |
Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Domestic | Tons | 14 | 18 | 20 | 22 | 28 |
Overseas | 38 | 41 | 76 | 77 | 18 | |
Total | Tons | 52 | 59 | 96 | 100 | 47 |
*Total organic carbon value for Lion Corporation (Korea) in and after 2021.
More about related initiativesBased on the Ministry of the Environment’s guidelines, every year we calculate and disclose the environmental conservation cost and the economic benefits (real effect) of environmental conservation measures for the entire domestic Lion Group.(January 2022 to December 2022)
Breaking down total environmental conservation cost in 2022, although investment (capital expenditure) decreased approximately ¥1,34 billion year on year, overall cost decreased approximately ¥1,21 billion.
Category | Key activity | January 2022 to December 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|
Investment | Cost | ||
Business area cost | Pollution prevention | 18 | 273 |
Global environmental conservation | 361 | 3,632 | |
Resource recycling | 41 | 400 | |
Environmentally friendly products | 2,982 | 2,990 | |
Upstream/downstream cost | Container/packaging recycling | — | 782 |
Administration cost | ISO 14001 registration, environmental education | 0 | 658 |
R&D cost | R&D of environmentally friendly products, etc. | 64 | 983 |
Social activity cost | Environmental improvement measures, donations to organizations | 0 | 8 |
Environmental remediation cost | Pollution burden duties, etc. | 0 | 5 |
Domestic Group total | 3,466 | 9,732 | |
YoY | -1,340 | 1,209 |
Effects | YoY reduction |
---|---|
Cost reduction due to energy saving | -1,102.8 |
Cost reduction due to resource saving | 47.0 |
Reduced water utility cost | -3.6 |
Waste disposal reduction* | -73.9 |
* Includes cost of sales of valuable waste
Every year, Lion calculates its environmental efficiency using the formula below to evaluate how efficient its business activities are in terms of the environmental burden they create. We continually strive to improve environmental efficiency.
* Environmental impact (harm) is calculated as a monetary amount using the Life-cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling (LIME).
Unit | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monetary value of environmental burden (comparison with 2005) | % | 74 | 79 | 84 | 84 | 90 |
Environmental efficiency | 374 | 350 | 340 | 344 | 326 |
* The monetary value of environmental burden was calculated using the LIME2 integrated coefficient list (July 1, 2010 version).
Domestic | 8 locations |
---|---|
Overseas | 5 locations |
To ensure the transparency and accuracy of its environmental data, the Lion Group obtains third-party verification opinions regarding data on its greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1 and Scope 2 and Scope 3 some categories), energy consumption, and water withdrawal and discharge from SGS Japan Inc. Most recently, the Group obtained third-party opinions regarding its environmental data for 2022.
Going forward, we will seek to put third-party opinions to good use and enhance accuracy.
Chiba Plant
Scope: Lion Corporation + employees on loan / the Lion Group (Lion Corporation + domestic and overseas Group companies; employees on loan from Lion Corporation are counted only for Lion Corporation). All as of December 31.
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Employees | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Male | 2,827 | 2,237 | 2,355 | 2,347 | 2,317 |
Female | 1,062 | 1,044 | 1,205 | 1,238 | 1,270 | |
Lion Group | Male | - | - | - | 4,454 | 4,425 |
Female | - | - | - | 2,944 | 2,979 | |
Female employee ratio | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
27.3% | 31.8% | 33.8% | 34.5% | 35.4% | |
Lion Group | - | - | - | 39.8% | 40.2% | |
Ratios of employees by age group | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Below 30 y/o | - | - | 16% | 16% | 16% |
30-50 y/o | - | - | 47% | 46% | 46% | |
Over 50 y/o | - | - | 37% | 38% | 38% | |
Lion Group | Below 30 y/o | - | - | 21% | 20% | 19% |
30-50 y/o | - | - | 52% | 53% | 53% | |
Over 50 y/o | - | - | 27% | 27% | 28% | |
New hires (new graduates) | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Male | 63 | 42 | 54 | 46 | 35 |
Female | 33 | 34 | 33 | 38 | 30 | |
Ratio of companies with an independent trade union or collective bargaining agreements | ||||||
Lion Group | % | - | - | 86.4% | 86.4% | 86.4% |
Ratio of employees represented by an independent trade unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
% | - | - | 66.2% | 77.9% | 65.9% |
Lion Group | % | - | - | 73.4% | 75.1% | 72.9% |
Re-hired retirees | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Number | 210 | 207 | 243 | 293 | 343 |
% | 6.6% | 6.3% | 6.8% | 8.2% | 9.6% | |
Temporary employees | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
512 | 400 | 196 | 130 | 104 | |
Employees with disabilities | ||||||
Lion Corporation (excluding employees on loan) |
Number | 76 | 77 | 75 | 77 | 79 |
% | 2.8% | 2.8% | 2.7% | 2.7%*1 | 2.8%*1 | |
Lion Group | Number | - | - | 94 | 127 | 131 |
% | - | - | 1.3% | 1.7% | 1.8% |
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average service years (excluding rehired retirees) | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Male | 19.6 | 20.1 | 19.7 | 19.5 | 19.6 |
Female | 16.8 | 15.1 | 14.0 | 14.1 | 14.2 | |
Total employee turnover rate*2 | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
- | 4.6% | 2.4% | 2.8% | 3.3% | |
Voluntary employee turnover rate | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
- | - | 1.2% | 2.3% | 1.6% | |
Lion Group | - | - | 3.0% | 4.9% | 5.5% | |
Employees who resigned within three years of entering the Company | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Number | 2 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 6 |
% | 0.80% | 3% | 4% | 1.60% | 2.42% | |
Women in all management positions*3 | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Number | 76 | 81 | 83 | 93 | 98 |
% | 7.4% | 9.2% | 9.1% | 10.3% | 11.1% | |
Lion Group | Number | - | - | - | 289 | 267 |
% | - | - | - | 20.4% | 19.6 | |
Women in top management positions | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Number | - | - | - | 2 | 2 |
% | - | - | - | 12.5% | 9.1% | |
Lion Group | Number | - | - | - | 47 | 44 |
% | - | - | - | 40.2% | 38.9% | |
Women in low- and mid-level management positions | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Number | - | - | - | 91 | 96 |
% | - | - | - | 10.3% | 11.2% | |
Lion Group | Number | - | - | - | 242 | 223 |
% | - | - | - | 18.6% | 17.8% | |
Women in junior management positions*4 | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Number | - | - | - | 163 | 180 |
% | - | - | - | 27.8% | 31.4% | |
Lion Group | Number | - | - | - | 232 | 231 |
% | - | - | - | 28.1% | 30.2% | |
Women in management positions with revenue-generating functions | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Number | - | - | - | 36 | 37 |
% | - | - | - | 9.9% | 10.5% | |
Lion Group | Number | - | - | - | 154 | 147 |
% | - | - | - | 24.0% | 23.1% | |
Women in STEM-related positions | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Number | - | - | - | 19 | 19 |
% | - | - | - | 11.8% | 12.3% | |
Lion Group | Number | - | - | - | 39 | 40 |
% | - | - | - | 16.8% | 16.3% |
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The percentage of average salary of female employees against that of male employees (gender pay gap) | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Male directors | - | - | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Female directors | - | - | - | - | - | |
Male external directors | - | - | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
Female external directors | - | - | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
Male employees in management positions | - | - | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
Female employees in management positions | - | - | 89% | 89% | 93%*5 | |
Male employees in non-management positions | - | - | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
Female employees in non-management positions | - | - | 76% | 79% | 79%*5 | |
Lion Group | Male employees in management positions | - | - | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Female employees in management positions | - | - | 88% | 93% | 97% | |
Male employees in non-management positions | - | - | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
Female employees in non-management positions | - | - | 90% | 91% | 89% | |
Regionally based employees | ||||||
Users | 17 | 17 | 2 | 0 | 8 |
*1 Uses the standard calculation for the domestic hiring rate
*2 Total employee turnover rate number should be the sum of the Voluntary employee turnover and the involuntary employee turnover rate (such as retirement, end of term, death)
*3 Total of those in top-level (equivalent to Executive General Managers, Deputy Executive General Managers, etc., excluding the CEO and directors) and mid-level and low-level (equivalent to General Managers, managers, etc.) management positions
*4 Equivalent to supportive roles, such as assistant managers, etc.
More about related initiatives2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Employees who took childcare leave | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Male | 16 | 13 | 32 | 54 | 55 |
Female | 53 | 61 | 78 | 84 | 77 | |
Employees who took shorter work hours for childcare | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Female | 64 | 66 | 77 | 78 | 65 | |
Average overtime per month [hours] | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
13.7 | 11.2 | 9.2 | 12.5 | 13.8 | |
Annual paid leave used | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
60.3% | 74.0% | 68.0% | 65.9% | 69.2% | |
Volunteer leave used | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Users | 13 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Days taken | 16 | 19 | - | - | - | |
Employee Awareness and Behavior Survey Employees who take pride in their work* |
||||||
Lion Corporation (excluding employees on loan) |
Overall response rate | 91.5% | 85.8% | 83.0% | 84.3% | 89.5% |
Overall | 96.2% | 95.7% | 97.3% | 80.5% | 77.1% | |
Male | 97.2% | 96.5% | 97.5% | 84.3% | 78.2% | |
Female | 94.5% | 94.3% | 96.8% | 77.0% | 78.1% | |
Below 30 y/o | 94.1% | 94.0% | 95.3% | 74.9% | 71.9% | |
30–39 y/o | 94.8% | 93.9% | 96.7% | 78.9% | 76.9% | |
40–49 y/o | 95.3% | 96.1% | 96.8% | 79.0% | 75.9% | |
50–59 y/o | 97.7% | 95.7% | 97.9% | 84.6% | 79.5% | |
60 y/o and above | 98.1% | 98.0% | 97.2% | 85.4% | 82.1% | |
Non-management positions | 95.1% | 94.4% | 96.6% | 77.5% | 74.9% | |
Management Positions (Including officers) | 98.5% | 98.7% | 98.8% | 89.6% | 85.1% |
* Because the rate of employees answering that they took pride in their work neared 100% in 2020, the survey options were changed to enable Lion to gather data to seek further improvement
More about related initiatives2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average hours per FTE of training and development | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
- | - | 14.6 | 52.8*1 | 58.1 | |
Lion Group | - | - | 12.1 | 31.0*1 | 34.9 | |
Average hours per FTE of training and development breakdown | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Employees below 30 y/o | - | - | - | 97.7 | 93.1 |
Employees 30–50 y/o | - | - | - | 49.3 | 55.2 | |
Employees 50 y/o and above | - | - | - | 54.5 | 46.3 | |
Male | - | - | - | 49.2 | 66.9 | |
Female | - | - | - | 59.8 | 41.9 | |
Top management positions | - | - | - | 39.7 | 281.5 | |
Low- and mid-level management positions | - | - | - | 83.3 | 128.5 | |
Junior management positions | - | - | - | 42.9 | 18.7 | |
Lion Group | Employees below 30 y/o | - | - | - | 44.2 | 44.1 |
Employees 30–50 y/o | - | - | - | 26.3 | 31.7 | |
Employees 50 y/o and above | - | - | - | 36.6 | 34.1 | |
Male | - | - | - | 30.1 | 40.9 | |
Female | - | - | - | 30.3 | 26.1 | |
Top management positions | - | - | - | 21.1 | 63.8 | |
Low- and mid-level management positions | - | - | - | 60.4 | 95.0 | |
Junior management positions | - | - | - | 33.4 | 16.8 | |
Average amount spent per FTE on training and development | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
- | - | ¥52,300 | ¥67,100 | ¥94,800 | |
Lion Group | - | - | ¥29,300 | ¥36,700 | ¥51,400 | |
Average amount spent per FTE on training and development breakdown | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Employees below 30 y/o | - | - | - | ¥67,100 | ¥288,300 |
Employees 30–50 y/o | - | - | - | ¥107,700 | ¥82,900 | |
Employees 50 y/o and above | - | - | - | ¥24,100 | ¥27,700 | |
Male | - | - | - | ¥70,800 | ¥98,300 | |
Female | - | - | - | ¥60,000 | ¥87,500 | |
Top management positions | - | - | - | ¥65,000 | ¥643,500 | |
Low- and mid-level management positions | - | - | - | ¥105,000 | ¥176,600 | |
Junior management positions | - | - | - | ¥44,000 | ¥182,900 | |
Lion Group | Employees below 30 y/o | - | - | - | ¥43,500 | ¥120,000 |
Employees 30–50 y/o | - | - | - | ¥46,700 | ¥40,700 | |
Employees 50 y/o and above | - | - | - | ¥16,900 | ¥20,400 | |
Male | - | - | - | ¥41,300 | ¥55,900 | |
Female | - | - | - | ¥29,200 | ¥41,900 | |
Top management positions | - | - | - | ¥33,700 | ¥108,200 | |
Low- and mid-level management positions | - | - | - | ¥76,800 | ¥127,600 | |
Junior management positions | - | - | - | ¥33,500 | ¥139,200 |
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type of individual performance appraisal | ||||||
Coverage of the MBO system*2 at Lion Corporation | Top management positions | - | - | ○ | ○ | ○ |
Low- and mid-level management positions | - | - | ○ | ○ | ○ | |
Junior management positions | - | - | ○ | ○ | ○ | |
Employees in non-management positions | - | - | ○ | ○ | ○ | |
Coverage of the MBO system: % of all employees | Top management positions | - | - | 55.7% | 57.3% | 53.3% |
Low- and mid-level management positions | - | - | 95.4% | 95.5% | 94.8% | |
Junior management positions | - | - | 94.6% | 94.9% | 94.4% | |
Employees in non-management positions | - | - | 62.1% | 63.6% | 66.2% | |
Percentage of open positions filled by internal candidates (internal hires)*3 | ||||||
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
- | - | 88.5% | 69.0% | 89.1% | |
Lion Group | - | - | 49.2% | 55.7% | 67.6% |
*1 Figures for 2021 increased due to the inclusion of divisional training and development hours
*2 MBO: Management by Objectives
*3 Percentage of internal hires: Internal hires / (external mid-career hires + internal hires)
More about related initiatives2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Physical health | Rate of employees getting regular health checkups | 100.0% | 100.0% | 99.8% |
Rate of employees getting necessary follow-up examinations | 58.0% | 59.6% | 59.4% | ||
Rate of employees requiring specific health guidance related to metabolic syndrome (ages 40 and over)*1 | 17.8% | 16.8% | 15.8% | ||
Rate of employees getting specific health guidance related to metabolic syndrome (ages 40 and over)*1 | 74.9% | 83.6% | 79.4% | ||
Rate of employees maintaining a healthy body weight | 69.4% | 66.9% | 67.5% | ||
Living habits | Employee nonsmoker rate | 81.7% | 82.6% | 83.1% | |
Rate of employees who habitually exercise | 23.7% | 24.8% | 26.1% | ||
Proportion of employees who are sufficiently rested after sleep | 66.0% | 67.4% | 68.0% | ||
Proportion of employees who eat breakfast habitually | 80.7% | 75.8% | 75.3% | ||
Suitable rate for employees who habitually drink alcohol | 83.0% | 84.5% | 83.0% | ||
Mental health | Stress level check implementation rate | 98.2% | 94.7% | 97.5% | |
Rate of employees with high stress levels | 7.9% | 9.2% | 8.7% | ||
Health history | Proportion of employees who respond that they “mostly understand” or “understand well” their health checkup results | 89.8% | 89.8% | 91.2% | |
Proportion of employees who respond that they “know what to do” or “mostly know what to do” to improve their health based on their health checkup results | 86.3% | 87.2% | 88.6% |
*1 Figures calculated by health insurance association (insured persons of the entire group)
2020 | 2021 | 2022 | Target 2030 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lion Corporation (including employees on loan) |
Productivity | Performance(Presenteeism)*1 | 74.5% | 86.7% | 84.7% | 85.0% or more |
Rate of absence due to illness or poor health(Absenteeism)*2 | 0.8% | 0.7% | 0.8% | Decrease in 2021 (0.7%) |
||
Professional fulfillment*3 | Work engagement | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 3.0 | |
Proportion of employees that respond that they are “satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with their jobs | 74.3% | 71.8% | 75.4% | - | ||
Proportion of employees that respond “Yes” to the statement “My job is professionally fulfilling” | 76.3% | 74.8% | 71.2% | - |
*1
Presenteeism: A condition in which a person goes to work while suffering from some disease or symptom and has reduced work performance and labor productivity.
Measured using SPQ (University of Tokyo 1-item version), 2022 Number of respondents: 3,507, Response rate: 99.8%.
*2
Absenteeism: sick leave, state of being absent from work due to illness
Absence rate = number of days lost/total number of days worked (calculated from work information)
*3
Work engagement: measured using stress check (Work Engagement: average score of 2 questions on a 4-point scale)
2022 Number of respondents: 3,428, response rate: 97.5%
To ensure the transparency and accuracy of Lion’s social data (rate of occupational accidents, number of deaths due to occupational accidents, and average compensation ratio between men and women), the Company has undergone third-party verification by SGS Japan Inc. The results of this verification are disclosed on the Lion website. Going forward, we will enhance the reliability of this data by expanding the scope of verification. In addition, we will utilize third-party verification and work continuously to improve accuracy.
All as of December 31.
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|
14% | 93% | 93% | 99% |
All as of December 31.
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|
96% | 98% | 98% | 99% |
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of suppliers | 610 | 585 | 574 | 502 | 474 |
Response Rate | 98% | 99% | 100% | 100% | 96% |
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of key suppliers | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 |
Portion of all primary suppliers that are key suppliers | 14.8% | 15.4% | 15.7% | 17.9% | 17.9% |
Portion of purchasing that is from key suppliers (monetary basis, among all primary suppliers) |
87% | 80% | 89% | 89% | 89% |
Scope: Lion Corporation + domestic Group companies
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|
100% | 100% | 99.5% | 99.2% | 98.1% |
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|
98.5% | 98.6% | 99.5% | 99.0% | 99.4% |
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Harassment | 15 | 11 | 8 | 12 | 13 |
Personnel and labor management issues | 6 | 11 | 7 | 5 | 9 |
Others | 2 | 3 | 58 | 2 | 3 |
Scope: Lion Corporation
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
* Recalls accompanied by company notice on a national newspaper