Worldwide sites
Close
Close

ESG Data and Third-Party Verification

Environmental Data

Overview of Environmental Burden Created by Business Activities

chart

Scope of Data

Lion and consolidated subsidiaries

Period Covered

January 2020 to December 2020
However, data for PRTR-designated chemical substances is for April 2020 to March 2021

CO2 Emissions from Business Activities

Domestic Unit 1990 2010 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Absolute quantity Thousand t-CO2 144 105 81 77 74 70 67
% 100 73 57 53 52 49 47
Emission intensity per unit net sales t-CO2 / million yen 0.482 0.375 0.275 0.254 0.244 0.229 0.211
% 100 78 57 53 51 48 44
Overseas Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Absolute quantity Thousand t-CO2 85 89 70 68 67
Emission intensity per unit production t-CO2 / ton 0.126 0.129 0.102 0.103 0.101
Domestic and overseas total Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Absolute quantity Thousand t-CO2 167 166 144 139 134
More about related initiatives

Total Energy Consumption in Business Activities

Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Domestic TJ 1,402 1,341 1,325 1,286 1,270
Overseas 1,542 1,612 1,306 1,268 1,251
Total TJ 2,944 2,953 2,631 2,555 2,521
More about related initiatives

CO2 Emissions During and After Product Use (Domestic)

Unit 1990 2010 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Absolute quantity Thousand t-CO2 322 166 158 158 159 161 162
% 100 51 49 49 49 50 50
Emission intensity per unit net sales t-CO2 / million yen 1.256 0.647 0.598 0.587 0.586 0.587 0.568
% 100 52 48 47 47 47 45
More about related initiatives

Greenhouse Gas Emissions throughout the Supply Chain

Unit 2020
Scope 1 % 0.9
Scope 2 % 1.9
Scope 3 Purchased goods and services % 22.8
Capital goods % 2.4
Fuel- and energy-related activities not include in Scope 1 or Scope 2 % 0.6
Upstream transportation and distribution % 4.3
Waste generated in operations % 0.3
Business travel % 0.1
Employee commuting % 0.05
Downstream transportation and distribution % 0.2
Processing of sold products % 1.8
Use of sold products % 52.3
End-of-life treatment of sold products % 11.7
Investments % 0.7
Total 4,880,000 t-CO2
More about related initiatives

Notes: Scope: Lion and domestic and overseas consolidated subsidiaries (domestic and overseas total)
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

Scope 1 and 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Operating Sites

Domestic Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Scope 1 Thousand tons 23 22 22 21 20
Scope 2 58 55 53 50 48
Total Thousand tons 81 77 74 70 67
Overseas Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Scope 1 Thousand tons 31 31 26 25 24
Scope 2 54 58 44 44 43
Total Thousand tons 85 89 70 68 67
Domestic and overseas total Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Scope 1 Thousand tons 55 53 47 45 44
Scope 2 112 113 97 94 91
Total Thousand tons 167 166 144 139 134

Notes: Scope 1：Direct emissions from operating sites
Scope 2：Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy (electricity generation, etc.)

Raw Material Usage (Domestic Household Products)

Unit 2010 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Raw material usage Thousand tons 390 265 251 251 246 251
More about related initiatives

Container and Packaging Material Usage (Domestic Household Products)

Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Plastic Thousand tons 17 18 18 20 20
Corrugated cardboard 23 24 24 26 27
Cardboard 6 6 6 6 5
Glass 7.0 6.3 6.2 5.9 5.5
Metals 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1
Total Thousand tons 54 54 54 58 58
More about related initiatives

Container and Packaging Material Usage (Domestic and Overseas Total Household Products)

Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Plastic Thousand tons 33 34 34 38 42
Corrugated cardboard 53 55 56 58 59
Cardboard 9 9 8 9 13
Glass 7.0 6.3 6.2 5.9 5.5
Metals 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1
Total Thousand tons 104 106 107 113 122

Breakdown of Water Use over the Life Cycles of Lion Products

Unit 2019 2020
Raw material procurement ％ 19.3 19.3
Production % 0.1 0.1
Transport % 0.0 0.0
Use by consumers % 76.8 76.2
Disposal by consumers % 3.8 4.4
More about related initiatives

* Scope: Lion and domestic and overseas consolidated subsidiaries (domestic and overseas total)

Water Usage (Water Withdrawal) in Business Activities

Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Domestic Thousand m3 926 917 955 862 823
Overseas 725 772 699 665 659
Total Thousand m3 1,650 1,688 1,653 1,526 1,482
More about related initiatives

Water Usage (Water Withdrawal) by Source

Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Tap water Domestic Thousand m3 331 339 362 353 343
Overseas 725 772 699 665 659
Total Thousand m3 1,056 1,110 1,061 1,017 1,002
Industrial water Domestic Thousand m3 552 538 590 507 479
Overseas 0 0 0 0 0
Total Thousand m3 552 538 590 507 479
Groundwater Domestic Thousand m3 40 38 0.4 0 0
Overseas 0 0 0 0 0
Total Thousand m3 40 38 0.4 0 0
Rain water Domestic Thousand m3 2 1 2 2 2
Overseas 0 0 0 0 0
Total Thousand m3 2 1 2 2 2

Wastewater Discharge in Business Activities

Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Domestic Thousand m3 529 526 551 448 428
Overseas 207 206 194 190 177
Total Thousand m3 736 733 745 638 605

Water Usage During Product Use (Domestic)

Unit 2000 2010 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Absolute quantity Million m3 1,108 710 567 548 530 542 547
% 100 64 51 49 48 49 49
Emission intensity per unit net sales Thousand m3 / million yen 4.2 2.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9
% 100 66 51 48 46 47 45

Total Waste Generation, Total Waste Consigned to Final Disposal in Landfills and Total Resources Recovered

Domestic Unit 1990 2000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Waste Generation Thousand tons 17.6 — 7.8 7.6 8.3 8.6 10.5
% 100 — 44 43 47 49 59
Total Waste Consigned to Final Disposal in Landfills Thousand tons 7.6 0.8 0.02 0.02 0.007 0.007 0.004
% 100 11.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Resources Recovered Thousand tons — — 3.0 2.9 3.2 4.1 3.2
Overseas Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Waste Generation Thousand tons 3.7 3.8 4.4 4.0 3.8
Total Waste Consigned to Final Disposal in Landfills 3.2 3.3 2.7 0.9 0.6
Total Resources Recovered 2.6 3.1 3.6 2.7 3.1
Domestic and overseas total Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Waste Generation Thousand tons 11.5 11.4 12.6 12.6 14.3
Total Waste Consigned to Final Disposal in Landfills 3.2 3.3 2.7 0.9 0.6
Total Resources Recovered 5.6 6.0 6.7 6.8 6.3
More about related initiatives

Management of Chemical Substances

PRTR-Designated Substance Emissions (Domestic)

Unit 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
PRTR-Designated Substance Emissions Tons 17 14 18 18 2 2

Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), Sulfur Oxides (SOX) and Particulate Matter

Domestic Unit 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Tons 22 29 25 28 25 29
Emissions of Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 5 4 4 4 3 4
Particulate Matter 3 3 1 1 1 1
Overseas Unit 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Tons 17 9 5 4 5 6
Emissions of Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 5 5 1 1 1 1
Particulate Matter 25 9 9 11 9 2
Domestic and overseas total Unit 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Tons 39 38 29 32 30 35
Emissions of Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 10 8 5 5 4 5
Particulate Matter 28 12 11 13 11 3

VOC Emissions (Domestic)

Unit 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions Tons 51 71 73 78 67 68

COD in Business Activities

Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Domestic Tons 10 14 14 18 20
Overseas 19 15 38 41 76
Total Tons 29 29 52 60 96
More about related initiatives

Environmental Accounting

Based on the Ministry of the Environment’s guidelines, every year we calculate and disclose the environmental conservation cost, environmental conservation benefits and the economic benefits (real effect) of environmental conservation measures for the entire domestic Lion Group.

Breaking down total environmental conservation cost in 2020, although investment (capital expenditure) increased approximately ¥540 million year on year, overall cost decreased approximately ¥360 million.

Environmental Conservation Cost (January 2020 to December 2020)

(Millions of yen)
Category Key activity Investment Cost
Business area cost Pollution prevention 43 261
Global environmental conservation 800 2,579
Resource recycling 5 334
Environmentally friendly products 2,901 3,130
Upstream/downstream cost Container/packaging recycling — 746
Administration cost ISO 14001 registration, environmental education 0 787
R&D cost R&D of environmentally friendly products, etc. 135 1,026
Social activity cost Environmental improvement measures, donations to organizations 0 8
Environmental remediation cost Pollution burden duties, etc. 0 11
Domestic Group total 3,885 8,882
YoY -539 359

Economic Benefit Associated with Environmental Conservation Measures
(January 2020 to December 2020)

(Millions of yen)
Effects YoY reduction
Cost reduction due to energy saving 194.5
Cost reduction due to resource saving 195.0
Reduced water utility cost 12.4
Waste disposal reduction* 12.2

* Includes cost of sales of valuable waste

Environmental Efficiency

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).

Environmental Efficiency and Monetary Value of Environmental Burden (comparison with 2005)

Unit 2013 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Monetary value of environmental burden (comparison with 2005) % 86 73 72 74 80 84
Environmental efficiency Million yen 348 442 456 448 419 409

* The monetary value of environmental burden was calculated using the LIME2 integrated coefficient list (July 1, 2010 version).

Production Site Environmental Data

Certification under ISO 14001 (2015 Version)

Domestic 8 locations
Overseas 4 locations
More about related initiatives

Third-Party Verification

To ensure the transparency and accuracy of its environmental data, Lion obtained third-party statement of verification of data on its greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1 and Scope 2), water usage and wastewater discharge from SGS Japan Inc. The results of this verification are disclosed below.

Going forward, we will expand the scope of data verified and work to increase reliability. We will also seek to put third-party verifications to good use to enhance accuracy.

Scope of Verification

2020 environmental data
Greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1 and Scope 2), water use and wastewater discharge from business activities at the production sites of Lion and its domestic consolidated subsidiaries.

Verification Statement
Verification Statement①
Verification Statement
Verification Statement②

PRTR-Designated Substance Emissions

Industrial Waste Disposal Facility Maintenance and Management Data

Chiba Plant

Social Data

Employee Data

Employee data for Lion Corporation (non-consolidated) and domestic Group companies
(excluding employees on loan from Lion Corporation*1). All as of December 31.
2016 2017 2018*2 2019*2 2020*2
Employees
Lion Corporation Male 2,239 2,203 2,267 1,863 1,971
Female 775 821 917 987 1,148
Domestic Group companies Male 636 643 560 374 384
Female 173 182 145 57 57
Female employee ratio
Lion Corporation 25.7% 27.1% 28.8% 34.6% 36.8%
Domestic Group companies 21.4% 22.1% 20.6% 13.2% 12.9%
New hires (new graduates)
Lion Corporation Male 49 57 63 42 54
Female 29 36 33 34 33
Domestic Group companies Male 11 16 16 12 19
Female 6 7 6 9 10
Re-hired retirees
Lion Corporation Number 250 216 210 160 185
% 8.3% 7.1% 6.6% 5.6% 5.9%
Domestic Group companies Number 10 9 8 47 58
% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 10.9% 15.1%
Temporary employees
Lion Corporation 467 458 532 528 196
Domestic Group companies 60 66 27 68 67
Female employees at the management level*3
Lion Corporation Number 149 170 186 200 226
% 12.9% 14.4% 15.8% 17.1% 18.4%
Female managers*4
Lion Corporation Number 62 68 74 76 77
% 6.9% 7.5% 8.2% 11.0% 10.6%
Domestic Group companies Number 6 2 2 5 6
% 3.8% 1.5% 1.6% 2.6% 3.2%
Employees with disabilities
Lion Corporation Number 55 63 76 77 75
% 2.2% 2.4% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7%
Employees who took childcare leave
Lion Corporation Male 2 9*5 16 13 32
Female 53 57 53 61*5 78
Domestic Group companies Male 0 1 3 0 3
Female 5 8 7 3 1
Employees who took shorter work hours for childcare
Lion Corporation Male 0 0 0 0 0
Female 40 57 64*5 63*5 73
Domestic Group companies Male 0 0 0 0 0
Female 9 6 7 3 4
Average overtime per month
Lion Corporation 12.3hours 12.5hours 13.7hours 13.5hours 8.7hours
Domestic Group companies 11.2hours 9.4hours 13.8hours 10.2hours 8.1hours
Annual paid leave used
Lion Corporation 55.1% 50.7% 60.3% 73.7% 68.6%
Domestic Group companies 57.3% 53.2% 53.7% 64.2% 64.6%
Average service years (excluding rehired retirees)
Lion Corporation Male 20.3 20.4 19.6 17.2 16.7
Female 18.0 18.0 16.8 14.1 12.8
Domestic Group companies Male 15.5 15.4 14.7 18.9 20.7
Female 13.2 13.8 11.8 14.7 13.0
Employees who resigned within three years of entering the Company
Lion Corporation Number 4 1 2 8*5 10
% 1.6% 0.4% 0.8% 3%*5 4%
Domestic Group companies Number 2 9 2 1 3
% 3.8% 1.1% 3.8% 1.5% 4.6%
More about related initiatives

*1 Non-consolidated figures include employees on loan
(except for figures for female employees at the management level)

*2 Data for domestic Group companies reflects the decrease in the number of consolidated subsidiaries

*3 Personnel holding managerial positions at the level of assistant manager or higher

*4 Personnel holding managerial positions at the level of manager or higher

*5 The figures have been revised due to an error in past data

Regionally Based Employee Program

Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Users Number 9 5 17 17 0
More about related initiatives

Volunteer Leave

Unit 2017 2018 2019 2020
Users Number 12 13 15 0
Days taken Days 16 16 19 0
More about related initiatives

Employee Awareness and Behavior Survey

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Response rate Overall 89.4% 90.6% 91.5% 85.8% 83.0%
Employees take pride in their work* Male 97.3% 98.1% 97.2% 96.5% 97.5%
Female 95.3% 95.6% 94.5% 94.3% 96.8%
Overall 96.4% 97.2% 96.2% 95.7% 97.3%
More about related initiatives

* Scope: Lion Corporation, non-consolidated basis (excluding employees on loan)

Key Health Indicators

2018 2019 2020
Physical health Rate of employees getting regular health checkups 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Rate of employees getting necessary follow-up examinations 66.6% 60.3% 58.0%
Rate of employees requiring specific health guidance related to metabolic syndrome (ages 40 and over) 17.4% 16.7% 17.5%
Rate of employees getting specific health guidance related to metabolic syndrome (ages 40 and over) 56.5% 76.5% 66.2%
Rate of employees maintaining a healthy body weight 67.3% 69.8% 69.4%
Living habits Employee smoking rate 22.7% 20.6% 18.5%
Rate of employees who habitually exercise 26.8% 23.8% 23.7%
Proportion of employees who are sufficiently rested after sleep 62.2% 55.9% 66.0%
Rate of employees who habitually drink alcohol 21.3% 19.0% 17.7%
Mental health Stress level check implementation rate 98.9% 98.3% 98.2%
Rate of employees with high stress levels 8.1% 8.9% 7.9%
Health history Proportion of employees who respond that they “mostly understand” or “understand well” their health checkup results ー 87.2% 89.8%
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 ー 83.9% 86.3%

* Scope: Lion Corporation, non-consolidated (including employees on loan)

Productivity and Professional Fulfillment Indicators

2018 2019 2020
Productivity Performance*1 — 76.0% 74.4%
Rate of absence due to illness or poor health*2 0.5% 0.8% 0.7%
Professional fulfillment*3 Work engagement 2.6 2.6 2.7
Proportion of employees that respond that they are “satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with their jobs 73.8% 70.8% 73.5%
Proportion of employees that respond “Yes” to the statement “My job is professionally fulfilling” 76.9% 74.1% 75.1%

* Scope: Lion Corporation, non-consolidated (including employees on loan)

*1. Presenteeism: Measured using the SPQ (University of Tokyo single-item version)

*2. Absenteeism: Absence rate = Days absent/Total work days

*3. Measured using stress level check tests (work engagement: average of responses to two questions answered on a four-point scale)

Switching rate to RSPO-certified products for key raw materials

All as of December 31.
2019 2020
14% 93%
More about related initiatives

Procurement rate of third-party certified paper from domestic paper manufacturers for key products.

All as of December 31.
2019 2020
96% 98%

Number of Suppliers Evaluated and Response Rate

2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of suppliers 625 610 585 574
Response Rate 99% 98% 99% 100%
More about related initiatives

Key Suppliers

2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of key suppliers 90 90 90 90
Portion of all primary suppliers that are key suppliers 14.4% 14.8% 15.4% 15.7%
Portion of purchasing that is from key suppliers
(monetary basis, among all primary suppliers)		 80% 87% 80% 89%

Governance Data

The AL Heart Hotline Recognition Rate Among Employees

2017 2018 2019 2020
95.8% 98.5% 98.6% 99.5%
More about related initiatives

AL Heart Hotline Consultations and Reports

2017 2018 2019 2020
Harassment 9 15 11 8
Personnel and labor management issues 5 6 11 7
Others 4 2 3 58
  1. TOP
  2. Sustainability
  3. Lion’s Sustainability
  4. ESG Data and Third-Party Verification

Share