Social
Japanese Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains
Japan's 2022 government guidance setting out how companies should conduct human rights due diligence across their operations and supply chains, aligned with the UN Guiding Principles.
Definition
The Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains were published by Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) on 13 September 2022. They explain how companies should implement human rights due diligence — identifying, preventing, mitigating and accounting for adverse human rights impacts — consistent with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines and the ILO Tripartite Declaration.
References
Publication date, due-diligence steps, 2023 reference materials, first-of-kind status in Asia
Overview
What it means
The guidelines translate international soft-law expectations into practical steps for Japanese firms and their suppliers: adopt a human rights policy, map and assess risks by geography and sector, act on findings (including suspending non-compliant suppliers), track effectiveness, remediate through grievance mechanisms, and report publicly. They were the first government guidance of this kind in Asia.
How it is used
Companies use the guidelines, plus METI's 2023 casebook and worksheets, as the reference framework for supplier codes, contract clauses and due-diligence programmes; they also inform expectations under Japan–EU trade relations and investor engagement.
Why it matters
Although voluntary, the guidelines set the de facto national standard for business conduct in Japanese supply chains and signal alignment with emerging mandatory due-diligence regimes elsewhere.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and an editorial decision to attribute them.
Submitted reviews stay private until an editor decides whether to accept and attribute them.
Contribute to this entry
Help improve this definition
Your contribution is private while it is checked. Nothing changes on this page unless an editor accepts it.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.