1-6. Comparing Japanese EHS Regulations with International Standards: Differences from OSHA and EU Directives

As companies' environmental, safety, and health (EHS) management becomes more globalized, it is becoming inevitable for them to comply with the laws and regulations of each country. In Japan, EHS is regulated by a combination of individual laws and regulations, such as the Industrial Safety and Health Act, the Air Pollution Control Act, and the Waste Disposal Act. However, when compared with the U.S. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and EU directives, its distinctive features become clear. Here, we will summarize the characteristics of Japan's EHS laws and regulations, comparing them with overseas standards.

The first characteristic is the decentralization of the regulatory system. In Japan, occupational safety, environmental protection, chemical substance management, etc. are each regulated by independent laws. In contrast, in the United States, OSHA centrally supervises occupational safety and health, and sets comprehensive rules for all sources of hazards in the workplace. The EU also relies on Framework Directives to impose basic safety and health obligations on businesses, which each country then incorporates into its own domestic laws. In comparison, Japan has a vertically divided legal system, which means that businesses are required to understand and comply with multiple laws and regulations across the board, placing a heavy practical burden on them.

The second difference is the way compliance is positioned. OSHA often imposes heavy fines and criminal charges for violations, emphasizing deterrence. EU directives are also subject to strict enforcement by member states, and violations can lead to the suspension of trade or the prohibition of operations. On the other hand, Japan's EHS laws and regulations tend to emphasize administrative guidance and improvement orders rather than penalties, and even when violations are discovered, there are relatively few cases where operations are immediately suspended. For this reason, Japan's regulations are sometimes perceived as "lenient" compared to other countries, which is a factor causing global companies to have concerns about EHS management at their Japanese bases.

Third, there are differences in risk assessment approaches. In the EU, the REACH Regulation and the CLP Regulation strongly mandate that businesses assess the risks of chemical substances and disclose information about them. In the US, the Hazard Communication Regulation (HazCom) also requires that information about the hazards of chemical substances be clearly communicated to employees. In contrast, in Japan, the mandatory implementation of risk assessments has only just begun in recent years, and there are limited mechanisms for systematic information sharing and worker participation.

The fourth characteristic is the degree of worker participation. In the EU, the establishment of occupational safety and health committees and the involvement of labor unions are institutionally guaranteed, and there is a culture of employees actively participating in safety management. OSHA has also established a system that allows employees to report anonymously, and systematically collects information from the workplace. In Japan, the establishment of health committees is mandatory under the Industrial Safety and Health Act, but in many cases it is merely a formality, and ensuring effectiveness is an issue.

Overall, Japan's EHS laws and regulations are characterized by a "combination of individual laws and regulations," "centred on administrative guidance," and "limited worker participation," and are weaker in terms of systematicity and enforcement compared to overseas standards. However, on the other hand, there is flexibility in the implementation of voluntary initiatives and guidelines within the industry, and it can be said that there is ample room for companies to develop their own unique EHS management. For global companies, rather than simply complying with Japanese laws and regulations, introducing voluntary standards that exceed the requirements of OSHA and EU directives will be a strategy that directly leads to securing international trust and reducing risks.