Do you view animal welfare as a business-like issue?

Of the companies evaluated, only a limited number (nearly 70%) have explicitly announced an overall policy on animal welfare, and it is believed that nearly 70% of the companies do not recognize or focus on animal welfare as a business issue. It should be noted, however, that some of the companies included in this 70% are addressing individual issues, and some are in the process of internal discussion and study.

Thirty-two companies (29.9%) included animal welfare as a key issue. Four companies have identified animal welfare as a key issue. Two of these companies use a high percentage of animal protein, and their identification of animal welfare as a key issue is commendable as an attitude of consideration and responsibility toward animals. On the other hand, there were also companies that did not identify animal welfare as a key issue, even though they use a very high percentage of animal protein.

Twenty-three companies, or 21.5%, had animal welfare procurement standards or other policies. Many of these 23 companies have policies that take the position of promoting the five freedoms of animal welfare, but do not go into specific measures.

Only 10 companies, or 9.3%, provide internal training on animal welfare. If a company has a procurement policy but does not have the opportunity to study its content and significance, it may miss an opportunity to increase its value as a company. Efforts to build up knowledge of animal welfare in sales, procurement, and other areas are required.

Forty-one companies, or 38.3%, were making some effort to ensure traceability of the livestock and marine products used by their companies, so that the animal welfare status of the animals can be traced back to the farm or slaughterhouse. However, the level of effort remained at the level of efforts, with only two companies declaring that traceability was at least partially ensured.

---

Policies related to pork

In the pork sector, the focus is on addressing the pregnancy stall issue, but only 9 companies , or 8.4%, have policies in place. About 90% of the companies have no clear policy on key issues such as the pregnancy stall issue.

The two companies that had some kind of initiative were a meat company and a sogo shosha (general trading company). In some cases, the general trading companies had meat companies as subsidiaries and therefore had some initiatives, while in other cases, the trading companies themselves procured from overseas and included pregnancy stall-free products in their initiatives.

While major meat companies are making progress in this area, the lack of initiatives in the retail and food service sectors, which are downstream of the commercial flow and are in contact with consumers, is a challenge.

Internationally, the abolition of gestation stalls is by no means a producer’s story, and with standardization already underway (the general international deadline for companies to go gestation stall-free is 2026), Japan has a huge gap to fill.

Measures related to eggs (egg-laying hens)

In the egg sector, 24 companies, or 22.4%, have some kind of initiative in place, a relatively high level among other initiatives related to livestock and marine products, but still about 80% of the companies have not indicated specific measures. While cage-free transition is becoming the standard internationally, the gap with the Japanese market remains large. Also,

• Declarations without specific deadlines
• Undisclosed Procurement Ratio
• Passive efforts to respond to consumer needs.

The challenges are also evident.

While internationally, many food companies have announced their 100% cage-free transition while indicating a deadline for transition, Japan continues to lag behind. For example, in the BBFAW assessment, a company cannot receive a score without a declaration and evidence of implementation without a specific deadline, even if partial.

---

Measures related to chicken (broilers)

The poultry sector has been the slowest to respond, with only four companies (3.7%) having policies in place, and more than 95% of companies failing to provide minimum standards such as stocking density or prior loss of awareness at slaughter.

In addition to a framework equivalent to the Better Chicken Commitment that has been spreading in Europe, there were no internationally widespread movements in Japan, such as switching to faster-growing varieties and environmental enrichment, that were identified.

---

Policies Related to Aquaculture

9.3% of companies had policies related to seafood. A certain number of references to sustainability certification (e.g., ASC) were identified, but policies that go into the welfare of fish (e.g., slaughter methods, farming density) are limited.

For seafood, unlike livestock products, third-party certification is beginning to take root in Japan, and a certain degree of animal welfare is guaranteed in these certifications. In the case of shrimp, the Global GAP, ASC, and BAP have made progress in improving the removal of the eye pattern, and for other fish species, the animal welfare standards of the ASC certification have been raised in recent years. In fact, two companies were able to address the issue of eye pattern removal by obtaining a certain level of fishery certification.

Because obtaining fisheries certification above a certain level improves animal welfare, this is an area that is easy for companies to work on, and there is still room for major improvements in the future.

---

Alternative Protein Initiatives

Sixteen companies, or 15%, included alternative protein initiatives in their key issues. Although this initiative is related to environmental issues, there is an impression that it is less common in the midst of the demand for a sustainable society. As a food issue, as well as animal welfare, it needs to be initiated as soon as possible.

The highest percentage of companies ( 59 or 55.1%) had policies for protein substitutes. A high percentage of 41 companies (38.3%) also have policies for alternative dairy products. However, these figures include product development and partial initiatives, and only a limited number of companies have clearly defined strategic protein conversion goals. Also, in terms of strategies for integration with animal welfare, the industry is still in the developmental stage.

Internationally, an increasing number of companies have a clear Protein Diversification Strategy (Protein Diversification Strategy), which shows the difference between Japan and other countries.

---

generalize

In general, the animal welfare response in Japanese companies is,

• Meat companies lead the pork sector
• Some movement in the egg sector, but foreign commitments lead the way
• Major delays in the poultry sector
• Fisheries sector is immature
• Alternative proteins are under-strategized

The structure of the “I” is seen in the following table.

In addition, while there has been an increase in the number of philosophy-level statements, the majority of companies have not yet reached the stage of “institutionalization” in terms of implementation, auditing, and progress disclosure.

In the world,

• Cage-free transition
• Stall Abolition
• BCC Adoption
• Protein Conversion Target

is becoming the corporate standard. Japanese companies are clearly lagging behind in moving from the declaration phase to the institutional phase.

FARMWISE Impact 2026 reveals structural gaps in animal welfare responses in Japanese companies.

From Philosophy to Institution.
From partial response to company-wide strategy.
From national to international standards.

In the future, Japanese companies will be required to make structural and continuous improvements in order to fulfill their responsibilities in the international community.

---