[New Fiscal Year Begins, Sustainability Staff Scream!?] Nearly 90% of Prime Market Listed Companies Feel Inadequate Handover from Predecessors

<strong>Espool Blue Dot Green, Inc. (Headquarters: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo; President: Kohei Hachibayashi; hereinafter "Espool Blue Dot Green") conducted a survey on the actual state of "Sustainability Task Handover" targeting practitioners in sustainability, environmental management, and CSR departments of prime market listed companies.</strong>

As disclosure of sustainability information and its integration into management become indispensable for corporate growth, expectations from investors and stakeholders are increasing year by year. Prime market listed companies, in particular, are required to provide advanced and comprehensive disclosures. As the scope of対応 (response/management) expands and standards/rules are updated frequently, the practical burden on the ground is growing.

Furthermore, sustainability-related operations are highly specialized, tending to lead to "personalization" of practical work. If sufficient handover is not conducted during personnel changes or resignations, there are concerns about risks such as a decline in disclosure quality or stagnation of operations. Situations where the predecessor's background for decisions, interpretation of rules, and data collection processes are not properly inherited are serious challenges for corporate governance.

Therefore, this time, <strong>Espool Blue Dot Green</strong> (https://www.bluedotgreen.co.jp/) conducted a <strong>"Survey on the Actual State of Sustainability Task Handover"</strong> targeting practitioners in sustainability, environmental management, and CSR departments of prime market listed companies.

Survey Overview: "Survey on Sustainability Task Handover in Prime Market Listed Companies" [Survey Period] Tuesday, March 10, 2026 – Tuesday, March 10, 2026 [Survey Method] Internet survey by PRIZMA (https://www.prizma-link.com/press) [Number of Respondents] 151 people [Survey Target] Monitors who responded that they belong to a company listed on the prime market at the time of the survey and are practitioners in sustainability, environmental management, or CSR departments, and have conducted CDP reporting. [Survey Source] Espool Blue Dot Green, Inc. (https://www.bluedotgreen.co.jp/) [Monitor Provider] Sakurisa [Details of this survey can be found here](https://st.trendemon.com/rTQdxn?utm_source=prtimes&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=20260403)

Nearly 90% Felt Insufficient Handover from Predecessors!

First, when asked about "the period required for handover from the previous person in charge at the most recent personnel change," the following results were obtained:

"Less than 1 week (14.6%)" <strong>"1 week to less than 2 weeks (50.3%)"</strong> <strong>"2 weeks to less than 1 month (21.2%)"</strong> "1 month or more (13.9%)"

Although sustainability-related tasks require specialized knowledge and continuous response, over 60% of handover periods were "less than 2 weeks," revealing a reality of relatively short-term handovers.

Furthermore, when asked "Have you ever felt that the handover from the previous person in charge regarding sustainability-related tasks was insufficient?", approximately 90% responded <strong>"Yes (88.7%)"</strong>.

While the previous question showed a reality of short handover periods, the fact that many practitioners actually feel the insufficiency of handover suggests that issues may be arising in various sustainability-related operations.

The Task Area Where Handover Was Insufficient is "Responding to ESG Evaluation Bodies such as CDP." Schedule Delays and Additional Costs Occurred...

To clarify which task areas felt most insufficient, respondents were asked about "Task areas where handover was felt to be insufficient." The most common answer was <strong>"Responding to ESG evaluation bodies such as CDP and EcoVadis (45.5%)"</strong>, followed by <strong>"Creation of disclosure documents such as sustainability reports and integrated reports (44.0%)"</strong> and <strong>"GHG emissions and LCA/CFP calculation response tasks (41.8%)"</strong>.

It is clear that insufficient handover is concentrated in critical tasks directly linked to external evaluations and disclosures. "Responding to ESG evaluation bodies," "creating disclosure documents," and "calculation response tasks" require not just numerical aggregation, but also descriptions that consider the company's strategy, response policies, and past disclosure/calculation scope.

In areas requiring not only specialized knowledge but also background understanding such as "what discussions occurred in the past" and "how the previous person interpreted the questions and with what intent they responded," superficial manuals are insufficient for adequate handover.

Additionally, when asked about "Difficult points felt during handover from the previous person in charge," the following results were obtained:

<strong>"Uncertainty about the location of raw data necessary for disclosure and calculation (32.8%)"</strong> <strong>"Insufficient handover of interpersonal relationships and cooperation systems with other departments within the company (32.8%)"</strong> <strong>"Uncertainty about the background of past decisions (why this figure/expression was used) (30.6%)"</strong> <strong>"Lack of organization regarding changes from the previous year (policies, calculation scope, etc.) (29.1%)"</strong>

Similar to the "Responding to ESG evaluation bodies" and "calculation response tasks" mentioned in the previous question, the high difficulty in handing over information related to core operational data and decision-making grounds was shown. In particular, responses like "uncertainty about the location of raw data" being among the top indicates that information necessary for operations may be personalized, making it difficult for successors to catch up.

Furthermore, when asked about "Events that occurred due to insufficient handover," <strong>"Schedule delays (e.g., unclear previous year's procedures or progress) (36.6%)"</strong> was the most common answer, followed by <strong>"It took time to catch up with existing operations, delaying the start of initiatives that should have been advanced (35.8%)"</strong> and <strong>"Unexpected increase in workload or additional costs occurred (27.6%)"</strong>.

Insufficient handover not only burdens individual staff members but also leads to practical losses such as "schedule delays," "resource strain," and even "cost increases." The commencement of initiatives that should have been advanced is being postponed, apparently impacting the promotion speed of sustainability initiatives themselves.

Factors Making Handover Difficult? To What Extent is the Previous Year's Response Organized and Managed?

Could the background to the problems caused by handover, as shown so far, be the insufficient organization and sharing of the previous year's response content and decision-making process?

Therefore, when asked "To what extent are the previous year's response content and results in sustainability-related tasks organized and managed?" the following answers were obtained:

<strong>"Previous year's response results, improvements, and decision-making background are systematically organized (27.1%)"</strong> <strong>"There are documents for previous year's response results and improvements, but the background of decisions is not organized (53.0%)"</strong> <strong>"Previous year's response data and deliverables are saved, but not systematically organized (17.2%)"</strong> <strong>"Not managed (2.7%)"</strong>

It was found that even when deliverables and data themselves remain, the background and rationale behind "why that decision was made" are often not organized. Could this situation be leading to the problem of "difficult handover due to unclear background of past decisions" raised in the previous question?

Now, if the person in charge is absent, to what extent can the work continue?

Towards Detachment from Dependence on Individuals: What is the "Sustainable Response System" That is Needed?

When asked "If the current person in charge were to be transferred or resign, is there anyone in the company who could immediately take over the role?", over 30% responded <strong>"No (32.4%)"</strong>.

While approximately 70% of companies have a backup system in place, it became clear that even among prime market listed companies, over 30% face challenges in business continuity when the person in charge is absent.

Furthermore, when asked about "Initiatives considered effective for stably continuing operations even when the person in charge changes," the following results were obtained:

<strong>"Outsourcing of some operations (e.g., BPO) (42.4%)"</strong> <strong>"Introduction of DX tools for data management and progress management (35.8%)"</strong> <strong>"Manualization and standardization of work content (32.5%)"</strong> <strong>"Continuous support from external experts (consultants) (29.1%)"</strong>

In addition to internal initiatives like preparing manuals, the importance of systematic approaches utilizing external resources and technology, such as outsourcing and DX tool adoption, is recognized. All these measures have in common the goal of establishing a system not dependent on individual staff members, suggesting that resolving personalization is a key theme.

Finally, for those who answered "Continuous support from external experts (consultants)" or "Outsourcing of some operations (e.g., BPO)" in the previous question, when asked "Why did you think the initiative selected in the previous question was effective?", <strong>"Because it allows for efficient response based on industry characteristics, leading company examples, and trends (48.9%)"</strong> was the most common answer, followed by <strong>"Because the latest regulations and international standards can be entrusted (45.7%)"</strong> and <strong>"Because knowledge is accumulated externally even if the person in charge changes (42.4%)"</strong>.

The purpose of utilizing external resources is not limited to simply reducing operational burden, but rather lies in "ensuring expertise" and "continuous accumulation of knowledge." In the future, it may become increasingly necessary to build a stable operational system that is not affected by personnel changes, while leveraging external resources.

[Summary] Handover Challenges in Sustainability-Related Operations and the Direction of Solutions for Overcoming Personalization

This survey has highlighted challenges related to personnel changes and handover in sustainability-related departments.

Over 60% of handover periods from predecessors were less than two weeks, revealing a reality of relatively short-term handovers.

Against this backdrop, approximately 90% experienced insufficient handover. The ambiguity of data location and decision-making rationale has been shown to lead to practical issues such as schedule delays and increased workload.

Furthermore, many companies have not organized the previous year's responses beyond the results, stating "results remain but decision-making backgrounds are not organized," suggesting that knowledge and know-how depend on individuals rather than the organization, which may be the cause of handover difficulties.

On the other hand, measures to prepare for personnel changes include internal improvements such as manualization and DX tool adoption, as well as outsourcing and utilizing external experts, which are recognized as effective. This indicates a move by companies towards operations based on "systems" rather than "individual staff members." Keywords: Sustainability, ESG, CDP, Handover, Integrated Report, Non-financial Disclosure, GHG Emissions, Disclosure Response, Work Standardization, LCA