Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40335298›Full record

ArticleIndustrial health2025

Comparison of disclosures on occupational health and safety in Japanese and Taiwanese listed companies.

Tomohisa Nagata, Ro-Ting Lin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Industrial health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tomohisa NagataDepartment of Occupational Health Practice and Management, Institute of Industrial Ecological Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan.
Ro-Ting LinDepartment of Occupational Safety and Health, College of Public Health, China Medical University, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compares the disclosure practices of occupational safety and health (OSH) in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports between listed companies in Japan and Taiwan. Using publicly available CSR reports from 2020, we analyzed OSH disclosures from 441 Japanese companies and 150 Taiwanese companies. In Taiwan, where CSR disclosure is mandatory, the reports were more comprehensive and closely aligned with Global Reporting Initiative standards. In contrast, Japan's voluntary approach led to greater variability in reporting, with a lower overall OSH disclosure rate but a relatively higher emphasis on mental health measures. After adjusting for the industry and company size, the odds of Taiwanese companies disclosing OSH information were 3.45 times higher than Japanese companies. This cross-country comparison highlights the importance of regulatory frameworks on the quality and consistency of OSH disclosures, as seen in Taiwanese companies. Japanese companies could improve transparency in materiality disclosures, while Taiwanese companies might benefit from adopting Japan's focus on mental health and occupational health awards. This comparison offers valuable insights into the role of regulations in shaping CSR practices and provides guidance for future policy development in both countries and others aiming to enhance corporate transparency in OSH.

Indexed as

DisclosureIndustryOccupational HealthSocial ResponsibilityHumansJapanTaiwanCorporate social responsibilityInternational comparisonJapanOccupational safety and healthReportingTaiwan

Identifiers

PMID40335298
PMCPMC12657050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.