The 1985 Act was a milestone with little enforcement behind it. Passed partly so that Japan could ratify the UN convention on discrimination against women, it banned discrimination in training, some benefits, retirement and dismissal, but only asked employers to make an effort to treat women equally in recruitment, hiring, assignment and promotion, the decisions that shaped careers. Many large companies responded by creating the two-track system: a career track, sogoshoku, with transfers and promotion, and a clerical track, ippanshoku, without them. Formally open to both sexes, in practice the second was mostly for women.
The 1997 amendment, in force from April 1999, turned the effort duties into prohibitions, allowed the ministry to publish the names of employers that ignored its recommendations, and introduced a duty concerning sexual harassment. The 2006 amendment, in force from April 2007, made the Act protect men as well as women, banned unfavourable treatment for pregnancy and childbirth, and introduced indirect discrimination. That concept is narrow in Japan: only measures listed by ordinance count. There are three: height, weight or strength requirements in hiring; requiring willingness to relocate in hiring, promotion or change of track without a business need; and requiring relocation experience for promotion. Positive action for women is expressly permitted.
Enforcement still relies on administrative guidance, mediation through the prefectural labour bureaus and, at the end, public naming. There are no damages under the Act itself. Results have been gradual: women's scheduled monthly pay was 76.6% of men's in the 2025 wage structure survey, the narrowest since comparable records began in 1976, and women held 13.2% of section chief posts in fiscal 2025.
What it means for a foreign employer
- Two-track structures carry risk. A career track and a clerical track whose membership splits by sex invites scrutiny. If you have them, document the job differences and allow movement between tracks.
- Mobility requirements need a reason. Requiring nationwide relocation for a role that never relocates anyone is the indirect discrimination the ordinance names.
- The female leadership pool is thin by design. Decades of two-track hiring mean fewer women with long line-management records. Widen the search to adjacent functions and to women who left large Japanese companies for gaishikei.
- Positive action is allowed. Targeted development or a preference among equally qualified candidates for women is lawful where women are under-represented.
Sources
- Act on Securing Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment (1985), as amended in 1997 (in force April 1999) and 2006 (in force April 2007).
- Ordinance for Enforcement of the Act, Article 2 (indirect discrimination, as amended in force July 2014).
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Basic Survey on Wage Structure 2025; Basic Survey on Equal Employment, fiscal 2025.