Labor & Employment Law

Tackling Customer Harassment in Japan: Legislative Trends and Corporate Best Practices

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 7 min read
Tackling Customer Harassment in Japan: Legislative Trends and Corporate Best Practices
Slide summary: Japan’s customer-harassment trends—Tokyo ordinance, draft national law, best-practice employer measures
TL;DR: As customer harassment (Kasuhara) escalates, Japan moves toward national regulation while Tokyo’s 2024 ordinance and MHLW guidelines already demand action. Robust policies, staff training, and support systems are now critical for compliance and risk mitigation.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction: Responding to a Growing Concern
  2. The Drive Towards National Legislation
  3. Emerging Corporate Best Practices in Japan
  4. Conclusion: Proactive Adaptation Is Key

Introduction: Responding to a Growing Concern

Customer harassment, or "Kasuhara," has rapidly emerged as a significant concern in Japan, moving from anecdotal reports to a topic of national discussion, policy development, and even local legislation. Defined generally as unreasonable demands or socially unacceptable behavior from customers or clients that harms the working environment for employees, Kasuhara impacts businesses across various sectors, particularly those with direct customer interaction like retail, hospitality, transportation, healthcare, and call centers.

While Japan established mandatory preventative measures for workplace power harassment and sexual harassment in recent years, similar comprehensive national legislation specifically targeting Kasuhara is still under development as of early 2025. However, the absence of a dedicated national law does not mean the issue is unregulated or that businesses lack guidance. A combination of existing legal duties, influential government guidelines, pioneering local ordinances, and evolving corporate practices forms the current landscape for addressing Kasuhara. For businesses operating in Japan, understanding these trends and adopting proactive best practices is crucial for protecting employees, mitigating legal risks, and maintaining operational integrity.

The Drive Towards National Legislation

The push for stronger Kasuhara countermeasures at the national level has gained momentum, fueled by several factors:

  • Increased Awareness and Data: Surveys, such as the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's (MHLW) Fiscal Year 2023 survey, have quantified the prevalence and impact of Kasuhara, providing empirical evidence for policymakers.
  • Advocacy: Labor unions, particularly those representing service sector employees like UA Zensen, have been vocal advocates, conducting their own surveys and lobbying for legislative action since the late 2010s.
  • Government Study Groups: Recognizing the issue, the MHLW established study groups. Notably, the Report of the Study Group on Promoting Women's Advancement in Employment (published August 8, 2024), while broader in scope, included specific recommendations for strengthening harassment measures, explicitly proposing legislative action on Kasuhara.

Legislative Proposals and Debates

The aforementioned 2024 Study Group report recommended that addressing Kasuhara become a mandatory employer measure (措置義務 - sochi gimu), similar to the existing obligations for power harassment prevention under the Labour Measures Comprehensive Promotion Act. This would likely involve:

  1. Defining Kasuhara: Establishing a legal reference point, likely building on the definition used in the MHLW manual (focusing on unreasonable demands or unacceptable means/manner harming the work environment).
  2. Mandating Employer Actions: Requiring businesses to implement specific preventative and responsive measures, which would be detailed in official guidelines (指針 - shishin).
  3. Establishing Responsibilities: Potentially outlining basic responsibilities (sekimu) for employees and customers as well, though enforcement against customers remains a complex issue.

Discussions based on these proposals are ongoing within bodies like the Labour Policy Council (労働政策審議会 - Rōdō Seisaku Shingikai), the advisory council to the MHLW. Key points of debate emerging from expert discussions (as reflected in legal journals like Jurist) include:

  • Prohibition Clause (禁止規定 - kinshi kitei): Should the law explicitly state "Kasuhara is prohibited," akin to the approach in the Tokyo ordinance? Advocates argue this sends a strong societal message and aids civil liability claims. Skeptics question the enforceability without penalties and the difficulty of precisely defining the prohibited conduct, preferring to focus on employer measures.
  • Scope of Employer Duties: While measures like setting up consultation channels and providing employee care are likely to be included, the extent to which preventative measures (like detailed manual creation or specific staffing arrangements) should be mandated versus recommended is debated.
  • Balancing with Customer Rights: Ensuring that anti-Kasuhara measures do not unduly stifle legitimate customer complaints or feedback remains a critical balancing act.

While the exact form and timing remain uncertain, the political momentum, including mentions in government economic policy outlines (like the "Basic Policy on Economic and Fiscal Management and Reform 2024"), suggests that some form of national legislation mandating employer measures against Kasuhara is a likely development in the near future.

Key National Guidance: The MHLW Corporate Manual (2022)

Pending national legislation, the most important official guidance for businesses is the "Customer Harassment Countermeasures Corporate Manual" (カスタマーハラスメント対策企業マニュアル) published by the MHLW in February 2022. Developed by a committee including business representatives, labor experts, and academics, this manual provides a comprehensive framework:

  • Working Definition: It offers the widely used definition based on unreasonable demands or socially unacceptable means/manner harming the work environment.
  • Importance of Distinction: It stresses the need for companies to differentiate Kasuhara from legitimate claims and provides examples.
  • Recommended Actions - Preparation:
    • (1) Define Basic Policy: Management should establish and clearly communicate a basic stance against Kasuhara.
    • (2) Employee Awareness: Educate all employees about the policy and what constitutes Kasuhara.
    • (3) Consultation System: Set up accessible and confidential channels for employees to report incidents and seek advice.
    • (4) Response Protocols: Develop clear procedures and manuals detailing how to respond to various types of Kasuhara incidents.
    • (5) Training: Provide practical training to employees on response techniques and protocols.
  • Recommended Actions - Response:
    • (6) Accurate Fact-Finding: Investigate incidents promptly and objectively.
    • (7) Employee Care: Provide consideration for the affected employee's mental and physical health (e.g., allowing breaks, changing duties, offering counseling).
    • (8) Incident Response: Take appropriate action based on the facts, which could range from warnings to refusing service, involving security, or contacting police for illegal acts (threats, violence, property damage).
    • (9) Recurrence Prevention: Analyze incidents to identify systemic issues and improve preventative measures.
    • (10) Privacy & Non-Retaliation: Ensure protection of privacy for those involved and prohibit retaliation against employees who report Kasuhara.

While adherence to the manual is not currently legally mandatory nationwide, it represents the government's recommended standard of care and is influential in shaping corporate policies and potentially court interpretations of the employer's Duty of Care (Anzen Hairyogimu).

Pioneering Local Regulation: The Tokyo Ordinance

A landmark development occurred in October 2024 with the enactment of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's Ordinance on the Prevention of Customer Harassment. Key features include:

  • Explicit Prohibition: It clearly states that "No person shall commit customer harassment" (Art. 4), sending a strong normative message.
  • Definition: Defines Kasuhara similarly to the MHLW manual, as "serious nuisance behavior" related to business operations that harms the work environment, stemming from illegal acts (violence, threats) or unreasonable demands/abusive language (Art. 2, Items 4 & 5).
  • Defined Responsibilities (Sekimu):
    • Businesses (Art. 7): Must endeavor to take necessary measures like employee training, establishing consultation systems, creating manuals, and cooperating with government initiatives.
    • Employees (Art. 8): Must endeavor to deepen their understanding of Kasuhara and interact with customers appropriately.
    • Customers/Users (Art. 9): Must endeavor to understand Kasuhara and refrain from engaging in it, while respecting employee dignity.
  • Focus on Promotion: The ordinance primarily aims at raising awareness and promoting voluntary efforts. It does not currently include direct penalties for committing Kasuhara or for businesses failing to implement measures. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government's role is focused on providing information, advice, and developing guidelines.
  • Potential Impact: Despite lacking penalties, the ordinance sets a benchmark for acceptable conduct within Tokyo. It provides a clear basis for businesses to refuse service or take firmer stances against Kasuhara. It also likely influences expectations and potential legal arguments regarding the standard of care employers should provide, even outside Tokyo, and may spur other municipalities to follow suit.

Emerging Corporate Best Practices in Japan

In response to growing awareness and the evolving legal/policy landscape, leading companies and industry groups in Japan are adopting more robust Kasuhara countermeasures, often going beyond minimum requirements. Best practices emerging include:

  1. Visible Anti-Kasuhara Stance: Publicly stating the company's policy against Kasuhara, sometimes through posters in stores or notices on websites, to set expectations for customer behavior.
  2. Structured Internal Response:
    • Manuals & Training: Developing detailed internal manuals with specific scenarios and providing regular, practical training (including role-playing) for frontline staff and managers.
    • Escalation Pathways: Clear procedures for employees to escalate difficult situations to supervisors or dedicated response teams, ensuring employees don't feel pressured to handle severe abuse alone.
    • Documentation: Systematically recording Kasuhara incidents (date, time, location, customer details if possible, behavior details, employee response, witness information) for internal analysis and potential legal action.
  3. Enhanced Employee Support:
    • Debriefing & Counseling: Providing opportunities for employees to debrief after stressful incidents and offering easy access to professional counseling or mental health services.
    • Management Backing: Clearly communicating that management supports employees who follow procedures in dealing with Kasuhara, even if it results in refusing service to a customer.
  4. Differentiating Complaints: Training staff and managers to distinguish between legitimate (though perhaps forceful) complaints about service failures and behavior that crosses the line into Kasuhara, allowing for appropriate responses to each.
  5. Industry Collaboration: Working within industry associations to develop shared guidelines and potentially present a united front against unreasonable demands. Examples include initiatives by airlines (reportedly ANA and JAL collaborating on response policies) and the mobile phone retail industry association developing common guidelines. This prevents customers from "shopping around" for businesses perceived as more lenient.
  6. Leveraging Technology: Using call recording systems (with appropriate notification) in call centers, or potentially body cameras (with careful consideration of privacy implications) in certain high-risk physical environments, to deter abuse and provide evidence.
  7. Legal Action & Police Cooperation: Establishing protocols for when to involve legal counsel or report matters (threats, violence, extortion, severe defamation) to the police. Building relationships with local police can facilitate quicker responses when needed.

Lingering Challenges for Businesses

Despite progress, companies face ongoing challenges:

  • The Grey Area: Distinguishing passionate but legitimate complaints from Kasuhara remains difficult, requiring careful judgment by frontline staff and managers. Overly aggressive policies risk alienating customers with genuine issues.
  • B-to-B Complexity: Kasuhara between businesses (e.g., pressure from a major client on a supplier's employees) involves navigating power dynamics and contractual relationships, making responses complex. Standard consumer-focused protocols may not apply directly.
  • Online Anonymity: Tackling online defamation and harassment directed at employees is complicated by anonymous posters, requiring potentially lengthy and costly procedures to identify perpetrators.
  • Resource Constraints: Implementing comprehensive training, support systems, and potentially legal responses requires resources that may be challenging for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), highlighting the need for scalable solutions and external support (e.g., through industry associations or government resources).

Conclusion: Proactive Adaptation is Key

The landscape surrounding customer harassment in Japan is clearly shifting. While comprehensive national legislation mandating preventative measures is still evolving, the direction is towards greater employer responsibility for protecting employees from severe third-party misconduct. The influential MHLW Corporate Manual provides a solid foundation for action, and pioneering local regulations like the Tokyo ordinance signal increasing societal and governmental expectations.

For businesses operating in Japan, waiting for mandatory national laws is likely insufficient. Adopting best practices now – establishing clear policies, training staff effectively, creating robust response protocols, offering strong employee support, and potentially collaborating within industries – is the most prudent approach. This not only helps mitigate legal risks associated with the existing Duty of Care but also fosters a safer and more sustainable working environment, ultimately benefiting both employees and the business itself in navigating the complexities of customer interactions in modern Japan.