Japan's Disability Employment Rate Hit a 14th Straight Record at 2.41%, Yet Only 46.0% of Firms Meet the Requirement — 57.3% of Those Falling Short Employ No One at All

40 to under 1001.94%prior 1.96% ▼

Share of firms meeting the rate: 44.7%

100 to under 3002.18%prior 2.19% ▼

Share of firms meeting the rate: 48.6%

300 to under 5002.27%prior 2.29% ▼

Share of firms meeting the rate: 40.3%

500 to under 1,0002.41%prior 2.48% ▼

Share of firms meeting the rate: 44.5%

1,000 or more2.69%prior 2.64% ▲

Share of firms meeting the rate: 57.5%

The overall rate is 2.41%, short of the 2.5% requirement, and 46.0% of firms meet it, unchanged on the year. Of the 65,033 firms falling short, 37,262 (57.3%) employ no one with a disability at all, while 64.0% are short by only half a person or one person. From July 2026 the requirement rises to 2.7% and applies to employers with 37.5 or more staff.

In the count published in December 2025 by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, private firms employed 704,610.0 people with disabilities[1]. That is 27,148.5 more than the year before, up 4.0%, and a twenty-second consecutive record.

By category, people with physical disabilities numbered 373,914.5, up 1.3%; those with intellectual disabilities 162,153.5, up 2.8%; and those with mental disabilities 168,542.0, up 11.8%[1]. The last of these grew fastest.

The rate rose too, to 2.41%, a fourteenth consecutive record[1]. It reads as unchanged at 2.41%, but at three decimal places 2024 was 2.405 and 2025 was 2.412.

The share of firms meeting the requirement does not move. 46.0% met the 2.5% requirement, the same as the year before[1]. Still under half.

Some size bands saw the rate fall. The document explains why

Split by size, it becomes clear where the growth sits.

The rate is 1.94% for 40.0 to under 100 employees, 2.18% for 100 to under 300, 2.27% for 300 to under 500, 2.41% for 500 to under 1,000, and 2.69% for 1,000 or more[2]. Against the previous year, only the 1,000-or-more band rose[2]; every other band fell. Only that band clears the 2.5% requirement.

The document attaches a footnote to that decline.

Includes the decline arising from the exclusion rate being 10 points lower than the previous year.

The exclusion rate subtracts people from the denominator

The exclusion rate subtracts a fixed share from a firm's regular workforce when calculating how many people with disabilities it must employ. The quota is the remainder multiplied by the statutory rate.

The system was abolished by the 2002 amendment, effective April 2004. As a transitional measure, rates are set per industry and reduced in stages[3].

Three reductions have been made: April 2004, July 2010 and April 2025, each a uniform 10 points[4]. The June 2025 tabulation is the first to carry the third one.

The per-industry rates are published. Kindergartens and integrated early childhood centres went from 60% to 50%, primary schools and road passenger transport from 55% to 45%, special-needs schools from 45% to 35%, and construction, steel, road freight and postal services from 20% to 10%[2]. Industries previously at 5% and 10% no longer have one.

For a firm of 5,069.5 workers, the quota goes from 101 to 114

The document includes a worked example.

For a firm with 5,069.5 regular workers, an exclusion rate of 20% subtracts 1,013, leaving a base of 4,056.5, which at 2.5% gives a quota of 101[2]. For the same firm, an exclusion rate of 10% subtracts 506, leaving a base of 4,563.5 and a quota of 114[2].

The quota rises by 13 without the firm adding a single worker. Fractions are rounded down.

The denominator grew by 1.04 million in a year

The overall denominator moved too. The workforce base for calculating quotas stands at 29,210,526.0, up 1,048,127 from 28,162,399.0[2]. A rise of 3.7%.

The number of people employed rose 4.0%. The numerator outpaced the denominator by a hair, so the rate moved from 2.405% to 2.412%. Displayed to two decimals it stays at 2.41%.

At the small end it runs the other way. For 40.0 to under 100 employees the base rose 5.0% from 3,994,359.5 to 4,193,772.0, while employment rose 3.8% from 78,280.0 to 81,287.5[2]. The denominator grew faster, so the rate fell from 1.96% to 1.94%.

3,228 more firms fall under the obligation, and 3,045 of them have fewer than 100 staff

The number of firms covered changed as well. Firms went from 117,239 to 120,467, up 3,228. The 40.0 to under 100 band alone went from 64,840 to 67,885, up 3,045[2].

94% of the increase sits in the smallest band. A lower exclusion rate means less is subtracted, so the base rises. Cross the 40-person line and a firm that was outside the obligation is now inside it.

The share meeting the quota does not line up with size

The rate by size runs cleanly upward. The share of firms meeting it does not.

The share meeting the quota is 44.7% for 40.0 to under 100, 48.6% for 100 to under 300, 40.3% for 300 to under 500, 44.5% for 500 to under 1,000, and 57.5% for 1,000 or more[2]. The lowest is 40.3% at 300 to under 500, which is 4.4 points below the smallest band.

Against the previous year, 40.0 to under 100 rose from 44.3% to 44.7%, 500 to under 1,000 from 44.3% to 44.5% and 1,000 or more from 54.7% to 57.5%, while 100 to under 300 fell from 49.1% to 48.6% and 300 to under 500 from 41.1% to 40.3%[2]. A band whose rate fell can still have more of its firms meeting the quota.

Firms falling short split into two kinds

65,033 firms fall short, and 41,631 of them, 64.0%, are short by half a person or one person[2]. Nearly two-thirds are one hire away.

At the same time, 37,262 firms employ nobody with a disability, 57.3% of those falling short[2]. The two overlap. In a small firm, one person is the whole obligation.

57.7% of the firms falling short have fewer than 100 staff

Broken down by size, the concentration is plain.

Of the 65,033 firms falling short, 37,525 have 40.0 to under 100 employees, 19,060 have 100 to under 300, 4,228 have 300 to under 500, 2,687 have 500 to under 1,000 and 1,533 have 1,000 or more[2]. The 37,525 are 57.7% of the total.

Their composition is lopsided too. Of those 37,525, 33,116 firms, 88.3%, are short by half a person or one person[2]. In this band no firm is short by more than two[2].

90.5% of the firms employing nobody are in the same band

Firms employing nobody with a disability number 33,710 at 40.0 to under 100, 3,518 at 100 to under 300, 29 at 300 to under 500, 5 at 500 to under 1,000 and 0 at 1,000 or more[2].

Of the 37,262, some 33,710 — 90.5% — have fewer than 100 staff. The 1,000-or-more band has none at all.

Within that band, 89.8% of the 37,525 firms falling short employ nobody[2]. Falling short at this size means, almost always, having hired no one.

For a firm of 40, 2.5% is one person

An obligation set as a percentage means different things at different sizes.

For a firm of 40, 2.5% is one person. Hire one and it complies; hire none and it does not. There is nothing in between. A firm of 1,000 needs 25, and 24 or 26 both leave room to operate. Someone leaves and the replacement can come next month.

The smaller the firm, the more discrete the distance between meeting and missing. That 64.0% of firms falling short are one hire away follows from most of them being small. The figures show it.

The first hire and the ones after

Hiring the first person is not like hiring the second. Carving out the work, the equipment, somewhere to raise problems, the understanding of colleagues. All of it has to be arranged at once, with no in-house precedent to compare against. A firm that already employs someone finds adding another far easier.

That the rate rose only in the 1,000-or-more band is one expression of that asymmetry.

631 companies hold 53,710.5 people

The route by which large firms add numbers shows up too. Certified special subsidiaries number 631, up 17 on the year, and employ 53,710.5 people, up 6.8% from 50,290.5[2]. The overall rise was 4.0%, so this is faster.

Those 631 hold 7.6% of the 704,610.0 employed across private firms[2].

The composition differs as well. Special subsidiaries employ 12,920.0 with physical disabilities, 26,739.5 with intellectual disabilities and 14,051.0 with psychiatric disabilities[2], so intellectual disabilities account for 49.8%. Across private firms as a whole the figure is 23.0%.

704,610.0 is not a headcount

One more thing bears on how the tabulation reads.

People with severe physical or intellectual disabilities are counted as two[2]. So 704,610.0 is a weighted figure. The headcount is given separately as 601,264[2]. The gap is 103,346.

The 22-year run of record highs is a run in the weighted figure, not in the number of people at work.

The quota rises to 2.7% in July 2026

From July 2026 the statutory rate becomes 2.7% and the obligation extends to employers with 37.5 or more staff[5]. For a firm of 40 the requirement goes from 1 to 1.08. Fractions are rounded down, so it stays at one. Meanwhile firms of 37.5 to 40 come under the obligation for the first time. Raising the target adds a new layer of non-compliance outside the layer that has not yet been reached.

The exclusion rate reduction pushes the same way. A larger denominator lowers the rate and brings more firms in.

The same footnote sits under the figures for the side imposing the duty

One more set of figures deserves a look: the rate among the bodies imposing the obligation. The state stands at 3.04%, down 0.03 points; prefectures at 3.03%, down 0.02; municipalities at 2.69%, down 0.06; and boards of education at 2.31%, down 0.12[2]. Boards of education face a 2.7% requirement, so they fall short.

All four carry the same footnote as the private-sector size bands. The declines include the effect of the 10-point exclusion-rate reduction. For public bodies, institutions where doctors and teaching staff — who ceased to be excluded personnel — make up a substantial share have an exclusion rate set and reduced in stages[2]. Boards of education fell furthest, which fits that structure.

The share of bodies meeting the quota moved too. Among prefectural boards of education, 14 of 47 met it, or 29.8%, against 22 the previous year, or 46.8%[2].

What to watch in the next tabulation

What is known: the numbers employed, the rate, the share meeting the quota, and that the exclusion rate fell this year. Two things are not.

The first is how much of the decline in the rate the exclusion rate accounts for. The document says the decline "includes the effect" and stops there, publishing no split. Without it, what happened on the ground cannot be read.

The second is what became of the 3,045 firms newly brought in. This tabulation is a snapshot of 1 June; whether firms that had just come under the obligation reached it a year later has to wait for the next one.

Provision and reach have to be counted separately, as exclusion and non-take-up（このサイトの記事） sets out; here the same thing is happening on the obligation side. The total keeps growing while the distribution of who carries it does not move.

On the stability of the workplaces themselves, the relationship between fees and operating scale seen in 91 home-care bankruptcies against 45 in day services（このサイトの記事） works the same way on the welfare side.

Further Reading

• 『介護格差』 (Care Inequality)（外部サイト、新しいタブで開きます） (Yasuhiro Yuki, Iwanami Shoten). An account, drawn from practice, of what separates those who can obtain welfare services from those who cannot. Useful for examining the gap between a statutory obligation and practice on the ground.

References

2025 Compilation of Disability Employment Status — MHLW, Disability Employment Measures Division (2025). Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

2025 Compilation of Disability Employment Status (Press Release) — Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2025). Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

On Raising the Statutory Employment Rate for People with Disabilities and Strengthening Support — Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2023). Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

Compilations of Disability Employment Status Reports — Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2026). Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare