Q（Question）

The Guidelines state that "management shall confirm whether officers and employees have engaged in appropriate promotional information activities and whether they have caused others to do so, and shall appropriately reflect this in evaluations of officers and employees." What specifically is envisaged?

A（MHLW answer）

For example, it is conceivable to set the conduct of appropriate promotional information activities—and the facilitation of such conduct by others—as a human-resources evaluation criterion for those in the department responsible for promotional information activities, thereby establishing a personnel evaluation system and compensation structure that does not rely solely on sales-maximization principles.

So what (meaning): Companies must add "appropriate promotional conduct" as an explicit criterion in performance appraisals and revise any system where only sales figures drive ratings and pay.

So why (rationale): A purely sales-driven evaluation structure creates a structural incentive for staff to provide exaggerated or misleading information, systematically encouraging guideline violations.

Commentary — background, application, practical notes

This Q&A on how management should reflect conduct in evaluations shows that the Guidelines require not merely a code of conduct for individual staff but a transformation of the organization's incentive structure itself. A personnel system that evaluates staff solely on sales volume or prescription counts structurally gives individuals a motive to provide exaggerated information. Without changing that structure, no amount of material review or SOP development will eradicate inappropriate field conduct.

A typical application is adding 'degree of compliance adherence,' 'track record of staying within approved materials,' and 'complaint handling outcomes' as quantitative and qualitative criteria in annual performance reviews. For managers—sales office heads, district managers, etc.—an additional criterion is whether they tolerated or tacitly approved subordinates' inappropriate conduct. The system must be designed so that a representative with high compliance scores can be promoted even if they miss sales targets.

A common design error is limiting compliance evaluation to 'bonus points only,' structured so that compliance scores cannot offset the negative impact of missed sales targets. Under such a system, staff are effectively forced to behave as though sales supremacy still governs them. For management to honor this Q&A's intent, 'appropriate promotional conduct' must function as an independent evaluation axis that genuinely affects promotion and compensation when rated low. Such system changes become important evidence in regulatory audits as demonstrated corrective action against a sales-first culture.