| Period | Type | Revenue | Profit* | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1948/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥0B | - | - |
| 1949/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥0B | - | - |
| 1950/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥0B | - | - |
| 1951/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥0B | - | - |
| 1952/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥0B | - | - |
| 1953/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥1B | - | - |
| 1954/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥1B | - | - |
| 1955/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥1B | - | - |
| 1956/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥1B | - | - |
| 1957/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥3B | - | - |
| 1958/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥4B | - | - |
| 1959/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥8B | - | - |
| 1960/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥12B | - | - |
| 1961/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥16B | - | - |
| 1962/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥20B | - | - |
| 1963/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥23B | - | - |
| 1964/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥26B | - | - |
| 1965/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥29B | - | - |
| 1966/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥40B | - | - |
| 1967/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥48B | - | - |
| 1968/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥58B | - | - |
| 1969/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥94B | - | - |
| 1970/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥130B | ¥6B | 4.3% |
| 1971/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥160B | ¥9B | 5.3% |
| 1972/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥216B | ¥14B | 6.5% |
| 1973/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥275B | ¥21B | 7.6% |
| 1974/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥328B | ¥17B | 5.1% |
| 1975/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥296B | ¥14B | 4.7% |
| 1976/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥348B | ¥21B | 6.0% |
| 1977/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥392B | ¥25B | 6.2% |
| 1978/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥414B | ¥20B | 4.7% |
| 1979/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥469B | ¥26B | 5.6% |
| 1980/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥605B | ¥32B | 5.2% |
| 1981/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥778B | ¥47B | 6.0% |
| 1982/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥833B | ¥42B | 4.9% |
| 1983/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥770B | ¥26B | 3.3% |
| 1984/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥912B | ¥35B | 3.8% |
| 1985/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥1.1T | ¥49B | 4.5% |
| 1986/10 | Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income | ¥1.0T | ¥31B | 2.9% |
| 1987/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | - | - | - |
| 1988/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | - | - | - |
| 1989/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | - | - | - |
| 1990/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | - | - | - |
| 1991/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | - | - | - |
| 1992/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥3.9T | ¥120B | 3.0% |
| 1993/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥4.0T | ¥36B | 0.9% |
| 1994/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥3.7T | ¥15B | 0.4% |
| 1995/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥4.0T | -¥293B | -7.4% |
| 1996/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥4.6T | ¥54B | 1.1% |
| 1997/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥5.7T | ¥139B | 2.4% |
| 1998/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥6.8T | ¥222B | 3.2% |
| 1999/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥6.8T | ¥179B | 2.6% |
| 2000/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥6.7T | ¥122B | 1.8% |
| 2001/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.3T | ¥17B | 0.2% |
| 2002/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.6T | ¥15B | 0.2% |
| 2003/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.5T | ¥116B | 1.5% |
| 2004/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.5T | ¥89B | 1.1% |
| 2005/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.2T | ¥164B | 2.2% |
| 2006/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.5T | ¥124B | 1.6% |
| 2007/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥8.3T | ¥126B | 1.5% |
| 2008/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥8.9T | ¥369B | 4.1% |
| 2009/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.7T | -¥99B | -1.3% |
| 2010/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.2T | -¥41B | -0.6% |
| 2011/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.2T | -¥260B | -3.7% |
| 2012/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥6.5T | -¥455B | -7.1% |
| 2013/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥6.8T | ¥42B | 0.6% |
| 2014/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.8T | -¥128B | -1.7% |
| 2015/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥8.2T | -¥126B | -1.6% |
| 2016/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥8.1T | ¥148B | 1.8% |
| 2017/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Net Income | ¥7.6T | ¥73B | 0.9% |
| 2018/3 | Consolidated (US GAAP) Revenue / Net Income | ¥8.5T | ¥491B | 5.7% |
| 2019/3 | Consolidated (US GAAP) Revenue / Net Income | ¥8.7T | ¥916B | 10.5% |
| 2020/3 | Consolidated (US GAAP) Revenue / Net Income | ¥8.3T | ¥582B | 7.0% |
| 2021/3 | Consolidated (US GAAP) Revenue / Net Income | ¥9.0T | ¥1.2T | 13.0% |
| 2022/3 | Consolidated IFRS Revenue / Net Income | ¥9.9T | ¥882B | 8.8% |
| 2023/3 | Consolidated IFRS Revenue / Net Income | ¥11T | ¥1.0T | 9.1% |
| 2024/3 | Consolidated IFRS Revenue / Net Income | ¥13T | ¥971B | 7.4% |
There was a time when consumers around the world eagerly awaited Sony's next move. The Walkman transformed music into something personal; Trinitron elevated home televisions from functional boxes to objects of appreciation; PlayStation defined gamer culture. Owning a Sony product meant being at the cutting edge of the era, and not only in Japan—in New York and London too, there was a trust that 'if Sony does it, it's the real thing.' Sony was selling not products, but expectations of the future, and was undoubtedly one of the most respected companies in the world.
However, following the 'Sony Shock' after the collapse of the bubble economy, that mythology crumbled. Beginning with the stock price decline in 2003, the company recorded net losses in five of six fiscal years from 2009 to 2015, posting its largest-ever loss of ¥455 billion in the fiscal year ending March 2012. The root cause was a structural disconnection between hardware and software within the company. The organization, where each division operated as an independent profit center competing against the others, supported high growth but could not function in the digital era's need for 'integration of hardware and content.' Even when top management mandated integration, each division remained loyal to its own profit targets, resulting in a structural inability to produce innovative products.
What Kazuo Hirai's administration, which took office in 2012, did was 'dismantle the company as a hardware-centered enterprise' through portfolio restructuring. VAIO PCs were sold to Japan Industrial Partners, the battery business to Murata Manufacturing, and the display business to Japan Display (JDI). By divesting these unprofitable businesses, fixed costs were compressed and the profit structure was concentrated on games, music, movies, and sensors. Record profits in 2019, sales of ¥13 trillion in 2024, and a market capitalization exceeding ¥20 trillion in 2025—numerically, it is a complete comeback.
However, this comeback exists in the context of a reevaluation by capital markets, not a comeback as an innovative company that changes the world. Today's Sony is one of many high-profit conglomerates in the world. A 50% global share in image sensors, a stable platform business in PlayStation, and royalty revenues from music and film—these are all excellent businesses, but this is not the era when the world holds its breath wondering 'what will Sony make next?' What Sony recovered was financial health. What was lost was the premonition that it might change the world—though it would be unreasonable to demand that of a company with 110,000 employees, and it may simply be one natural landing point for a company that has become a large corporation.
What deserves attention in Sony's founding is not that the two engineers became president themselves, but that they formally installed former Minister of Education Tamon Maeda as the first president. For a small company, external credibility was essential for developing sales channels and raising funds, and they 'borrowed' that credibility by incorporating business elites Maeda and Mandai as directors. The division of labor—Ibuka for technology, Morita for sales, and the distinguished figures for external negotiations—was practical wisdom for a small manufacturer to survive in the post-war chaos.
Ibuka Masaru (then 38), a former naval engineer, had lost his job when the military was dissolved at the end of the war. Seeking a place to apply his technical skills, he decided to start a company with Morita Akio, an acquaintance from his navy days. Morita's father ran a sake brewing company in Aichi Prefecture, and provided full financial support, including investing startup capital and personally guaranteeing Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering's debts.
In May 1946, the company established its headquarters in a corner of the Shirokiya department store in Nihonbashi, Tokyo, which had been burned down in air raids, and founded Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Co., Ltd. In its early days, it was a small company that undertook repair of NHK broadcasting equipment and electrical miscellaneous work, and did not have a specific flagship product until it entered tape recorder manufacturing in 1950.
For two engineers' small company to get its business on track, external credibility was essential for both sales channels and funding. Ibuka and Morita brought in Yorozo Mandai (former president of the Imperial Bank = Mitsui Bank) as an advisor, and formally installed Tamon Maeda (former Minister of Education) as the first president. By incorporating business and political elites into management, they built a formation that would facilitate sales introductions, lobbying, and financing from financial institutions.
This personnel arrangement was a structure in which the founders held real power while borrowing external credibility from respected public figures. Ibuka handled technology development, Morita handled sales and finance, and Maeda and Mandai functioned as points of contact for external negotiations. The division of labor between technical capability and credibility became the foundation that enabled the company to evolve from a small enterprise to a manufacturer.
What deserves attention in Sony's founding is not that the two engineers became president themselves, but that they formally installed former Minister of Education Tamon Maeda as the first president. For a small company, external credibility was essential for developing sales channels and raising funds, and they 'borrowed' that credibility by incorporating business elites Maeda and Mandai as directors. The division of labor—Ibuka for technology, Morita for sales, and the distinguished figures for external negotiations—was practical wisdom for a small manufacturer to survive in the post-war chaos.
What deserves attention in Sony's entry into tape recorders is not technical capability but the fact that market monopolization was achieved through patent acquisition. The high-frequency bias method patent acquired from Anritsu Electric and NEC for ¥250,000 was valid until 1960, blocking major electronics manufacturers' entry for ten years. The strategy of a small company not competing head-on with majors, but buying time with legal barriers while accumulating technology and capital in the interim, became a stepping stone to later transistor radio development.
Ibuka Masaru saw an American-made tape recorder at NHK and decided to commercialize it. However, manufacturing tape recorders required the patent for recording technology called the 'high-frequency bias method.' Ibuka purchased this patent from Anritsu Electric (now Anritsu) and NEC, which held it, for ¥250,000, converting an entry barrier into his own weapon. The patent acquisition shortened development time to just one year, and in 1950 the Type G tape recorder was released.
The patent was valid until 1960, and during this period it effectively prevented major electronics manufacturers from entering the tape recorder market. A small company securing a monopoly position for ten years by using a legal barrier as a shield had decisive significance for early Sony.
Tape recorders expanded their sales channels to government offices and educational institutions, steadily growing orders. In the fiscal year ending October 1951, the company recorded sales of ¥102 million and profit of ¥9 million. With a dividend of 30%, it demonstrated high profitability for a company so early in its existence. A department head meeting that year decided a policy of 'devoting the entire company to recording device manufacturing,' concentrating management resources on tape recorders.
In preparation for increased production, capital was doubled to ¥20 million in 1951, and adjacent land at the headquarters factory was acquired to expand manufacturing capacity. Against the backdrop of patent barriers to entry, the company entered a phase of simultaneously building mass production capacity and expanding sales channels. Tape recorders became the core business supporting early Sony and formed a funding base for next product development.
What deserves attention in Sony's entry into tape recorders is not technical capability but the fact that market monopolization was achieved through patent acquisition. The high-frequency bias method patent acquired from Anritsu Electric and NEC for ¥250,000 was valid until 1960, blocking major electronics manufacturers' entry for ten years. The strategy of a small company not competing head-on with majors, but buying time with legal barriers while accumulating technology and capital in the interim, became a stepping stone to later transistor radio development.
The technological success and commercial success of the transistor radio were separate issues. Domestically, it was too expensive and did not sell, so the company sought a breakthrough in US exports. Here, the decision Morita Akio made was to refuse OEM supply. While it was common sense for Japanese companies at the time to export as subcontractors for US companies, Morita insisted on selling under his own brand 'SONY.' Including his method of building credibility by moving with his family to New York and conducting business meetings in first-class hotels, it was a strategy conscious of the transformation from manufacturer to global brand.
The transistor, invented at Bell Labs in the US in 1948, was attracting attention as a next-generation electronic component to replace vacuum tubes. Ibuka Masaru was quick to notice this technology and entered negotiations with Western Electric (WE), which held the manufacturing patents. In February 1954, a 'license agreement for semiconductor device patents' was concluded. The contract term was 10 years, and the patent fee was a lump sum of ¥9 million plus 2% of sales.
For Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering at the time, ¥9 million was a huge sum, requiring the investment of most of the profits earned from the tape recorder business. WE imagined hearing aids as the application for transistors, but Ibuka envisioned application to radios. The fact that from the patent acquisition stage, he had an original product vision that went beyond existing applications would shape the subsequent development.
Domestic major electronics manufacturers had also begun transistor research, but the path to product commercialization was long. Transistor manufacturing required high yields, and building a mass production system was considered technically difficult. Whether a small, late-entering company could commercialize first depended on proprietary technical innovation in the manufacturing process.
In 1955, Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering released Japan's first transistor radio, the 'TR-55.' The transistor yield problem was overcome with a proprietary method of introducing antimony into the manufacturing process, successfully commercializing a compact radio ahead of major electronics manufacturers. However, in the domestic market, the price of ¥20,000 per unit was too high for consumers, and sales were sluggish.
Morita Akio, facing domestic struggles, found an outlet in exports to the American market. In 1956, he developed the further miniaturized 'TR-63' and began selling in European and American markets ahead of domestic release. Morita moved to New York with his family and worked to gain credibility from American buyers by using first-class hotels as meeting venues.
The core of the export strategy was the development under the proprietary brand 'SONY.' While most Japanese companies at the time supplied products as OEM for US companies, Morita refused OEM supply and insisted on selling under his own brand. Since 'Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering' was difficult for foreigners to pronounce, 'SONY,' combining the Latin word SONUS and the English word SONNY, was adopted as the brand name.
US exports of transistor radios expanded rapidly. Around 1960, approximately 40% of sales came to be accounted for by exports to America, and Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering transformed into one of post-war Japan's leading global companies. The fact that few companies in the world had successfully commercialized transistor radios helped the SONY brand penetrate the market.
During this period, the division of roles between co-founders became clear. Ibuka led technical development of new products, and Morita took charge of overseas sales and marketing. This division of technology and sales would continue to be the foundation of Sony's competitiveness in subsequent product developments such as the Walkman and Trinitron.
Morita's decision to develop overseas markets under his own brand rather than OEM was exceptional for Japanese companies at the time. This strategy initially required time to build distribution networks, but in the long term brought accumulation of brand value, making Sony the starting point for being recognized not merely as a manufacturer but as a global brand.
The technological success and commercial success of the transistor radio were separate issues. Domestically, it was too expensive and did not sell, so the company sought a breakthrough in US exports. Here, the decision Morita Akio made was to refuse OEM supply. While it was common sense for Japanese companies at the time to export as subcontractors for US companies, Morita insisted on selling under his own brand 'SONY.' Including his method of building credibility by moving with his family to New York and conducting business meetings in first-class hotels, it was a strategy conscious of the transformation from manufacturer to global brand.
(Note: In America) It can be said that the Sony name plays a champion role among Japanese products. In fact, it is qualitatively superior, and I think it also sells the most in quantity. Now, why has it gained such fame? Because we devoted ourselves to exports earlier than any other Japanese manufacturer, the SONY name became well known very quickly. Moreover, our company unified everything under the SONY name from the beginning, and never used an American name (Note: OEM). We consistently insisted on the SONY name, and while there was considerable hardship during the pioneering period, we always maintained the principle of never shipping goods without the SONY name displayed. That proved to be really good.
The fact that the name SONY was easy to remember and easy to become fond of in America was also a good thing. I have heard several stories of American buyers who visited Japan going to other companies and asking for SONY products—that is how high Sony's popularity is overseas.
The disadvantage in the Betamax format competition was not merely a product failure for Sony, but a turning point in management strategy. The lesson that technological superiority in hardware alone cannot dominate the market directly connected to the idea of internalizing video content. The fuse was lit during this period for the acquisition of Columbia in 1989. The transformation from an electronics company to an entertainment company can be structurally understood as a consequence of the format war.
Following radios and color televisions, the market for video cassette recorders as home electrical appliances was about to take off in the 1970s. Sony released the home VTR 'SL-6300' adopting the Betamax format in 1975, aiming to establish an industry standard. Other competing companies were called upon to adopt the Betamax format, but Matsushita Electric and its subsidiary Japan Victor Company advocated the 'VHS' system, splitting the format into two camps.
The format competition called the 'Video War' continued throughout the 1980s, but while Japan Victor expanded adoption by other companies through OEM supply and support for long recording times, Sony fell behind in building alliances. Around 1988, Sony began parallel sales of the VHS format, effectively acknowledging its disadvantage in the format competition.
The disadvantage in the Betamax format competition brought a structural transformation to Sony's management strategy. From the lesson that hardware performance alone cannot control format leadership, a policy emerged to add securing video content as an axis of competition. The recognition that format superiority is determined not by technical performance but by the volume of content supply and the number of affiliated companies permeated management.
This strategic shift became the groundwork for the acquisition of Columbia Pictures in 1989. By bringing a movie studio under its umbrella, Sony began exploring a transition to a business model that would provide hardware and software integrally. The experience of the Betamax format competition was the starting point for Sony's transformation from a pure electronics manufacturer to an entertainment company.
The disadvantage in the Betamax format competition was not merely a product failure for Sony, but a turning point in management strategy. The lesson that technological superiority in hardware alone cannot dominate the market directly connected to the idea of internalizing video content. The fuse was lit during this period for the acquisition of Columbia in 1989. The transformation from an electronics company to an entertainment company can be structurally understood as a consequence of the format war.
Sony's workforce reduction and factory closures were not mere restructuring, but the structural transformation itself. The accumulation of individual business decisions—the transition from CRT televisions to LCD and the contraction of the mobile phone business—brought about the staged reduction of domestic manufacturing bases. The Minokamo factory closure resulted in approximately 1,600 contract employees having their contracts terminated, with significant impact on the regional economy. It was the process of physically demonstrating the transformation from a mass-production consumer electronics manufacturer to a company centered on entertainment and semiconductors.
Due to the global economic recession following the Lehman Shock and the progression of yen appreciation, Sony's electronics business saw its profitability deteriorate rapidly. The television business was drawn into price competition in LCD panels, and the domestic production system built during the CRT era had become excess capacity. By the end of fiscal year March 2008, Sony's consolidated employee count had reached approximately 180,000, but large-scale workforce adjustment had become unavoidable due to structural business changes.
From fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2014, Sony promoted company-wide workforce reduction. Through solicitation of voluntary retirement and business sales, the number of employees at the end of fiscal year March 2015 was approximately 131,000, a reduction of approximately 50,000 over seven years. This scale of reduction was among the largest of Japan's electronics manufacturers, indicating that Sony's business structure was fundamentally changing.
In parallel with workforce reduction, domestic factory closures proceeded in stages. In 2009, Ichinomiya Tech, a production base for CRT televisions, was closed, and in 2013, closure of the Minokamo factory in Gifu Prefecture was decided. At the Minokamo factory, measures such as transfers and solicitation of voluntary retirement were taken for 840 regular employees, but approximately 1,600 contract and non-regular employees had their contracts terminated.
There were no other businesses in Minokamo City capable of absorbing large-scale employment, and the factory closure dealt a blow to the regional economy. Domestic factory closures continued thereafter, and in 2023, closure of the Kosai Site (Shizuoka Prefecture), a production base for professional video equipment, was decided. Sony's reduction of manufacturing bases mirrors the process of shifting the center of gravity from mass-production consumer electronics manufacturing toward entertainment and semiconductors.
Sony's workforce reduction and factory closures were not mere restructuring, but the structural transformation itself. The accumulation of individual business decisions—the transition from CRT televisions to LCD and the contraction of the mobile phone business—brought about the staged reduction of domestic manufacturing bases. The Minokamo factory closure resulted in approximately 1,600 contract employees having their contracts terminated, with significant impact on the regional economy. It was the process of physically demonstrating the transformation from a mass-production consumer electronics manufacturer to a company centered on entertainment and semiconductors.
Net losses in 5 of 6 fiscal years indicated not individual business failures but the dead end of Sony's electronics business model itself. With mainstay businesses of televisions, mobile phones, PCs, and batteries all struggling simultaneously, the structure of films, music, and finance supporting revenues meant that Sony was no longer an electronics company but a conglomerate. The transition from Stringer to Hirai became the starting point for portfolio restructuring based on this reality.
In fiscal year ending March 2009, Sony fell into net loss, and losses continued for 4 consecutive years through fiscal year March 2012. After returning to black once in fiscal year March 2013, it fell into loss again in fiscal years March 2014 and 2015, resulting in the abnormal situation of net losses in 5 of 6 fiscal years from 2009 to 2015. The causes of losses were complex, compounded by the global economic recession following the Lehman Shock and the simultaneous deterioration of the mainstay businesses of televisions, mobile phones, PCs, and batteries.
Particularly severe was the net loss of ¥455 billion in fiscal year March 2012, Sony's largest-ever loss. Deterioration of profitability in US operations led to a reversal of deferred tax assets, and recording of approximately ¥300 billion in valuation allowances inflated the losses. In the television business, the market was taken by Sharp's LCD televisions; in the mobile phone business, Sony could not compete against Apple's iPhone; and in the lithium-ion battery business, it failed to achieve supply to the iPhone.
Following four consecutive years of losses, Representative Director and CEO Howard Stringer resigned in 2012. Stringer had become CEO in 2005, advocating integration of electronics and entertainment, but could not stop the structural deterioration of the electronics business. The global management system under a foreign CEO ended, along with the expansion of losses.
Kazuo Hirai was appointed as successor CEO. Hirai had a track record of leading the turnaround of the PlayStation 3 from its loss-making structure in the game business, and was appointed for his skill in rebuilding struggling businesses. He was entrusted with overall management reconstruction of the Sony Group, but at the time of his appointment, the difficult tasks of sorting out loss-making businesses and choosing growth areas were piling up.
While the electronics business continued to post losses, Sony secured stable revenues in its film, music, and financial businesses. Particularly in the financial business, Sony Financial Holdings' operating profit through Sony Life's investment gains expanded due to the recovery in stock markets, supporting the group's revenues.
The structure where successful businesses internally subsidize struggling businesses was simultaneously the reason Sony could maintain its conglomerate structure and a factor that postponed fundamental reform of the electronics business. Under the Hirai administration, divestiture and withdrawal from unprofitable businesses such as televisions, PCs, and batteries would proceed, but that process is described in subsequent history entries.
Net losses in 5 of 6 fiscal years indicated not individual business failures but the dead end of Sony's electronics business model itself. With mainstay businesses of televisions, mobile phones, PCs, and batteries all struggling simultaneously, the structure of films, music, and finance supporting revenues meant that Sony was no longer an electronics company but a conglomerate. The transition from Stringer to Hirai became the starting point for portfolio restructuring based on this reality.
What deserves attention in Sony's withdrawal from PC and battery businesses is the choice of the method of selling businesses in their entirety rather than closing factories. VAIO to an investment fund, battery business to Murata Manufacturing—in both cases, manufacturing bases and employment were taken over together. This scheme of withdrawing from unprofitable businesses while minimizing friction with local governments became a model case for large Japanese companies when reducing business scale. The fact that record profits were recorded in 2019 after the withdrawal was complete validates the appropriateness of the decision.
Under Kazuo Hirai's administration, Sony began divesting unprofitable businesses from 2014. The targets were the PC business and battery business, both of which had chronically posted losses within the electronics division. However, these businesses had manufacturing bases in rural areas such as Azumino City, Nagano Prefecture and Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture, and simple business closure would mean mass unemployment and a blow to regional economies.
To minimize criticism from local governments, Sony chose the method of selling businesses rather than closing factories. By transferring businesses to investment funds and operating companies and having them take over manufacturing bases and employment together, the company adopted a policy of reducing social friction associated with withdrawal. It was a decision to resolve the dilemma between withdrawal from unprofitable businesses and maintaining regional employment through a business sale scheme.
In July 2014, Sony sold the PC business 'VAIO' to Japan Industrial Partners, an investment fund. The new company 'VAIO Corporation' after the sale withdrew from overseas production and established its headquarters in Azumino City, Nagano Prefecture, the former Sony domestic manufacturing base. It was a fresh start under the fund's umbrella with a structure of 240 employees. The brand continued but the business scale was significantly reduced.
In 2017, the battery business was sold to Murata Manufacturing. The Koriyama factory, a domestic production base, was transferred, and agreement was reached for approximately 8,000 battery business employees to continue employment at Murata Manufacturing. With the sale of two businesses—PCs and batteries—Sony's electronics business was structurally lightened. In the fiscal year ending March 2019, after these withdrawals were complete, Sony recorded operating profit of ¥916.2 billion, its highest ever.
What deserves attention in Sony's withdrawal from PC and battery businesses is the choice of the method of selling businesses in their entirety rather than closing factories. VAIO to an investment fund, battery business to Murata Manufacturing—in both cases, manufacturing bases and employment were taken over together. This scheme of withdrawing from unprofitable businesses while minimizing friction with local governments became a model case for large Japanese companies when reducing business scale. The fact that record profits were recorded in 2019 after the withdrawal was complete validates the appropriateness of the decision.