Port City Aug 11, 2015:

The target audience should know the term because, most likely, they have been with the company for a while before being posted overseas. But I certainly agree explanation in a footnote will avoid any confusion.

Marc Brunet Aug 11, 2015:

More on 'BL' use... You do have a point. Port City, and I can see where you come from. This particular language-, and even logic-, 'contamination' does occur in communications among Western colleagues working in a Japanese working environment.
Actually, as one of them, you eventually end up thinking as perfectly natural to reply negatively to an interro-negative question the Japanese way, and do so without even realising the shift you have made. ex.:
Q- Oh! you guys didn't receive it, then?
R - "Yes, we didn't!".
However, a decision like the one you suggest is justified only if the target readership is known as sharing this in-group parlance. There will be cases where the intended reader is simply going through a report on that in-group, and is not familiar with that term as understood in-group. If so, 'BL' could still be used, but to avoid any confusion, would have to be backed up with a clarification in footnote, IMO. Don't agree? :-)

Port City Aug 6, 2015:

Since the term seems to be used in an internal document, it may be better to just leave it as BL. They may be using the term in their overseas branches as well, especially when they refer to people in the head office.

ジマ Aug 6, 2015:

したら、過半数で議決　：）

Marc Brunet Aug 6, 2015:

re: -> Why not? Although ..."executive officer". Great! I agree! Even better! :-)