Corporate Governance and Control in Japan

This is the most important piece to the organization because without the experts and employees, a business cannot run smoothly. When it comes to roles and responsibilities of Untied States and Japan, the approaches focus on individual and group roles. Different organizations think differently because they believe in different business theories and how an organization should operate. Martin (1992) talks about how the Japanese concept is different from the American view: ? In Japan, each person is believed to possess a unique spirit, soul, mind and heart, but the self-concept is considered an impediment to growth.?

Kluyver, C. (2013). A primer on corporate governance (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Business Expert Press.

WWII crushed Japan (simply recall that regardless they are the main nation on the planet to have at any point been focus to not 1, but rather 2 atomic bombs). The Japanese Emperor was compelled to surrender to the partners (which was an incredible embarrassment in their way of life) and to surrender his God-like status. Likewise, the US possessed Japan quite a while after the war and modernized it much more, maybe it would be more precise to state that the US westernized it. According to Lau (2014) the Japanese-American internment amid World War II is one such purpose of inconvenience in United States history. The individual chronicles and internees' declarations epitomize the real part that social memory played in realizing an expression of

Hierarchy and status are considered highly important in both Japan and Mexico in addition to a strong separation between the work and home life. Both Mexico and Japan rely on strong work relationships and loyalty in addition to having top down style of commination and information flow. Both countries have a belief in collectivism over individualism, according to Hofstede’s Value Dimensions, with Japan slightly higher on the index, similarly for the masculinity index. The implications of these characteristics can be viewed in each countries’ management approach. These societal values and characteristics influence each countries’ business behavior and methodologies. (Deresky, 2014)

This was a very interesting article, in my opinion it brings to mind the derived phrase, which came first the chicken or the egg. Meaning, is corporate governance an attempt to control the results of unethical practices of corporations or is it meant to deter them. In reading this article, it is clear that certain corporations practiced unethical business behaviors for self-interest, but the questions this author have are: 1. Should corporate governance be regulated by the legislature as well as the organization and to what degree, 2. Is corporate governance, there to protect the shareholder or the stakeholder, 3. How effective is corporate governance on a global level. The need for a governance system is based on the assumption that the separation between the owners of a company and its management provides self-interest executives the opportunity to take actions that benefit themselves, with the cost of these actions borne by the owners (Larcker & Tayan, 2008).

Business cultures between USA and Japan vary immensely the American’s are quick to make decisions and allow many juniors to make decisions of their own accord, although many errors can be caused because of the leeway given. In comparison to Japan where business decisions are a lot slower and given a lot of thought. Japan will avoid all risks possible and all business decisions are made following a corporate hierarchy. This entails many meetings and numerous records to minimise any errors so they can deliver consistency at all levels.

relational and contractual whilst those in the US are more formal and contactual (Gibbons, 2001). Similarly, as I said in a previous essay, US companies have a lower degree of legitimacy than Japan “to act as

As described previously, there are some unique customs in Japanese-style business. However, the characteristic of Japanese business culture which is even now ingrained has come under criticism. Clark, Professor of Economics at University of California argued that Japanese society was an anachronism that did not lose its ancient tribal character until quite recently, for which reason the Japanese people have been able to maintain their groupistic value orientation up to the present. (Okada, 1984) Actually, Japanese companies which consistently observe their traditional business practices are now under intense pressure to meet international management standards.

Japan, home of some of the largest multinational technology corporations in the world, has been influenced in myriad ways through globalization. The effects of globalization on Japan provide valuable insights into the transformation of Japanese society. Global processes have increased wages and homelessness, strengthened environmental management programs, shifted governance towards regionalism, and threatened linguistic diversity in Japan.

Since the post-war economic miracle Japan has heavily relied on its distinctive corporate business system with JOHN stating that it ‘has been widely praised for its massive contribution to Japan’s strong economic growth.’ JOHN argues that the key to this business

Evidence from this case suggests that the traditional Japanese corporate governance stance has started to shift in order to include some elements of the Anglo-American way of corporate governance. It appears that a final decision has been made to build Disney Sea Park (despite unattractive ARR, but attractive NPV/IRR and ACFR) not only for the potential profits reaped for the company but also due to their responsibility to keep uphold the interests of its stakeholders (which would include its parent company, stockholders, landowners, suppliers, creditors, the local communities and government), whose livelihoods would be directly affected by this critical decision.

The management system of the American and Japanese firms at that time was very different and can be seen in these particular points:

Corporations the world over have been publicly criticized for improving their firm’s bottom line at any moral or social cost. Ethics essentially “refers to the issues of right, wrong, fairness and justice.” Clearly, examples such as Enron, WorldCom, and even Conrad Black tested society’s views on sound ethical business and the link to what society sees as “good” governance practices. Although the controversies involve issues matched in variety only by the types of companies, they all virtually involve some form of abuse of stakeholders trust. These cases are not representative of the entire spectrum of today’s business environment; in fact, there are a number of companies whose competitive advantages are based on

Corporate governance has been a major issue for Japan and has undoubtedly affected the economic growth of the country. In 2012, what is considered commonplace in regards to corporate governance in many countries, including Asian countries, is not the norm in Japan. For example, in countries like India, China, and South Korea, companies are required to have at least one independent director. In New York, a firm must have a majority of independent members in their board of directors. According to a study in 2011, out of 1,668 Japanese firms only 34% had at least one independent director. (insert citation). According to Yuko Kawamoto of Waseda University, Japanese bosses argue that “similar rules in Japan would limit managers' freedom” (as stated in “Back to the Drawing Board,” 2012). Also in Japan, shareholders do not have any one to advocate for them because boardroom committees have no legal status (“Corporate Governance in Japan,” 2012). All of this, coupled with Japan’s culture of foreign exclusion, is a big problem for the country. By not paying attention to its competitors, especially in Asia, and not expanding the culture of their corporate boards, Japan is missing out on many opportunities to look beyond their borders and successfully grow their economy.

Japan has a relatively stable political and legal environment which reduces the risks associated with entering the foreign market. The political system is a democratic system, with a Westminster form of government similar to Australia, which is favourable for western cultures when conducting international business. The legal environment on the other hand, is built on the foundations of the European Civil Law system with an English-American influence. Therefore Australian businesses must understand the differences when conducting business to ensure the