The ‘Company with Committees’: Change or Continuity in Japanese Corporate Governance?

Abstract

Corporate governance practices are arguably diffusing across the world. This paper examines the adoption of the committee-based governance system (i.e. audit, nomination, and remuneration) in Japanese firms, a practice common in Anglo-American capitalism but potentially contestable in Japan. The study finds that firms that are internationally exposed through cross listing are more likely to adopt the committee system. Moreover, more experienced and highly cross-held firms, with larger proportions of foreign ownership, are more likely to adopt the committee system. On the other hand our study finds partial support for the hypothesis that larger proportions of bank ownership are negatively associated with the adoption of the committee system, suggesting a gradual withdrawal by banks from the traditional monitoring of firms. This paper adds to the longstanding debate on the convergence on or persistent divergence from the Anglo-American corporate governance system. The study thus provides insights into corporate governance changes in non-Anglo/American countries that face a struggle between global capital market forces for change and deep-seated institutional practices of continuity.

The Layering of Meso‐Level Institutional Effects on Employment Systems in Japan

“…The recent research on employment relations in Japanese companies reports partial changes, with the emphasis on the increasing discrepancy between ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ across various industrial sectors (Shibata ; Yamauchi ; Yun ). Contrastingly, contemporary studies on Japan's corporate governance clearly indicate significant changes, in particular, for established larger Japanese companies (Chizema & Shinozawa ; Colpan et al. ; Geng et al.…”

New directions in the management of human resources in Africa

“…Previous studies on corporate governance and corporate social responsibility, on the USA, Europe and lately Asia (Chizema and Shinozawa 2012), have shown a clear distinction between shareholderoriented and stakeholder-oriented systems of governance. While the former emphasizes the supremacy of the shareholder, the latter embraces the interests of a wider constituency, including employees (Buck and Shahrim 2005).…”

Women on corporate boards around the world: Triggers and barriers

“…Several studies have examined how countries differ in their institutional environments, leading to differences in practices and how such practices are interpreted by their respective social institutions (Aguilera & Jackson, 2003;Chizema & Shinozawa, 2012;Kostova, 1999). Kostova (1999) provides a compelling explanation on how a country's institutional profile is configured.…”