Skip to content

9 August, 2022

Subscribe Advertise About Us
  • My Account
  • Register
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
    • Categoriess

      • View All
      • Board Moves
    • ben & jerry's governance

      Ben & Jerry’s governance tested in court

      Unilever, owner of the ice cream brand, is in conflict with the governance legacy put...

    • carillion fine News round-up: this week in governance

      Audit firms' complaints about fines; Carillion directors' fines revealed; is it time to abolish the...

    • cyber security Cyber security reporting falls short

      UK companies are struggling to provide focused disclosures as cyber attacks continue to increase, says...

  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • ESG debate

      The ESG debate needs to be more nuanced

      The issues boards face are rarely straightforward, and ESG is no exception. It is time...

    • AI

      How to ensure governance of artificial intelligence (AI)

      An ISO standard issued this year gives guidance to boards on the governance implications of...

    • hybrid working

      Has hybridity killed teamwork?

      The time has come to check whether the benefits of teamwork are still outweighing the...

  • Comment
      • View all
    • global warming

      ESG is not a ‘distraction’

      We must not let ESG become a scapegoat for the systemic failure of our society...

    • Man with magnifying glass The 30-year itch: time to ditch the UK Corporate Governance Code

      Now that governance has come of age, businesses should be able to innovate within the...

    • notebook on boardroom table The UK needs a code of conduct for company directors

      A formal code of conduct for company directors would signal their willingness to apply high...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • Board members discussing ESG Stakeholder pressure increases urgency on ESG

      Experts say pressure to act on ESG is coming from regulators, investors and a new...

    • Empty boardroom Many executives ‘fail to understand the role and value of boards’

      A recent webinar on board effectiveness discussed the mix of competence and courage required from...

    • Businessman looking at stormy sky Disaster or disruption? Crisis management requires clear definitions

      Identifying and categorising crises, and developing a methodology to deal with them, can help boards...

  • Careers
      • View all
      • Selection
      • Board Moves
    • News round-up: this week in governance

      Tory leadership contest; Grant Thornton fined; Norwegian insider dealing; virtual AGMs; US environmental disclosures; diversity...

    • A group of diverse job candidates Diversity business case arguments may deter job candidates

      Performance-based and fairness-based arguments confirm that social identities "are a lens through which contributions will...

    • Directors waiting for an interview Gender diversity warning for FTSE All-Share Index

      Report from Women on Boards and Protiviti reveals half of FTSE All Share companies outside...

  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Corporate & Advisory Services
    • Stakeholder Engagement: A Roadmap for UK Plc Boards

      This guide aims to provide directors and their colleagues with advice on how to ensure...

    • Board Duties in Ensuring Company Engagement with Affected Stakeholders

      This guidance note gives a brief overview of the role of corporate boards of directors...

    • C-Suite Barometer 2021

      At the end of 2021, Mazars surveyed over 1,000 executives around the world for its...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Selection
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology
  • Magazine
      • View All
      • Sustainability Works
      • Tomorrow's Leaders
      • Renumeration Tightrope
      • Governance Ascendance
      • Sense In Sustainability
      • Invisible Enemies

Origins of investor stewardship and the Japan code

by Kerrie Waring

Abenomics brought a host of changes to Japan, not least the introduction of a new stewardship code for investors. The code is now being updated with new guidance, explains Kerrie Waring of the ICGN.

Japan, stewardship code, Abenomics

Image: Shutterstock

Stewardship is not a new concept. The seminal 1992 Cadbury Report recommended that investors should disclose their policies on the use of their voting rights. This was drawn from the UK’s Institutional Shareholders’ Committee (ISC) Guidance, which encouraged company engagement and voting—cornerstone principles of stewardship codes today.

The 1998 Committee on Corporate Governance, chaired by Ronnie Hampel, recommended that “pension fund trustees should encourage fund managers to take a long view in managing their investments” and to make considered use of their votes.

This, together with the Cadbury recommendations, then served as the basis for a dedicated section on investor responsibilities in the 2003 Combined Code on Corporate Governance, which focused on dialogue with companies, governance disclosures and voting.

In the same year, the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) published a first Statement on Institutional Investor Responsibilities, now recognised as the ICGN Global Stewardship Principles (2016). This covered issues such as accountability and reporting to beneficiaries, voting practices and conflicts of interests.

Public criticism

Five years later, the financial crisis led to public criticism of the effectiveness of investors in being able to hold boards to account. The UK Treasury commissioned the Walker Review of Corporate Governance in the UK Banking Industry, which recommended “…a stewardship duty on institutional shareholders to play a more active role as owners of businesses”.

Then in 2010, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) adopted the ISC Guidance as the UK Stewardship Code, and took responsibility to oversee a list of  signatories. Under rules from the Financial Conduct Authority, asset managers are now required to disclose the “nature of their commitment to the code or alternative investment strategy”.

The principles of the code have not changed since 2010, though revisions were made to the guidance in 2012. The FRC will undertake a new code review later this year, which the ICGN expects will synchronise with EU Shareholder Rights Directive amendments.

Stewardship code adoption in Japan

In the UK, when the Stewardship Code was introduced in 2010, there was almost immediate acceptance of it  by the investment community, because the concept of stewardship had really been socialised and understood over a long period of time. 

In Japan’s case, the Stewardship Code came about from efforts to revitalise the economy—otherwise known as Abenomics after prime minister Shinzo Abe. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) was instructed to encourage investors to discharge their stewardship responsibilities to promote the sustainable growth of companies through constructive dialogue.

Many foreign investors have also played a helpful role in enhancing the credibility of the code to encourage domestic investors to commit…

This led to public consultation and the introduction of the Principles for Responsible Institutional Investors in February 2014. The code is voluntary, although the Japan FSA expects signatories to disclose against the principles.

Today, there are 214 signatories to the Japan code, 46% (99) of which are foreign, 74% (159) are asset managers, 23% (48) are asset owners and 3% (7) are “other”.

There is still work to be done to encourage more corporate pension fund participation, but there is high adoption from the asset management side. The successful implementation is due to the efforts of the FSA and also the leadership shown by Japan’s largest asset owner, GPIF (Government Investment Pension Fund), to champion the benefits of stewardship.

Many foreign investors have also played a helpful role in enhancing the credibility of the code to encourage domestic investors to commit, and we are hopeful that more local pension funds will signify their commitment to the code in due course.

Changes to Japan guidance

The updated version of Japan’s Principles for Responsible Institutional Investors was published in May this year. The FSA did not change any of the actual principles but they did make some important amendments to the guidance.

Firstly, in terms of stewardship policies, Japan now requires asset owners to include reference to stewardship obligations in asset manager selection, appointment and contracts. This includes monitoring asset manager performance with self-evaluation.

For conflicts of interests, there was a call for more detailed policies to include how conflicts are mitigated, with an emphasis on the need for independent and unbiased oversight of voting decisions. This is particularly important in Japan given the high level of cross-shareholdings affecting many listed companies.

For monitoring, little has changed, but it should be noted that it can be quite difficult in Japan given the fragmented nature of governance-related reporting and, for global investors, a lack of English-language disclosure.

The clustering of AGMs in June also leads to a crunch on information-gathering, which can impact the ability of investors to qualitatively analyse investee company governance.

For engagement, there was a lot of focus on the role of index funds given their increasing influence over voting and engagement. Direct engagement with companies in Japan is important as it helps to offset the effects of cross-shareholdings, which can inhibit the influence of voting.

The FSA has encouraged banks and insurance companies to reduce their cross-shareholdings, which is having a positive effect, but will take some time and therefore engagement is important as an overlay.

Mutual understanding

More generally, Japan takes a fairly diplomatic approach to engagement compared with the UK, and the code calls for companies and investors to arrive at a mutual understanding in the event of disagreements. The UK’s approach deals more directly with the need for investors to specify how they might escalate engagement tactics in the event of failed dialogue.

With collaboration, Japan does not have a standalone principle like the UK but has included reference to collaboration in the guidance for Principle 4 on engagement. Prior to the Japan Code revision there was no mention of collaboration, so this is an important step forward in facilitating more global investor engagement. 

In terms of reporting, culturally in Japan, and more generally in Asia, there is a formal approach to stewardship code compliance which has led to a degree of boilerplate disclosure.

There is still some nervousness among investors concerning the potential to be perceived as colluding in a negative way (for example, staging a hostile takeover) when in fact they wish to collaborate to improve the governance and sustainability of investee companies.

There are calls for further clarity to confirm that, as long as investors do not collude to vote in the same way on items related to the control and direction of the company (such as board elections), they will not breach rules regarding collective holding thresholds above which would trigger onerous reporting requirements.

For voting, Japan now calls for disclosure of voting records for each company by agenda item as well as by aggregate, and to explain their voting rationale. GPIF now requests that their managers disclose in this way. More “against” votes were cast on controversial issues this year compared with last year, and this experience is echoed in the UK. 

Formal approach

In terms of reporting, culturally in Japan, and more generally in Asia, there is a formal approach to stewardship code compliance which has led to a degree of boilerplate disclosure. That said, regulators in both the UK and Japan have reported a tangible increase in the quality and quantity of stewardship disclosures.

In the UK’s case, the FRC delisted around 20 signatories who failed to improve their stewardship disclosures in July. This followed a new tiering process to show variation in the quality of reporting. More work however is needed on the assessment of actual company engagements, which are more difficult to evidence.

The Japan Code also has a standalone principle on the importance of human resource, which now includes reference to competence at the leadership level of investment firms to ensure that stewardship is fully integrated across the organisation.

Investors have until the end of November 2017 to revise and publish their terms of compliance.

Kerrie Waring is executive director of the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN).

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • Opinions of the code: The good, the bad and the missed out
    October 3, 2018
    Sir Win Bischoff, FRC, Financial Reporting Council, corporate governance

    Revisions to the UK Corporate Governance Code, published in July, have sparked mixed reactions from commentators. One thing is clear: the new code won't please everyone.

  • UK stewardship code 'has not changed the nature of investor engagement'
    March 25, 2021
    Group of investors/shareholders in glass building

    Academic says the revised code requires "mandatory legal or regulatory impositions" if it is to remain relevant.

  • Crisis leadership and the role of the board
    June 18, 2020
    crisis management

    How boards deal with unexpected crises has been strongly tested in recent months. What does it take for leaders to be effective in the heat of a crisis?

  • Japan's stewardship code faces low level corporate support
    October 24, 2016

    Three years after it was introduced, just one corporate pension fund has backed the new code.

For thoughtful journalism, expert insights on corporate governance and an extensive library of reports, guides and tools to help boards and directors navigate the complexities of their roles, subscribe to Board Agenda

abenomics, Autumn 2017, corporate governance, corporate reporting, Financial Reporting Council, ICGN, ICGN Global Stewardship Principles, Japan, Japan Stewardship Code, Principles for Responsible Institutional Investors

Search


Sign up to our Newsletter

Receive independent news, thoughtful journalism & expert insights about leadership, corporate governance & key boardroom issues straight to your inbox every week.

SIGN UP

Follow Us


 

 

 

 

 

Most Popular

  • ESG is not a ‘distraction’
  • Virtual AGMs fall out of favour
  • Cyber security reporting falls short
  • How to ensure governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
  • Consumers judge a company by its ‘morality’

 


 

Featured Partner Profile

Diligent

Diligent

Diligent Corporation, which was founded in 2001, is headquartered in New York, NY with a European HQ in London. Diligent’s modern governance platform empowers leaders and teams at every level of the organisation to digitally transform and create ...

Featured Partner Resources

Board Transformation 2021: Leadership in Transition

There can be little doubt that the global Covid-19...

Digital Boards: How Technology Adoption is Driving Culture Change and Resiliency

Digital tools proved their worth to boards during ...
EQ 2021 AGM Season report

2021 AGM Season: Successful AGMs in the Pandemic and Beyond

With the impacts of Covid-19 hitting just as the s...
Leadership in AI report

Leadership in AI 2021

This report from Board Agenda and Mazars, in assoc...
Creativity in a Crisis: a Boardroom Map for Innovation

Creativity in a Crisis: a Boardroom Map for Innovation

In the uncertain times at the height of any crisis...
Board Directors Guide to D&O Liability Insurance - November 2020 - AIG & Board Agenda

Board Directors' Guide to D&O Liability Insurance

Directors face liability over a range of new threa...
Leadership-in-Risk-Management-Board-Report

Leadership in Risk Management: Board Report

Board Agenda, in association with Mazars and INSEA...
Director's Guide to Internal Investigations

A Director's Guide to Conducting Internal Investigations

An internal investigation must be handled meticulo...

Global Business Complexity Index 2021

The Global Business Complexity Index 2021 provides...

 


 

ADVERTISE – FREE CORPORATE LISTING

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
ADD

ADVERTISE – PROMOTE YOUR REPORTS & WHITEPAPERS

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
Add Resource

Register Free

Register to receive free article views, selected resource downloads, and all the latest news alerts straight to your inbox. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Corporate & Advisory Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
  • Sitemap
|