Japanese corporate culture is being blamed for the mistakes. Economists Naoshi Ikeda, Kotaro Inoue and Sho Watanabe of the Tokyo Institute of Technology recently set out to test the « quiet-life hypothesis, » which is, as Bloomberg describes, « the idea that without shareholder pressure, managers will tend to avoid big decisions and content themselves with managing stable corporate empires, letting their companies stagnate. »
The researchers found that there’s a lot of this « quiet-life » business activity going on in Japan. Cross-shareholding (Keiretsu), where corporations own each other’s stock is rife, and this means companies are reluctant to challenge each other. The researchers found that at companies with a considerable level of cross-ownership, R&D spending and growth CapEx is relatively low compared to the rest of the market.
But progress is being made. Three and a half years after the government introduced a stewardship code for local institutional investors and more than two years since the launch of a governance code for listed Japanese companies, listed companies are moving in the right direction. Dividend payouts have reached a record, and there has been a quadrupling of firms with two or more independent directors on their boards over the past four years. There has also been an increase in of “constructive,” or friendly, activists (referred to as engagement funds rather than activist funds), which aim to tackle corporate governance issues, but with an explicitly low-key, humble approach.
Jeffrey Gordon demande qu’une réforme de la gouvernance d’entreprise soit mise en place, non pour contrer l’activisme mais pour réformer le conseil d’administration et lui donner un rôle nouveau `s’assurer de la crédibilité de la haute direction.
It’s the attack of hedge funds, shareholder activists looking for short term gain even at the expense of investments that would produce higher returns over the long run, and, along the way, would lead to employment gains and then wage gains. What follows, then, is a prescription for changes in tax policy and legal rules that would hamper the activists, all to promote the “long run.” But this is a misdiagnosis, which fails to realize that the shareholders activists’ success reveals a major shortfall in corporate governance for large public corporations.
(…) Reform should move not in the direction of closing down the activists who are bringing the news about this design flaw. Rather we should develop a new role for the board: credibly evaluating and then verifying that management’s strategy is best for the company (or making changes if it is not). Boards need directors who will have that credibility, which is won through deep knowledge about the company and its industry and an appropriate time commitment.
As I indicated, I believe institutional investors need to be actively engaged in addressing the governance challenges that our public companies face today.
In my opinion, institutional investors should proactively engage with issuers on governance issues. This will allow issuers and investors to determine the appropriate governance practices for specific issuers or sectors. It will also allow regulators to focus on areas where voluntary progress is not occurring or feasible.
In my view, there are at least three important challenges that we face today:
the debate over shareholder activism and its long-term impact on our public companies;
the concern about executive compensation practices; and
increasing gender diversity on the boards of public companies