Search results

Important evaluation criteria as they are perceived by quality managers in American and US‐based Japanese firms are examined. For this study, three different groups of companies contained within four industries were considered. They included American firms using a traditional approach to manufacturing management, Japanese firms operating in the United States, and American firms attempting a Japanese approach to manufacturing management. This study identified price, on‐time delivery, and the supplier′s product quality as the three major criteria for evaluating vendors. The attitudes of quality managers concerning the importance of these variables were counter to the impressions portrayed in the academic and managerial press. Also differing from the literature was how much the managers in these different types of firms linked the evaluation criteria and overall organisational performance.

The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast manufacturing strategies and practices, and its impact on business performance between Korean and Japanese firms in the electronics industry. It is based on the premise that: (1) manufacturing strategies and practices differ significantly between these two countries; and (2) these differences significantly impact firm's manufacturing operations and business performance. The focus of the study is to explore the differences that may exist between Japanese and Korean firms in manufacturing strategies and business practices by analyzing survey results of electronics firms from both countries. Differences between Japanese and Korean firms are investigated in several respects.

After four consecutive years′ trade surplus, Korea′s climbing foreign trade deficit in 1990 is a clear signal that the nation should attempt to improve the performance of its manufacturing industry. However, there has not been much study on how manufacturing management is conducted in Korea and how it might be improved. Too much emphasis has been placed on macro policy variables such as tax, exchange rates and interest rates, which have only short‐term effects on competitiveness. The task for Korean manufacturing industry is to meet the challenges before it and be in a position to compete with other countries by providing high‐quality products at the right price. The most affordable and practical alternative is to make innovations in the current manufacturing process in order to enhance productivity and competitiveness. Studies the adoption and application of Japanese manufacturing management techniques under Korean conditions. Also provides a number of cases of their implementation in Korea and outlines considerations and recommendations necessary for their successful implementation based on the study findings.

Building on the institutional theory perspective on corporate governance change and based on interviews with investor relations (IR) managers in large Japanese companies, this study aims to examine Japanese IR managers’ perceptions of the influence of foreign shareholders on Japan’s corporate governance reform and stakeholder-based system. The paper examines tensions, conflicts and collaborations among different stakeholders involved in corporate governance changes in Japan, especially in the areas of firm ownership, employment relations and boards of directors. The paper explains why convergence does not happen in some large Japanese companies by investigating Japanese managers’ responses to and perceptions of foreign shareholders in multiple corporate contexts.

The author conducted in-depth interviews with ten IR managers at large, listed Japanese companies in Kyoto and Tokyo and two managers at foreign investment banks in Tokyo, between 2018 and 2021.

This paper explores five themes that emerged from my interviews: Chief executive officers’ (CEOs’) mixed perceptions of foreign investors, the effectiveness of CEO compensation and outside directors, managers’ reluctance to accept stock price-driven business strategies, foreign investors’ engagement vs investments in index funds and gender patterns, including the effectiveness of token female outside directors. The Japanese companies the author looked at incorporated foreign shareholders as consultants and adopted a few major shareholder-based customs, such as CEOs communicating with investors, having outside directors, increasing CEO compensation and slimming down unprofitable parts of the business via restructuring and downsizing. Simultaneously, they resisted a few major shareholder-based practices. Foreign shareholders’ pressure revealed tensions and contradictions between the Japanese stakeholder system and shareholder primacy-based customs.

This paper is one of the few qualitative studies that explores Japanese IR managers’ responses to and perceptions of foreign shareholders in corporate governance reform, with a particular focus on ownership, employment relations and board members. This paper provides examples of tension, conflict and cooperation between Japanese managers and foreign investors, as seen through the eyes of Japanese IR managers. Examining changes in Japan’s stakeholder-based system of corporate governance reform enables us to better understand the processes by which, with vigorous pressure from government and foreign shareholders, a non-western country like Japan may adopt shareholder-based customs and how such a change may also lead to institutional changes.

Changes are under way in Japan’s distinctive human resources management practices as the state of the economy remains fragile following the country’s prolonged recession. However, such changes may not necessarily point to the eventual collapse of the Japanese employment system, as sometimes suggested. Despite the adjustments companies have made to cope with the economic downturn, distinctive human resources management practices in Japan’s large‐scale enterprises are unlikely to disappear altogether. This paper argues that the relationship between large‐scale enterprises and an even smaller segment of the permanent workforce will continue to be defined by distinctive management practices. Thus, what is actually taking place in Japanese management is an ad hoc reshuffle rather than substantial restructuring of internal labor markets.

Over the decade the trend of Global Fortune 500 firms has shown significant changes – Japanese and Chinese firms in particular. The purpose of this paper is to present trend analysis of Global Fortune 500 – Japanese and Chinese firms. Key research questions are: what are the relevant macro-level changes that have affected the growth and decline of Japanese and Chinese firms? What are the industry-level changes that have occurred in Japanese and Chinese firms in terms of firm characteristics and financial performances? What are the lessons and implications from the firms added to or removed from Global Fortune 500? Data analysis is conducted based on Fortune database from 1995 to 2013.

The study employs descriptive analysis to examine the trend of Japanese and Chinese firms listed in Global Fortune 500 including: based on revenue and profit figures from 1995 to 2013; the authors perform trend analysis for each of those five types from 1995 to 2013; the authors replicate the analyses for different industry types in terms of the above five types; the authors compare the performances of Japanese and Chinese firms; based on 2011-2013 data, the authors conduct more in-depth analysis for selected firms.

The findings suggest five distinct types of firms including “Sustainables,” “New Comers,” “Move Ups,” “Decliners,” and “Drop Outs”; it is interesting to note that the changes in Global Fortune 500 firms suggest how these two countries show their relative competitive advantage. Chinese firms show steady flows of new firms that join in the rank of Global Fortune 500 whereas Japanese firms suggest continuous drop of firms that move out of Global Fortune 500 firms. As China increases its size of economy, state-owned financial institutions, resource-focus firms (e.g. mining and petroleum) firms also rapidly increased its overall size. Although the number is still small, privately owned Chinese global firms (e.g. Lenovo, Huawei, Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, Ping An Insurance) also are now listed as Global Fortune 500 firms. In contrast, Japanese firms that lost their global market positions steadily disappeared from Global Fortune 500 firms. Representative firms include Daiei, Mitsubishi Motor Company, and NEC.

One limitation of the analysis on financial indicators is that the authors select only a few firms and focus only on two time points. Nevertheless, it provides the authors information about the financial factors that characterize the two types of Global Fortune 500 firms. Moreover, it opens up new opportunities for future research.

Factors that influence the behaviors of Global Fortune 500 firms suggest both external environmental and internal managerial factors. Although serious external factors (e.g. Global Financial Crisis) affect the outcomes of these competitive positioning, it is still the managerial leadership that makes differences in cases of many Japanese firms. To Japanese firms maintaining domestic advantage is not enough to sustain their position in Global Fortune 500. Global competitiveness matters. On the other hand, it is unclear whether changes occurring in Chinese firms are more managerial than externally dictated. In case of many Chinese financial firms and resource rich firms, the huge domestic advantage has much to do with their position in Global Fortune 500.

This is the first trend analysis that examines the Global Fortune 500 firms from Japan and China. The authors identify five types of firms that would be an important basis for the further benchmarking studies of Global Fortune 500 firms in other counties (e.g. the USA, Germany, Korea, and other Emerging Economies – Russia, India, Brazil).

This study aims to explore how sub‐dimensions of home country influence multinational enterprise (MNE) ownership strategy in international subsidiaries.

Following a grounded theory approach, the authors interviewed 36 managers of US and Japanese MNEs. Among 36 managers, 21 worked for Japanese firms, 12 for US firms, and three for the US‐Japanese IJVs.

This study proposes a list of cultural and resource‐based explanations for MNEs' divergent ownership patterns by nationality.

This research focused on two home countries, Japan and the USA. Future studies are required to extend and validate the findings in this study.

By considering sub‐dimensions of home country effect, managers can make a more accurate prediction of the potential partner's willingness to form an IJV.

This study suggests that host countries' ownership restriction can make divergent effects on foreign investors by their nationality.

The central contribution of this paper is identifying a set of underlying factors of home country effect and explicating their individual effect on MNE ownership strategy.

There has been growing concern worldwide regarding audit quality in Japan after the Kanebo and Olympus accounting scandals. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Japanese audit market from 2001 to 2011 to determine whether audit quality differs between Big N and Non-Big N audit firms and whether this difference, if existed, changed during 2007 when the number of big audit firms declined from four to three and the requirements of audit quality became more rigorous.

This study employs a sample of Japanese listed firms from fiscal year 2001 to 2011. Five proxy variables for audit quality are used and the data are analyzed using the propensity score matching method.

The authors show that irrespective of their size, all audit firms in Japan provide the same quality of service, when controlling for client characteristics including keiretsu, foreign sales ratio and bankruptcy risk measured in Japan. Additionally, the results suggest that although only three major audit firms remain in the Japanese audit market after the dissolution of PricewaterhouseCooper’s Chuo-Aoyama firm in 2007, the audit quality difference between Big N and Non-Big N remained unchanged before and after 2007.

The study contributes to the lack of existing empirical evidence on audit quality in Japan, a country characterized with low audit litigation risk and more emphasis on auditor reputation, given the influence of the notable change in Japanese audit market competition from Big 4 to Big 3. The study’s research design contributes to the extant literature by using multiple proxies of audit quality.

This article examines the nature of industrial relations and work practices in Japanese firms within an investment cluster in Telford, Shropshire. Telford has the highest concentration of Japanese firms in one site in Britain. The article examines how conditions which were supposedly favourable to the transfer of Japanese production and personnel practices ‐ a new town, offering greenfield investment opportunities within a quiescent industrial relations environment ‐ actually did not facilitate ease of transfer. Rather, we suggest that problems within the labour market, including the very absence of trade unions as a collective voice for expressing workers’ grievances, created conditions unfavourable to the transplantation of Japanese work and personnel practices.

While much prior research has focused on Japanese multi‐national corporations’ (MNCs) marketing strategies, little is known about the factors that influence Japanese MNCs’ foreign market entry mode choice. In this study, a survey of Japanese MNCs is conducted in order to assess the factors that are the most influential in the foreign market entry decisions of Japanese MNCs. Using bargaining power theory, eight factors are identified in the study. The findings indicate that five of the eight factors (stake of the host country, need for local contribution, riskiness of the host country, resource commitment, and host government restrictions) are significant predictors of Japanese MNCs’ entry mode choice and that bargaining power theory is of value in predicting the entry mode choices of Japanese MNCs.