An investor in a Japanese firm, that has a vote in that firm's board elections is unambiguously a participant in that culture. They have responsibility for the way they cast their vote, and have a shared interest in and responsibility for the actions and behaviour of that company and it's management.
If the owners of a company aren't responsible for how a company is run, who is?
Isn't there any room for respect for traditional Japanese culture? They do have a different understanding of things over there and perhaps it's up to them how to change their ways. They have changed completely as a society at least twice before on their own. They may decide to do so again.
>>>just 1 woman representative realistically would not change the culture so much
I've never been on the board of a large public corporation....but I've been in all-male military units, and nothing starts to tear up unit cohesion quite like a female getting dropped into the mix. Over the past 10 years in Japan, I definitely see some parallels between the two cultures. The Japanese are very big on "shared experience" as a means of bonding as a team. Maybe in a team of young entrepreneurs adding a single female would make fewer waves, but on leadership team of 40-70yo established Japanese businessmen? I would not expect it to go smoothly. At all.
> They have changed completely as a society at least twice before on their own.
Can you name any events? I would be hard pressed to find any where anything happened "on their own" (and that is not specific to Japan). No country is completely isolated, not even Japan during Sakoku.
For the to last major ones, I wouldn't call "On their own" an entirely accurate description: Being on the losing side of WWII and under occupation, and negotiating at gunpoint a treaty with US to end the self-isolation of Japan.
>Isn't there any room for respect for traditional Japanese culture?
Is culture a blanket excuse for bad behavior? Just because a country has a history of doing something doesn't make it worth respecting. Bad things are bad no matter how long they've been practiced.
This is nice and snarky, but I don't think it's morally relativistic to say that actions that subjugate and control people based on race or sex are acceptable just because it's their "culture"
Human rights should be universal and not something that should be limited just because you were born a certain way in a certain place.
I wasn't speaking specifically of being on the board of directors - my point was that plenty of things happen because of "culture" that are simply unacceptable - like FGM. You cannot allow something to keep happening just because that's how it's been done, and yes, I would argue that not being mutilated is a basic human right. Thankfully Japan doesn't practice FGM, but being on the scale of "Bad shit" at "Discriminating against women" instead of "Horrifically mutilating them" doesn't earn them congratulations and a pat on the back.
It was American culture to not let women vote, to keep them as stay at home parents, to load them up with children constantly to build our families. That doesn't mean that that treatment was right.
But, as for the board of directors, women have been working full time in professional roles in Japan for decades now. Japan, to this day, still has famously sexist workplace culture. More than half of all adult women in Japan are employed, yet even those with college degrees have a hard time finding full time employment, compared to men with the same degrees from the same schools. Women are not treated equally in the workplace in Japan. 2nd highest gender pay gap in the OECD, behind only Korea.
"Be sexist towards women" isn't something you get a pass on just because it's your culture. This isn't moral relativism. Human beings are human beings, and shouldn't be discriminated against because of their gender, skin color, etc. Unless you want to argue that women are biologically less suited for being members of a companies board?
This requirement tells Japanese companies they need to do one of three things, if they want foreign investment: They need to either find qualified women within their company and promote them and bring them onto the board as they should have been doing all along, find qualified candidates from outside, or begin actually hiring and developing women in their company if they have not been doing so.
You haven't answered why. You simply stated it's unacceptable and america chose to go a different path.
They have no obligation to share your view on any of these things.
Stating "sexism is bad" is indeed not moral relativism, it's idealism. Saying that because america did things a certain way, Japan should follow is moral imperialism.
Even if your argument were based on some objective metric (and not an ideal) they still wouldn't have any reason to care. That's what I mean by moral relativism. Forcing your views of social dynamics on them is direspectful to their views and autonomy as a society.
I don't think it is honestly, even if it is still very one sided. I think this is simple propaganda from western investment firms. People are just buying it like nothing else because they don't understand their ambitions in Japan.
Better diversity "brings economic as well as cultural benefits," Legal & General Investment said when announcing the new policy. The company described the goal as "moving the needle on diversity in Japan.
Citation needed. Better diversity lowers the salaries so that Goldman Sachs (mentioned further down in the article) can get even richer. Speaking of which, isn't a certain ethnic group over-represented in finance?
maybe it doesn't matter. Replacing male A with female B makes no difference in running the company, so diversity can be achieved without really affecting how well the company is. The main reason to enforce diversity at this level is because that top level diversity will drive diversity from top, it is a good start point.
It doesn't matter any more. Diversity is now the state religion across the West. You will be ostracised if you don't share the faith; you may well be arrested and jailed for speaking out against it.
Science and statistics don't matter. Empirical evidence be damned.
On the bright side, many people are identifying this not as a spontaneous hysteria but a deliberate and hostile undermining of our people - a certain ethnic group indeed happens to be particularly overrepresented in the advocacy of our collapse.
It's an interesting idea, as investors they can set whatever requirements attached to their money and I believe board diversity it good.
Thing is, I said I believe and from the article it doesn't seem like they have much hard data. It can be done simply on principle for sure, but if it's true why not include a nice chart showing that those 10% companies in the US that don't have a woman director are underperforming?
> why not include a nice chart showing that those 10% companies in the US that don't have a woman director are underperforming?
Because most probably they're not, once correlations are excluded. It's annoying that we keep trying to justify what is ethically desirable with made up facts.
This is hostile for no reason. Why "annoying" and "made up facts" rather than simply presenting evidence that they do not perform better, or citing lack of evidence that they do? Hell, even just saying what you think is probably the case without evidence would be a fine way to express yourself. But you felt the need to make it an ideological insult.
Well, it would be annoying in general (beyond this specific case, let's assume an instance we agree on) because it confuses an ethical stance with a factual statement. In this case, right with the profitable. Say that tomorrow we find out that more diverse companies perform slightly worse- what do you do? Do you change your opinion on diversity? I guess you don't, because diversity is ethically desirable, whatever its consequences. So wouldn't be more honest to say that we don't really care about the effect on the company's performance?
And for the specific case, I think it's very hard to prove that more diverse boards make companies more successful- there are a ton of spurious correlations and confounding factors, plus an understandable desire to obtain one result and not the other. Do you have any good research to point me to?
To be clear I agree with you here, why not just be upfront about the fact that they believe in diversity as a component of ethical investments and be done with it.
Stuff like: "Better diversity "brings economic as well as cultural benefits," Legal & General Investment said when announcing the new policy." will have their detractors running to the "where's the data" response which shouldn't be the point.
This decision is probably for the best. Boards being somewhat independent from management is desirable and this might be helpful breaking up the Old Boys Club style effects. Can't complain about foreign influence either, if the company has been sold to foreigners. And it is just implausible that all the best candidates are men.
But the social situation is relevant here and an overarching risk needs to be mentioned. The best candidate will be male ~50% of the time (possibly more often after accounting for differing work patterns between the sexes) and if the difference between "best" and "good" is detectable then that should be the priority. Pushing social changes is fine, but corporations are the engines that drive all the prosperity of the modern era. Good governance and systematically excellent competence at the highest levels are both critical properties. Of course the difference at this level probably isn't detectable so good on them for keeping people on their toes.
Asset management firms aren't supposed to be Social Engineering priority 1, Running Assets priority 2. I don't think that is happening here, but it bears repeating that if they do over-prioritise social goals that would be a corruption of what their role in the market actually is. We need them to be pushing the limits of economic efficiency, because a 0.5% difference at that level is significant to a large number of people's lives.
American investment companies are free to do what they want, and similarly Japanese companies are free to take American money if they want.
I'm personally of the opinion that plays like this will ultimately drive people into the arms of the Chinese, Saudis, etc. and further reduce America's influence in the world, but that's only my guess on the matter.
I hope Japan doesn't cave to the childish neomarxist / communist / identity-politics-obsessionists.
"Better diversity "brings economic as well as cultural benefits,""
What BS. There is no evidence for this. Sure, plenty of biased BS masquerading as evidence (such as SJW academic journal entries), but no actual evidence.
It's merely part of the global communist agenda, in order to take down leadership in various societies.
Facts and evidence are the Tools Of The Patriarchy.
You supposed to shut up and blindly belive.
Do not question the western state ideology of progressivism.
(P.S.: as an unbeliver you won't be able to "see" the "Benefits™")
It's funny; we in the west can pass laws that companies boards must have a certain arbitrary number of gonads[1], but forcing them to operate in the national interest (I dunno, let's say, not exporting everyone's job to some foreign hell hole), suddenly it becomes "muh free market decision, we must obey the free market, muh shareholders."
46 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 96.9 ms ] threadIf Japanese companies want foreign investments, whatever they want is adding women in the mix.
If the owners of a company aren't responsible for how a company is run, who is?
They're not asking for 50%, and just 1 woman representative realistically would not change the culture so much.
I've never been on the board of a large public corporation....but I've been in all-male military units, and nothing starts to tear up unit cohesion quite like a female getting dropped into the mix. Over the past 10 years in Japan, I definitely see some parallels between the two cultures. The Japanese are very big on "shared experience" as a means of bonding as a team. Maybe in a team of young entrepreneurs adding a single female would make fewer waves, but on leadership team of 40-70yo established Japanese businessmen? I would not expect it to go smoothly. At all.
Can you name any events? I would be hard pressed to find any where anything happened "on their own" (and that is not specific to Japan). No country is completely isolated, not even Japan during Sakoku.
For the to last major ones, I wouldn't call "On their own" an entirely accurate description: Being on the losing side of WWII and under occupation, and negotiating at gunpoint a treaty with US to end the self-isolation of Japan.
Is culture a blanket excuse for bad behavior? Just because a country has a history of doing something doesn't make it worth respecting. Bad things are bad no matter how long they've been practiced.
Human rights should be universal and not something that should be limited just because you were born a certain way in a certain place.
Why is it that you think so?
Why is it that your definition of human right, which seem to include being able to occupy that board of directors, should apply to anyone else?
It was American culture to not let women vote, to keep them as stay at home parents, to load them up with children constantly to build our families. That doesn't mean that that treatment was right.
But, as for the board of directors, women have been working full time in professional roles in Japan for decades now. Japan, to this day, still has famously sexist workplace culture. More than half of all adult women in Japan are employed, yet even those with college degrees have a hard time finding full time employment, compared to men with the same degrees from the same schools. Women are not treated equally in the workplace in Japan. 2nd highest gender pay gap in the OECD, behind only Korea.
"Be sexist towards women" isn't something you get a pass on just because it's your culture. This isn't moral relativism. Human beings are human beings, and shouldn't be discriminated against because of their gender, skin color, etc. Unless you want to argue that women are biologically less suited for being members of a companies board?
This requirement tells Japanese companies they need to do one of three things, if they want foreign investment: They need to either find qualified women within their company and promote them and bring them onto the board as they should have been doing all along, find qualified candidates from outside, or begin actually hiring and developing women in their company if they have not been doing so.
They have no obligation to share your view on any of these things.
Stating "sexism is bad" is indeed not moral relativism, it's idealism. Saying that because america did things a certain way, Japan should follow is moral imperialism.
Even if your argument were based on some objective metric (and not an ideal) they still wouldn't have any reason to care. That's what I mean by moral relativism. Forcing your views of social dynamics on them is direspectful to their views and autonomy as a society.
Nothing you can say is ever going to convince me that FGM is OK or anything except horrific.
Citation needed. Better diversity lowers the salaries so that Goldman Sachs (mentioned further down in the article) can get even richer. Speaking of which, isn't a certain ethnic group over-represented in finance?
Science and statistics don't matter. Empirical evidence be damned.
On the bright side, many people are identifying this not as a spontaneous hysteria but a deliberate and hostile undermining of our people - a certain ethnic group indeed happens to be particularly overrepresented in the advocacy of our collapse.
Thing is, I said I believe and from the article it doesn't seem like they have much hard data. It can be done simply on principle for sure, but if it's true why not include a nice chart showing that those 10% companies in the US that don't have a woman director are underperforming?
Because most probably they're not, once correlations are excluded. It's annoying that we keep trying to justify what is ethically desirable with made up facts.
And for the specific case, I think it's very hard to prove that more diverse boards make companies more successful- there are a ton of spurious correlations and confounding factors, plus an understandable desire to obtain one result and not the other. Do you have any good research to point me to?
Stuff like: "Better diversity "brings economic as well as cultural benefits," Legal & General Investment said when announcing the new policy." will have their detractors running to the "where's the data" response which shouldn't be the point.
But the social situation is relevant here and an overarching risk needs to be mentioned. The best candidate will be male ~50% of the time (possibly more often after accounting for differing work patterns between the sexes) and if the difference between "best" and "good" is detectable then that should be the priority. Pushing social changes is fine, but corporations are the engines that drive all the prosperity of the modern era. Good governance and systematically excellent competence at the highest levels are both critical properties. Of course the difference at this level probably isn't detectable so good on them for keeping people on their toes.
Asset management firms aren't supposed to be Social Engineering priority 1, Running Assets priority 2. I don't think that is happening here, but it bears repeating that if they do over-prioritise social goals that would be a corruption of what their role in the market actually is. We need them to be pushing the limits of economic efficiency, because a 0.5% difference at that level is significant to a large number of people's lives.
The sad part is we get to see people not qualified to run things, running things poorly and affecting other people.
I'm personally of the opinion that plays like this will ultimately drive people into the arms of the Chinese, Saudis, etc. and further reduce America's influence in the world, but that's only my guess on the matter.
"Better diversity "brings economic as well as cultural benefits,""
What BS. There is no evidence for this. Sure, plenty of biased BS masquerading as evidence (such as SJW academic journal entries), but no actual evidence.
It's merely part of the global communist agenda, in order to take down leadership in various societies.
Is that actually true? When I looked into it a bit further the results seemed mixed, on the economic part at least.
(P.S.: as an unbeliver you won't be able to "see" the "Benefits™")
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/us/california-boardroom-g...