In this series, I explore the “invisible cultural differences” between Japanese companies and global standards, drawing on my approximately 15 years of living overseas and working in international environments, as well as my current work supporting Japanese companies in advancing their sustainability efforts.
What values have Japanese companies traditionally placed importance on? And how can those values be “translated” into a form that resonates with people around the world? Through this series, I hope to offer some practical insights into these questions.
Rethinking What We Consider “Normal” in Japan
I spent approximately 15 years living overseas, primarily in the United States, where I studied, worked, got married, and raised children. Working with colleagues from more than 10 countries also exposed me to a wide range of values and perspectives.
One thing I came to realize repeatedly through these experiences was that many of the things I had considered “normal” were, in fact, shaped by my experience as a Japanese person. I was often struck by just how differently people think, behave, and make decisions when they come from different cultural backgrounds.
I continued to encounter these differences after returning to Japan and starting to work for a Japanese company. One example came when I was translating a contract into English for an overseas group company.
I struggled with how to translate a provision stating that, for matters not covered by the contract, “the parties shall discuss and resolve such matters in good faith.”
The words themselves are easy enough to translate. What is harder to convey is the underlying intention—the “space” left open by the provision, in which details are not predetermined and the parties are expected to rely on good-faith discussions to resolve unforeseen matters.
When entering into contracts in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, it is generally important to clearly define in advance the scope of work, each party’s responsibilities, and procedures for dealing with potential problems. Clearly communicating who is responsible for what, and to what extent, helps protect both parties and provides a foundation for trust.
In Japanese business practice, by contrast, contracts do not always attempt to define every possible situation in advance. When something unexpected occurs, the parties may instead agree to “discuss the matter in good faith” and leave the resolution to their relationship and subsequent discussions. In this context, trust can be built less through documenting every detail and more through demonstrating a sincere willingness to respond appropriately as circumstances arise.
Neither approach is inherently right or wrong. The way trust is built is simply different.
“The Sun Is Always Watching” Is Not Enough to Convey Trust
There is a Japanese expression, “Otentosama ga mite iru,” which literally means, “The sun is watching.”
The idea is not that we should behave properly because someone is watching us, but that we should strive to do the right thing even when no one is watching. This value is reflected in many aspects of Japanese business, from manufacturing and quality control to continuous improvement on the shop floor and long-standing relationships with business partners.
Perhaps for this reason, when discussing corporate sustainability efforts, I often hear comments like these from people in charge:
“Do we really need to explain this?”
“It’s nothing special, so we’ve never thought to explain it.”
“Why do we need to explain so much of this externally?”
I am not trying to dismiss this way of thinking. On the contrary, I believe one of the strengths of Japanese companies lies precisely in this sincerity—the desire to do the right thing even when no one is watching.
But globally, being sincere and being understood are two different things.
Overseas investors, rating agencies, and business partners do not necessarily know a company’s history, culture, or the efforts being made on the ground. They cannot evaluate a company based simply on the statement, “We are doing things properly.”
What they want to understand is not simply whether a company is “good,” but whether its initiatives are supported by systems that enable them to function consistently over time.
Will they continue when the person in charge changes? Can the company identify and address problems when they arise? When evaluating a company, the systems behind its initiatives and how those systems actually operate can be important factors in determining whether the company is trustworthy.
What “We’re Doing It Properly” Doesn’t Tell You
This is where transparency becomes important.
In my work supporting companies, I often find that when people hear the word “transparency,” they interpret it as meaning that they have to disclose everything.
But investors and rating agencies are not simply looking at how much information a company publishes.
They want to see who is responsible, how initiatives are managed, what results and challenges have emerged, how decisions are made in response, and how the company continues to improve. Making this process visible is what helps build trust.
This way of thinking is also reflected in international sustainability disclosure standards such as GRI and IFRS S1.
For example, simply stating, “Our company is working to improve energy efficiency,” does not tell an external stakeholder much about what is actually happening.
By contrast, consider an explanation such as:
“The plant manager reviews energy-intensive equipment every month. If performance continues to fall short of our targets, the environmental committee reviews operating procedures and considers whether equipment upgrades are necessary.”
This makes it possible to see who is responsible, how the issue is managed, and how improvements are made. It also shows that the initiative is embedded in day-to-day operations rather than being a one-off activity.
The same principle applies not only to energy efficiency, but to a wide range of sustainability activities, including human rights, occupational safety, supplier management, and employee development.
What external stakeholders want to know is not simply that “an initiative exists.” They want to understand how that initiative is managed and continuously improved—in other words, what sustainability looks like in the company’s everyday operations.
Translating the Everyday Practices That Already Exist
In fact, much of this information does not need to be created from scratch.
When I support companies with sustainability disclosure, I rarely start by asking them to create new materials. Instead, I begin with questions such as:
“What do you discuss in your quality meetings?”
“Could I see your ISO records?”
“Do you keep records of employee training?”
Once we start looking, the necessary information often begins to emerge: improvement proposals, near-miss reports, environmental committee minutes, monthly KPIs, management meeting materials, and more.
People are often surprised and ask, “You can actually use materials like these?”
Japanese companies have a culture of sharing issues during morning meetings, reviewing quality data, making continuous improvements, and keeping records of those efforts.
At the same time, information related to quality, safety, the environment, human resources, and other areas is often managed separately by individual departments for their own operational purposes.
As a result, information does not always connect across the organization. This can make it difficult to develop a shared understanding internally, or to explain the company’s efforts externally as one coherent story.
I once had someone involved in sustainability disclosure tell me, “I thought we had to start new initiatives before we could disclose anything.”
But what was actually needed was not a new initiative. It was to organize the initiatives the company was already carrying out and present them in a way that others could understand.
I believe that is what it means to translate the sincerity of Japanese companies for a global audience.
Note: The term “transparency” as used in this article is based on the concepts reflected in international sustainability disclosure standards such as GRI and IFRS S1.
