Globalization

Overseas experience and Japan’s elite, past and present

When I started working at Mitsubishi Corporation in London, I was intrigued by the fact that Mitsubishi had first opened the office there as early as 1915. Most British people, if they have thought about it at all, would assume Japanese companies did not establish themselves in the UK until well after World War Two. In fact it turned out Mitsubishi Corporation was a relative late comer to London amongst the sogo shosha (Japanese trading companies), although the Iwasaki founding family had links with the UK from long before 1915.

I was reminded of these links thanks to a recent talk by Dr Ohnuma Shinichi, professor of Experimental Ophthalmology at University College London (UCL) to Japanese business people in London, where he showed slide after slide of the names of the Japanese future elite who studied at UCL in the Meiji era, starting with the 14 students from the Satsuma clan in 1865, through to Iwasaki Toshiya, who studied Chemistry at UCL in 1901.

Dr Ohnuma was showing us these slides to remind us of how the founders of the modern Japanese state and business had fearlessly travelled and lived abroad, and there was a keen discussion afterwards as to how this spirit of adventure could be revived amongst young Japanese people now.

One of Dr Ohnuma’s suggestions was that Japanese companies should demonstrate that there is a positive advantage to have worked abroad, and to ensure there are proper roles for their employees with overseas experience to fulfil when they return.

At Mitsubishi Corporation it was an unwritten rule that top executives have overseas experience, and as a consequence, most new graduates join Mitsubishi Corporation and other trading companies in the expectation that they will be posted abroad. I realise however, that for other major Japanese companies, whose origins are more domestically oriented, it would be rather hard to implement this rule straight away, when in most cases hardly any of their current executives have overseas experience.

Smaller companies may have more scope to put such criteria in place however. The leaders of such companies can set the tone themselves, just as Sony’s Morita Akio did in 1963, when he controversially relocated himself and his family to New York, in order to understand the US market better.

It is surely no coincidence that the current President of Sony, Hirai Kazuo, lived abroad as a child and worked for Sony overseas. Despite Naruke Makoto (ex President of Microsoft Japan)’s assertion that nobody has ever succeeded who went to international school, Hirai did indeed go to the American School in Tokyo.

Sony may be having its problems right now, but I truly hope it succeeds in its revival plans, and proves that the spirit of entrepreneurism, openness to the world outside Japan and adaptability to change of its founder can live on, if the founder himself has set the tone correctly by his own actions.

(This article was originally published in Japanese, for the Teikoku Databank News and also appears in Pernille Rudlin’s new book “Shinrai: Japanese Corporate Integrity in a Disintegrating Europe” – available as a paperback and Kindle ebook on Amazon.)

My book on the history of Mitsubishi Corporation in London since 1915 is now available in digital Kindle format (link to amazon.co.uk)

For more content like this, subscribe to the free Rudlin Consulting Newsletter. 最新の在欧日系企業の状況については無料の月刊Rudlin Consulting ニューズレターにご登録ください。

Neuroplasticity – rewire your brain to learn Japanese?

Europeans often ask me if it is worth trying to learn Japanese. I usually say yes, but that it is important to have realistic expectations. One lesson a week, if you are not living in Japan, is not going to lead to anything like fluency. However it will be intellectually interesting, because Japanese is a beautiful language, is quite unlike any Greek or Latin based language and learning it may teach you a bit about Japanese culture.

I was very lucky to have lived in Japan at the ideal point to become fluent in another language – in early childhood. Once you hit your teenage years, learning another language becomes increasingly difficult, because your brain has become hard wired with your mother tongue. I have known some people become fluent in Japanese in adulthood, but this was usually because they took the total immersion route – living in Japan for a year or so and minimising contact with other English speaking foreigners.

Recent research has shown that in fact our brains can be “rewired”. This idea is known as “neuroplasticity” and can be observed in people who recover from brain injury – unconsciously or through training, they rewire their neural circuits in order to reacquire the functions lost by the damage. Rewiring their brain is what the adults who became fluent in Japanese were doing by totally immersing themselves in the Japanese language.

Neuroplasticity also has major implications for our national cultural identities. It used to be thought that your cultural values were immutably set in early childhood. In my training sessions I point out to people that this is not racism – I am not saying people are born with a particular set of values.

However it does seem that our brains are sculpted during childhood so that we do end up with different brains from culture to culture. Scientists have found that East Asian brains respond differently from the brains of Westerners to visual stimuli and that native English speakers and native Chinese speakers use different parts of the brain to do the same simple arithmetic.

Far from reinforcing racism, neuroplasticity implies that our brains can be reshaped, regardless of where we were brought up as children. So prolonged exposure to another culture may actually reshape the way a brain learns, thinks, decides and decodes. It may also explain the phenomenon I described in a previous article, that British or Japanese people who have lived abroad for a long time feel like foreigners when they return to their countries of birth, even if they spent their entire childhood in their mother country.

The society you are living in does have the power to reshape the way you think. So if you are not British by nationality, but have lived in the UK for a while, and find that you tut to yourself when people jump queues, or say sorry when someone else has bumped into you or find yourself giving long, complicated explanations for why you are late, it may be that you have lived long enough in the UK to have rewired your brain!

Japanese leaders need more confidence in a Japanese style globalization

Many of our Japanese client companies are embarking on global initiatives, in marketing or human resources, and consciously involving overseas employees in them. It’s great to see positive, forward thinking even in these difficult times, but comments I have been getting from the Europeans involved in these initiatives have been puzzling me.

Normally, discussions in our European training sessions about decision making in Japanese companies revolve around nemawashi (literally, going around the roots of a tree) a consensus based, largely bottom up, decision making system common in Japanese companies. This decision making process may be an entirely bottom up initiative, or triggered by a vague top down directive.

Consensus based decision making is not uniquely Japanese of course. In Europe, plenty of national and corporate cultures prefer some kind of consensus based approach, instead of top down imposition. However, when the Europeans involved in the global initiatives have tried to get a consensus based dialogue going with Japan, they instead been met with passivity from their Japanese counterparts.

One British director told me that he had suggested to his Japanese team that they come up with a proposal for a new workflow. Because they looked puzzled, he scribbled on a whiteboard very roughly what he had in mind. To his concern, the final proposal simply replicated his rough sketch. “When I put ideas to teams in Europe that I have led, I expect them to push back. After all, they often know far better than I do what can or can’t be done”.

Another British manager proposed a series of discussion sessions with Japanese marketing staff, to give feedback into a new brand strategy, only to be met with a request that the European team “just tell us what to put in the advertising”.

This could of course be due to a reluctance to have open confrontation, particularly in English. But I also sense an attitude that because the initiatives are “global” and come dressed in English “marketing” and “strategy” terminology unfamiliar to Japanese people, the Japanese employees feel it is not their area of expertise, so they should just let the “Western” side of the team take the lead.

Yet this is precisely what these European managers are trying to avoid. They want to take an approach to creating strategy which is culturally sensitive. After all, “global” these days does not mean just the West, but China, India and elsewhere. The European managers were rather hoping their Japanese colleagues would have a better cultural understanding of how to incorporate the Asian operations into the initiatives than they did.

How then could the Japanese employees engage in a dialogue in a way that does not make them feel uncomfortable? I would suggest the “coaching” style, which comes naturally to many Japanese people I have worked with. This means that instead of openly stating a disagreement, the listener asks questions which help the presenter to see the problems in their proposal themselves, rather than be told what is wrong.

Overall though, Japanese managers should have more confidence in themselves as leaders of a Japanese style globalization, which may, let us hope, work rather better than Western style globalization has so far.

This article originally appeared in the Nikkei Weekly and also appears in “Shinrai: Japanese Corporate Integrity in a Disintegrating Europe” available as a paperback and Kindle ebook on Amazon.

Has Hitachi opened Pandora’s Box with the ending of seniority based pay?

Hitachi’s announcement on 26th September 2014 that it would be abolishing seniority based pay and promotion for management positions in Japan has caused quite a stir in Japanese business circles.

One HR consultant likened it to opening Pandora’s Box, as it may spread to non-managerial ranks, other industries and may even herald the end of lifetime employment. Both Nikkei Business and Diamond magazines have linked the announcement to Hitachi’s Global HR Management strategy and the database that Hitachi have been developing for the past two years of 250,000 employees, inside and outside Japan. 50,000 management positions in Japan and overseas are now measured by the same standards. These tools and an evaluation system means that with the abolition of seniority based pay, changes can be made to globalize compensation.

The abolition will affect 11,000 management positions in Japan – those people who are at the kacho (team leader) level and above. From October this year, no distinction will be made between function and grade status pay, and there will instead be one “role and results” pay scheme. Under the old scheme, around 70% of pay was determined by the employee’s length of service in the company.

Hitachi want to ensure that they can hire and retain high performers, regardless of nationality, including as mid-career hires. This is deemed necessary if they are going to reach their target of 50% of sales overseas by 2015, compared to the 41% level reached in 2012. The new pay scheme will therefore eventually apply to all management positions in the Hitachi group, not just in Japan headquarters.

According to the Nikkei, this change to the HR system has its roots in the difficulties Takashi Kawamura, chairman of Hitachi until 31 March 2014, experienced since 2009 when as President he started to weed out businesses he felt did not fit the “social innovation” portfolio. “Westerners place emphasis on their skills and expertise, so even if the company changes, they will follow the business that they have been working in. But Japanese people want to stay with the company, even if the business they are working on is devolved elsewhere… As Japan globalises, the relationship between the company and its employees, and employees’ thinking will also change.”

As Diamond magazine points out, this is a drastic transformation from the “family style” traditional Japanese company image that Hitachi used to have. It was known that Hitachi did not pay particularly high salaries, but that its benefits were very generous, and that it would provide a secure and stable environment for employees. It was always very serious about its HR strategies, and seen as a front runner for innovations in Japanese HR systems. So the abolition of seniority based pay is potentially “epoch making”, with implications far beyond Hitachi itself. It is rumoured that Sony and Panasonic are also looking at changing their pay schemes in a similar way.

The abolition of seniority based pay will impact other sacred cows of the traditional Japanese HR system. For example, there will no longer be “Beh-ah” (short for Base Up) negotiations, whereby the same basic pay rise is applied across the workforce, so no more “spring offensive” – the ritual negotiations between the company union and management for the annual pay increase. As a consequence, the raison d’être of the company union itself may be under threat. Lifetime employment will become even more thinly upheld, as people are more able to move from company to company without worrying about losing seniority based entitlements and it will be easier then for companies to get rid of people.

Hajime Yamazaki, guest researcher at the Rakuten Research Institute for the Economy (who has himself changed employers 12 times since joining Mitsubishi Corp in 1981) makes three recommendations to Japanese employees:

Review your lifeplan
Not just in terms of when you retire, but think about potential instability of income when you are still working. It might be best to increase the amount you save.
Take more risks in your job.
If your compensation is going to be based on results, then you have to take a “no risk, no reward” view of your work.
Regularly think about changing employers
Yamazaki is not saying Japanese employees should all start quitting their jobs, but that you should constantly be reviewing your skills and experiences to see if they would help you get a job in another company.

“For a business person with ability and motivation, the end of seniority based pay means there will be many opportunities in the road ahead,” says Yamazaki.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries – feminise and foreign-ise to stop being fossilised

The cover story for the Nikkei Business magazine (JPNS) for October 20th 2014 is somewhat doom and gloom,claiming that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ reforms were too slow, and it’s now in the last chance saloon. The four part special includes an interview with the president, Shunichi Miyanaga, who has been leading the reforms and also a handy checklist so you can make sure your Japanese company hasn’t also become fossilised like MHI. One of the items on the list is whether “You have lots of Japanese expatriate staff, and the local hires view them as the secret police”

The online counterpart to Nikkei Business also has an interview with Christina Ahmadjian, an American who has lived in Japan for 17 years and is now a professor at Hitotsubashi University, who was appointed as an external, or “outside” as they say in Japan,director of MHI in 2012. She’s also on the board of Eisai, the Japanese pharmaceuticals company. Needless to say, she speaks fluent Japanese – and was also an “accidental Office Lady” in her past, at Mitsubishi Electric.

She termed MHI “super-Japanese” for its slow decision making and initially did not want to take up the role. Her friends cautioned her, saying there are plenty of other Japanese companies who are more advanced in their reforms that she should consider. However the then President and chairman took her presentation to the board very seriously, which led her to decide to “try it for a year, and quit if it didn’t work out”.

She continues this un-Japanese attitude by regularly asking in board meetings “who is accountable” and asks for specific commitments from anyone who uses the typical Japanese vague term “kento shimasu” (we will study this further). She also insists that strategic rather than technology related subjects are discussed in the board meetings.

President Miyanaga has also changed the board meetings, through reorganising the company into four domains, and decreasing the representatives accordingly to the board, which has allowed for smoother discussions. Ahmadjian says she is surprised by the speed at which Miyanaga has moved, and also how careful he is to share all information with her, including on any M&A activities. Previously, Japanese companies had been reluctant to involve external directors as they were concerned that confidential matters would be leaked.

Nonetheless, MHI is still slow compared to the foreign competition, she says. MHI is beginning to appoint non-Japanese to senior positions overseas but there is a lack of candidates internally. It’s not always the case that it is easier to get rid of people in foreign companies, she argues – in Europe the unions can be very strong and she suggests that some Japanese companies are using legal barriers as an excuse not to restructure, and are in fact “zombie” companies.

“I am a watch dog, making sure MHI do not slack off on their reforms” she concludes.

The 4 types of Japanese expat manager

Susumu Okamura, a veteran of Daiichi Life, DIAM in the US, UBS Global Asset Management and a Columbia MBA alumnus, believes experience of secondment to another company is a must for survival in the global economy. Thanks, however, to ‘Naoki Hanzawa’ (a TV series in Japan about a heroic salaryman banker), being seconded to another company has a thoroughly bad image in Japan. However in global companies, where spin off companies are multiplying, being seconded has become part of management development.

Foreign business people are particularly enthusiastic about being sent to manage acquisitions or struggling subsidiaries. They see it as a valuable chance to put their ideas into action and do things their own way, says Okamura.

Okamura views joining your first company as a second birth, with being seconded to another company as a third rebirth, but unfortunately many Japanese managers do not see it that way. Okamura sees four types of secondees:

The depressive – who has dropped off the elite track of the headquarters, so becomes disillusioned and loses his spark. However they are often given an important role in the subsidiary company, so they are the worst kind of boss for the employees of the subsidiary.
The look backer – who wants to make headquarters regret pushing him out by producing great financial results. Tries harder than the depressive, but his aggressive, inflexible management style can warp the subsidiary
The phlegmatist – has the same laid back style wherever he goes. Works steadily, doesn’t try to change anything.
Mindset changer – is thrilled at the chance to start a new chapter in a new organisation, pursuing new dreams

As Okamura says, in traditional Japanese companies, secondment damages your chances of becoming a top executive in the headquarters. “But I want to ask instead, is it really fun to stay in the headquarters? What are you learning which is of value in the marketplace? Do you think that value will still hold in 10 years’ time?”

“We are in the middle of a diversity boom. However, unfortunately in many cases, the foreigners, women, mid-career hires and the disabled that are hired all end up being ‘dyed the same colour’. It’s not obvious why diversity was such a reason for hiring people. But being seconded is different – there is an unshakeable diversity to having to become part of a different corporate culture.”

You need to know Japan to be a globally effective Japanese manager

Foreign companies in Japan are known as gaishikei (foreign capital managed) and Japanese who choose to work in them are often suspected of being “lone wolves” who are motivated by money. However recently some Japanese managers who have worked in gaishi joined Japanese companies later in their careers, such as Hikaru Adachi, recently interviewed in Diamond magazine. He was born in Austin, Texas, went to Hitotsubashi University and then worked for P&G, Booz Allen, Roland Berger etc before joining Japanese clothing company World and starting up a group called Gaishikei Leaders.

He says he decided to work for a Japanese company because he is so concerned that Japan is being marginalized on the world stage, and to counter this, economic leadership is needed, for which global minded managers are required.

He joined a gaishi initially in order to learn as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Although he found performance reviews tricky as he would tend to be naturally humble about what he did or did not achieve, compared to the boasting from other employees about their successes, he felt that his honesty eventually won through, and people came to trust him.

Gaishi managers have experience that purely Japanese managers lack:

Experience of having worked with foreign employees who speak a diverse group of languages, particularly English – knowing how to write emails, documents, run meetings. This cannot be achieved by only working with Japanese speakers, who are used to the non-verbal, telepathic way of Japanese corporate communication.
To have a standpoint that is not pivoting on Japan. For example, corporate cultures or customs which work fine when it is just Japanese working together, but in a global market or working with non-Japanese, they are hard to understand, or cause major problems.
Systems which are based from the outset on being global, such as HR, evaluations, finance and information systems. It’s not sufficient just to adjust Japan HQ systems for global use.

Japanese who have worked abroad with Japanese companies may be able to get enough experience in the first category, but for the second and third aspects, gaishikei managers will have the edge. Particularly on 3. he points out that with Japan’s particularly Japanese systems and structures, it is difficultto get experience in hiring and developing high quality non-Japanese staff.

He stresses he is not saying Japanese companies are inferior to gaishi, rather that Japanese managers lack the necessary self awareness about Japan’s history, culture, politics and economics to be able to represent it effectively in the global world.

Japanese firms might gain from looking to outsiders for insights

At the beginning of our training sessions with Japanese expatriate managers, I describe to them the positives and challenges Europeans say they face when working in Japanese companies. If I have already done similar sessions with Europeans in that company, then I also highlight those aspects which are specific to the company or were give a particular emphasis.

You can probably guess what the common positives and challenges are. The European employees usually say they find their Japanese colleagues are polite/friendly/calm, take a long-term view and have a high degree of commitment to their jobs and the company. The challenges that they find are communication problems centering on indirect/direct communication styles and attitudes to conflict, and also the long-winded, nontransparent decision making processes.

It is often said that Japanese people are more than usually curious about how they are perceived by other cultures. Certainly my list of common positives and negatives arouses great interest among Japanese participants. However, when I try to turn it into a debate about the company’s culture – asking questions like, “Do you think your company is more or less nemawashi (consensus based decision making) oriented than other Japanese companies in your industry?” – there is hesitation, a few tentative comments, and then thoughtful silence. It is almost as if such questions had never been considered before.

As lifetime employment has been so prevalent in these large companies, and still is for the majority of employees, the opportunity to compare the company you chose to join at the age of 22 with another company only arises once – during the graduate recruitment process. Because this a career-long commitment, both the graduates and the companies put a great deal of effort into the process of finding out whether there is a good fit between the candidate and the company culture.

But the actual nuts and bolts of working in a company – how decisions are made, attitudes to process, risk, hierarchy and so on – are not made so explicit, because the candidates have never worked in a company before and have no way of identifying these characteristics. If you are going to stay at the company for the rest of your career, then you just accept that “this is the way things are done around here.”

Now that more Japanese people are changing employers, and mergers between companies are increasing, it is surely time to be more aware of these differences, so that adjustments can be made by employees and companies.

Some insights will of course come from the job hoppers themselves, but it might also be time for Japanese companies to lose their allergy to using outside consultants. As a consultant myself, I would say this, but consultants who have worked with a range of companies probably have the best overall view of how Japanese companies differ from each other.

As the British writer Rudyard Kipling famously put it, regarding English insularity, “And what should they know of England, who only England know?”

This article by Pernille Rudlin originally appeared in the The Nikkei Weekly

“Japan is different, but other countries are different, too” – Takeda’s Weber

Japan’s annual shareholders’ meeting season at the end of June went relatively smoothly for most companies, as their results had improved, in part due to the impact of a cheaper yen. Takeda was one of the exceptions, however, with the new President, Christophe Weber, facing protests from a 100 or so shareholders, more than half of whom were ex-Takeda employees.

Their 7 point letter claimed that the acquisition of Nycomed and Millennium Pharmaceuticals were failures, that the way Takeda was globalizing and the low morale of scientists in Japan called into question management effectiveness, that the way Weber was appointed as Hasegawa’s successor was questionable, that the focus on the executive management committee, largely peopled by “foreigners” was causing the board meetings to become a mere formality, that it was not clear why high dividends should be paid out when the financials were worsening, and finally that responsibility was not clear for the fine of $6bn in the US for concealing the risks for Actos, a diabetes drug.

Diamond Online analyses why Takeda is being criticised “from within”. Takeda was at a high point in 2006, but in decline since then, as four of its blockbuster drugs came off patent in the US. The search for new hit drugs led down the path of M&A. Takeda was the dominant Osaka pharmaceutical company, squaring up against Sankyo the Tokyo-based pharmaceutical giant. Behind the scenes, however, there were merger talks between the two. In the end Sankyo chose to team up with Daiichi.

So Takeda embarked on overseas acquisitions – Denmark’s Novo Nordisk and then Millennium in the USA in 2008, and finaly Nycomed in 2011. These acquisitions required substantial post merger restructuring, however there was noone capable of this in Takeda. The management layer below Hasegawa was “thin” ( a problem common to many Japanese companies, who cut back hiring of that cohort during the first oil shock). Hasegawa appeared isolated, and reliant on foreign executives and Japanese executives who had worked in foreign companies (in other words, not including the indigenous Japanese within Takeda)

Weber’s recent interview in the Japan Times, in which he emphasises that Takeda will remain “Japanese” is an attempt to reassure the Takeda founding family and domestic Japanese management, but whether an interview in English in Japan Times (an English language daily) is sufficient is doubtful. A charm offensive on the Nikkei group of publications might be advisable.

Marketing Japan to attract foreign investment – a fourth arrow?

Prime Minister Abe made a short, punchy speech at the “Invest in Japan” event I attended yesterday in London. Perhaps not quite as passionate as his longer speech at the Guildhall last year, but his key message was clear, that Foreign Direct Investment was an important pillar of his growth strategy and that he was aiming, with Abenomics, to make Japan a more market friendly, more exciting destination for foreign companies.

The current fashion is to say that Abenomics is losing steam, because of the lack of progress with what Abe has termed the third arrow – deregulation and structural reform. My view on this is that the Japanese government can deregulate and pass new, more liberal laws all it likes, but without significant support and action from major Japanese companies, not much will happen.

So foreign investment might be a way to stimulate action and change, if foreign competition is able to enter the Japanese market more aggressively. There is something of a chicken and egg situation, however, in that foreign investors often say they need to see deregulation and structural reform implemented before they will invest in Japan.

There is also a concern, voiced by ex ambassador Sir David Wright at the event, that foreign companies are still seen as “foreign” and may not get equal access to the benefits of any reforms or incentives. The mayor of Kobe was quick to pick up on this point – “foreign companies in Kobe will be seen as Kobe companies” he said, which is no doubt a legacy of Kobe’s long standing history as an international port. Certainly we felt very at ease when we lived in Kobe, as long ago as the 1970s, despite not being members of the rather snobby expat Kobe Club.

So Abe gave concrete examples of where there had been deregulation, in the energy sector and pharmaceutical sectors and also a strengthening of corporate governance, based on British standards. The rest of the morning was given over to presentations by the mayors of Fukuoka and Kobe, and the governors of Mie and Hiroshima prefectures, who were keen to emphasise another area of reform – the new national strategic special zones, where regulations will have a lighter touch, to enable innovation.

It seems Japan’s mayors and governors have more autonomy than in the UK, so many of them were able to showcase particular initiatives and tax breaks they had introduced to encourage investment into their regions. I had been dreading these presentations, expecting a succession of grey men explaining word for word, dreary, text box heavy powerpoint slides in incomprehensible or badly interpreted English, but to the audience’s great delight, the 4 regional leaders wowed us all with their youthful energy, dynamism and sometimes excellent, but always bravely and strongly delivered English, which seemed to come from the heart rather than a script written by someone else.

These men (there was supposed to be one woman too, the mayor of Yokohama, but she was unwell) could be Abe’s fourth arrow – if they can make a convincing case for a Japan as an Asian hub, beyond the bureacracy and vested interests of Tokyo – but I think a bit more strategic thinking behind the marketing is needed. Some sectors in the UK are already aware of Japan’s potential – I was delighted to see Paul Alger of the UK Fashion and Textile Association steer Hawick Knitwear towards Japan as a basis for entry into China, in the recent BBC programme The New Troubleshooter.

The Fukuoka mayor got some way there, with his eyecatching map showing that Fukuoka was equidistant to Shanghai, Seoul and Tokyo. Not to mention the fact that KLM has just started flights from Amsterdam to Fukuoka – a point that caught my attention, as we are about to move to Norwich, and I am looking forward to using Norwich International (sic) Airport to get to Japan, as it has several KLM flights to Amsterdam a day.

There was rather too much emphasis on the nice lifestyle to be had in Japan’s cities (and it made me very nostalgic for the lovely times I had living in Hiroshima and Kobe) and not quite enough hard headed business appeal, particularly along the lines of the point that Steve Crane, of Business Link Japan, made in the final presentation of the day, that it is important to move near your ecosystem and supply chain, when considering location.

The leaders did note the various industries or specialist zones that they were focusing on regionally, but it’s possible that they took it too much for granted that we would understand how industrial clustering works in Japan. Actually, as most of the audience were the usual Japan gang, this kind of marketing would have been wasted on us anyway.

Which brings me to my biggest constructive criticism – the government bodies that organised this seminar, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Embassy of Japan in the UK, the Japan Local Government Centre and JETRO, really need to network more with the various regions, cities and companies in the UK, so that more representatives of UK companies come to these seminars. JETRO is apparently about to hire some industry sector specialists in Europe as consultants – I presume to help with that. The JLGC head told me that twinning Japanese cities with regional governments in the UK has proved difficult, as no British politician or bureaucrat in this current climate of austerity wants to be seen to be jetting off to Japan on a sushi and sake junket.

As Sir David Warren, former ambassador to Japan, succinctly put it, “it needs to be proved that Japan can be more than a profitable niche”.

Category: Globalization