保険会社は，保険業法に基づく監督行政のもとで内部統制の仕組を構築してきたが，加えて会社法と金融商品取引法上の内部統制対応が求められた。保険会社では，これまでコンプライアンス，リスク管理，CSR，顧客保護対応などの取組を実施してきたが重複も生じつつある。会社法は，内部統制関連の各種取組を再整理するうえで有益な枠組を与え，金融商品取引法の内部統制は，実務プロセスを変革する有効な手段となる。新たな要請を前向きに受け止め，企業経営に積極的に活かしていくことが重要である。

抄録全体を表示

決算発表は, 投資家にとり最も重要な会社情報のひとつであり, できるだけ迅速に行われることが望ましい。したがって, どのような特性を持つ企業が決算発表をより迅速に行うべく決算発表時期を改善するのかを解明することは重要である。本稿では, そのひとつとして内部統制システムに着目し, 会社法に基づく内部統制システム構築の基本方針についての適時開示資料を利用して基本方針の改定の有無, 改定回数, および改定時期を推定することにより内部統制システムに係る企業の構築姿勢を捉えて, 内部統制システムの構築と決算発表時期の改善の関係を検証している。

検証の結果, 本稿では, 内部統制システムの構築に積極的に取り組む企業は, 前決算期よりも通期決算発表が迅速に行われるように当決算期の決算発表時期を改善するとの証拠を提示している。すなわち, 本稿では, 内部統制システムの構築に積極的に取り組む企業は, 当決算期の決算発表所要日数（決算日から決算発表が行われるまでの日数）を前決算期よりも短縮することを示している。また, 本稿では, 前決算期には通期の決算発表時期として適当とされる「決算期末後45日以内」またはより望ましいとされる「決算期末後30日以内（決算期末が月末である場合は翌月内）」に決算発表を実施できていなかった企業であっても, 内部統制システムの構築に積極的に取り組むことにより当決算期にはかかる時期に決算発表を実施できるようになることを示している。

抄録全体を表示

Globalization has been said to limit governments' autonomy in economic policymaking. This article distinguishes two faces of globalization —globalization of finance and that of production— and shows how they actually affect economic polices, using the example of corporate governance reform in Japan.
Existing literature on the effects of globalization stresses the impact of financial globalization and the pressure from international investors on domestic economic policies. According to conventional wisdom, governments are forced to implement neoliberal policies in order to attract footloose capital. This article finds, however, that globalization of production works differently from that of finance, strengthening the positions of corporate managers rather than investors.
The dynamics of globalization of production played an important role in the case of corporate governance reform in Japan between 1993 and 2002. Globalization of finance leads to “monitoring enhancing amendments” of corporate governance laws, which strengthen outside monitoring of management, to realize the interests of shareholders. Globalization of production promotes “flexibility enhancing amendments” to give greater flexibility to companies in choosing corporate structure and deal mechanics, as well as more autonomy from shareholders at least in the short run. In the Japanese cases, corporate governance reform was mainly promoted by the top business organization, Keidanren, and, as such, placed emphasis on “flexibility enhancing amendments.” The concern for international competitiveness in globalizing markets drove business leaders to demand policies that would allow greater flexibility in management, such as the introduction of stock option system, and measures to facilitate corporate spin-offs and to enable retention of treasury stock. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI, renamed into the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in 2001) shared the concern for competitiveness of Japanese companies and worked in collaboration with the business community to implement such reforms. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) was another important player to promote such measures. Among those reforms, the most controversial ones were initiated by LDP politicians, not by the government, in the legislative process.
On the other hand, some important measures of “monitoring enhancing amendments” were also introduced. The Commercial Code revision of 1993 strengthened auditors' power and facilitated stockholder derivative lawsuits. The Commercial Code revision of 2002 enabled large corporations to adopt a US-style system of corporate governance, which uses three committees that include outside directors to make important business decisions. Those reforms were driven mainly by ideational motivations rather than direct pressure from international capital markets. The Ministry of Justice and its Legislative Reform Council, mostly composed of law scholars, took initiative to realize this type of reforms.

抄録全体を表示