Toward Organizations That Can Face Uncomfortable Facts Head-On

I have worked in finance and treasury at banks, securities firms, and operating companies, and I am currently involved in the auditing of listed companies. What I feel there is that the closer a problem is to the management, the harder it becomes to confirm the facts. This is because the person being asked for an explanation may be the very party involved in the issue.

SDG Goal 16 advocates for building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions. Target 16.6 directly stipulates for public institutions to develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels (Ministry of Foreign Affairs provisional translation). However, a mechanism to make decisions based on correct information and verify the process is also indispensable for companies.

In June 2026, I-ne announced that it had been placed under a grace period for re-examination by the Tokyo Stock Exchange due to a violation of its written oath, and that it had been assessed a listing contract penalty of 33.6 million yen.

The origin of this was a suspicion that a business partner from whom trademark rights were acquired in a previous fiscal year might have qualified as a related party of the company. According to the TSE, the Representative Director and President had provided large loans to the representative of that business partner and controlled important decision-making such as business policy. Despite this, explanations that differed from the facts regarding the actual state of involvement were provided to the Board of Directors, the Audit and Supervisory Committee, the accounting auditor, and the TSE.

What made me think, "Wait a minute?" was that although the Audit and Supervisory Committee members were aware of the issue and had checked with external experts, there was no sufficient organizational mechanism to verify information independently from the executive side. Furthermore, although there were employees who felt uncomfortable with the transactions, those voices were not properly raised.

Transparency is not about disclosing information that is convenient. It is about facing facts that are inconvenient for top management head-on, confirming them, and, if necessary, verifying them through channels other than the individual's own explanation.

What we can do for the future is to keep asking not "who explained it," but "what was used to confirm the facts." I believe that this stance protects the organization, the people who work there, and those who believe in the company.
-------------------------------------------------------
Things that made a former securities man think "Wait a minute"
Publisher HP http://tsuruichi.blog.fc2.com/
-------------------------------------------------------