Governance structure
The average score declined by 0.09 points, from 4.24 in the previous evaluation to 4.15 in the current evaluation, but the Board of Directors confirmed that its effectiveness has been maintained. The evaluation identified room for improvement in the quality and speed of proposals, communication and consensus-building.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Number of directors | 8 directors (of whom the number of outside directors is Not disclosed) |
| Changes this time | The average score declined by 0.09 points, from 4.24 in the previous evaluation to 4.15 in the current evaluation, but the Board of Directors confirmed that its effectiveness has been maintained. The evaluation identified room for improvement in the quality and speed of proposals, communication and consensus-building. |
Items this document does not state (6)
These are items the company does not state in this document. We do not leave them blank, nor fill them in from other sources or by inference.
The reasons the company gives
The company's own explanation, not something inferred from the numbers.Although measures are discussed extensively, there is room to improve the quality and speed of proposals brought forward for discussion. In addition, as the governance structure has become more diverse, including with the presence of non-Japanese directors, more careful communication and consensus-building are required.