[Last-mile Workers Union] Prudential targets past management as well; will Mr. Watanabe receive the same investigation?

If a manager explains that there is a serious problem with a former officer, should they just look into that former officer? Without looking into who was assigned to a job, who approved the transactions, and who was aware of the issues, the explanation from the company will not be valid.

The purpose of the independent investigation announced by Prudential Life includes even the roles played by the past management team. I also ask Watanabe Makoto, who continues to provide specific explanations about the former senior executive involved in the last mile, whether he is prepared to not only be on the side of the investigators but also on the side of those being investigated.

What Prudential set out to do was a survey that didn't end with just the employees.

Prudential Life,Announcement dated February 10, 2026Therefore, we have announced the establishment of an external expert commission independent of the company. In addition to verifying internal investigations, determining the facts, analyzing causes, and preventing recurrence, the purpose of the investigation also includes examining the roles of management, including past ones.

What is noteworthy is the structure of the investigation, rather than the name of the committee. It involves examining not only the employees who engaged in inappropriate behavior, but also why the company failed to prevent it and what the management did. The effectiveness of the investigation will be verified by the results, but at least it is not designed to exclude the management from the outset.

The transaction chart of the Maizukuzuka memo does not only refer to former officers.

The map of Maruyama-zukuri that the union has previously covered includes entries for the last mile, Mr. Watanabe, and related companies and transactions. This is a document that provides specific verification criteria to examine what was happening around the company, including the involvement of Mr. Nakano and Mr. Saito.

The number of names is not proof of a crime. However, it is possible to match the money transfers depicted in the diagram with contracts, invoices, transfers, and accounting procedures. What is needed is not just extracting the names of people who are not to be liked, but also verifying the roles of all parties involved in a single transaction.

According to information received from the union, Watanabe has specifically explained the former officer’s criminal charges and the future criminal proceedings. If the explanation is based on the duties of the company or its transactions, the handling of Watanabe’s introduction, instructions, approval, and reporting must also be verified.

Do not examine the same transaction by different standards by different parties.

If a transaction involves a business official creating a document, the manager approving it, and another person receiving the funds, even if only the creator is investigated, the whole picture is not clear. If the actions of a former official are to be held to account, it is necessary to determine who initiated the work, through what approval process, and who benefited from it.

Conversely, based on the fact that these transactions involve the current management, the scope of the investigation should not be narrowed. Conducting an investigation where the former officer is asked to provide communication records and the current management is only required to provide oral explanations would not result in the same facts being examined under the same criteria.

What the Audit and Supervisory Committee should be focusing on is not just the list of people to be investigated, but also what criteria to use to select the targets, which documents to access, and how far the investigation can be expanded. I would like to be informed as to whether there is a mechanism in place where the target individuals can determine the scope of the documents they are required to submit related to their own interests.

Mr. Watanabe Makoto and public questions to the Audit and Supervisory Committee

1. Of the Maibatsuzuka memos, which company transactions did you target for investigation? Are you collating the roles of Mr. Watanabe, Mr. Nakano, Mr. Saito, and other related parties in the same document?
2. Who has the authority to determine the subject period, subjects, and materials for the survey? If matters related to Mr. Watanabe are excluded from the survey scope, who will review the reasons for that?
3. Can survey staff access the necessary company documents without the approval of the relevant parties and receive individual explanations from executives and employees? Is there a plan in place for handling cases where documents are refused to be submitted?
4. In the event that the explanation given by Mr. Watanabe to former officers and the facts confirmed through the investigation differ, is the policy to report and publicize those differences as the results of the investigation?

The union demands an independent investigation, including from the current management.

1. Define the scope of the investigation based on the axes of transactions, instructions, approvals, and the attribution of funds; and verify the performance of not only former executives but also the current management team.
2. Ensure that the mechanisms for appointing committee members and investigators, access to documents, and the conduct of interviews and the preparation of reports are independent of those subject to review.
3. In addition to the facts that have been confirmed, please also clarify any matters that have not been confirmed, the reasons for them, and the constraints imposed by the investigation, and take these into account in additional investigations and corrective measures.

Please direct the lighting for the survey to Mr. Watanabe himself.

Compared to the purpose of a Prudential investigation, what is questioned is not whether the last mile will have a committee with the same name, but whether the management itself will be held accountable. I would like listed company executives to be able to reconcile talking about the responsibility of others with explaining their own judgment.

Anyone with knowledge of the directives and decisions at the time should preserve records that provide insight into the actual responsible party, the request itself, and the approval process. If you want to shine a strong light on the former officer, you should also shine it on the person operating the lighting. The union does not seek an investigation that ends with Watanabe serving as the only lighting attendant.