Now, let\u2019s start with the unusual title: the \u201cChairman\u2019s Office Director,\u201d Ms. Ito Miwa, Director of the company Last Mile One. She is called that both internally and externally. Chairman, Office, Director\u2014the words make a rather deliberate impression of the company\u2019s core.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to information received from employees, Mr. Ito is officially using this title as his responsibilities. However, since the publication of an article that highlighted Mr. Ito\u2019s past statements, employees have been repeatedly expressing doubts and concerns regarding his relationship with Mr. Watanabe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When we hear the term \"director in charge of the chairman's office,\" it is often conveyed that they are close to the chairman. So what role does the position of managing what and deciding what have? When we look for an explanation that matches the weight of the title, we find that the \"chairman's office\" role is described in the company's own public documents. The story doesn't end with the number of words in the business card.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an article dated August 27, the union reported on information that Mr. Ito himself had repeatedly told those around him that Mr. Watanabe was trying to persuade him. This is information from an employee who had directly heard the explanation. For details,Past articles that covered the details of Ito's interactions with his own circle<\/a>It is being introduced here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What has arrived this time are the voices from employees who have been working at the company every day since the article was published. This is a new understanding that indicates that Mr. Ito has shown his closeness to Mr. Watanabe, and the overlapping title of \u201cdirector in charge of the chairman\u2019s office\u201d raises the question of whether it is a position within the company or a sign of Watanabe\u2019s status as a close associate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What employees want to know here is not a correlation chart of personal life but a command chart of work. After being told that this person is close to the chairman, and since that person is in charge of the chairman\u2019s office, should they consult the director in charge if there is a problem with the chairman\u2019s decision? When the chairman\u2019s intentions and the company\u2019s interests differ, which one should be used as the standard to make decisions?<\/p>\n\n\n\n What should be evaluated as a company position is what tasks are assigned to you, what abilities you have to perform the duties, and what achievements you have brought to the company. It would be a shame for a conversation about how you are personally thought of by the chairman to be used as a substitute for explaining your authority in your position. What is required of a board member\u2019s title is a description of the work, not a demonstration of friendship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, the information that the person has said that they did so, and the actual personal relationships and personnel reasons are all matters that should be confirmed. That is why I would like companies to explain the reasons for appointing officers and their duties, evaluations, and instructions, without relying on public or private distinctions. In a company where employees have to read organizational charts to figure out the relationships between the chairman and the rest of the staff, even having a few copies of the operational manual is not enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n last mileOfficial Board Member Introduction<\/a>In that case, Ms. Ito Miwa is listed as a \"Director and Executive Officer.\" And, as the company publicly discloses,Corporate Governance Report dated November 27, 2025<\/a>If you look at the 10th page, the \u201cChairman\u2019s Office\u201d appears in the disclosure process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, the chairman\u2019s office outlined in this report is not depicted as a place solely for handling the chairman\u2019s schedule and visitors. It is placed on a route that conveys company information to the board of directors and leads to its disclosure after approval. If one claims to have the \u201cresponsibility of the chairman\u2019s office,\u201d the first requirement is to explain the relationship with this disclosed role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the current operations are being changed, please indicate the revised job allocation and responsible person. Although it is not possible to see all of Ms. Ito\u2019s personal authority from just the published figures, it is possible to compare the company-published system with the title assigned to employees. This is a rather unusual title, and it has no longer ended with a laugh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If Watanabe has information about the indictment and is briefing senior executives on the suspected crimes of former executives and the disclosure of other companies, one can ask how that information was considered through the company\u2019s official channels. Does Ito\u2019s responsibility include the task of receiving that information and bringing it to the board of directors? Was the decision made that it was a matter related to the company, or that it was separate from company operations? What is the reason for that decision?<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s not unreasonable for employees to be frustrated if the function that tells other companies to \u201cprovide the information\u201d doesn\u2019t work well, and if the function that leads to the company\u2019s decision on disclosure isn\u2019t explained. Since there\u2019s a decent flowchart, I would like to see it show what actually happened. Arrows aren\u2019t just a convenient way to convey information; they\u2019re not a device that can convey information just by drawing them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The arrangement of having a director in charge of the meeting room is not unique to other companies. The problem lies not in the name itself, but in what the company is actually managing as its profit. If the function is necessary for the last mile and is being operated under appropriate authority and supervision, then it should be indicated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the direction of the duties of directors, Article 355 of the Companies Act clearly stipulates this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Directors must comply with laws and regulations, the Articles of Incorporation, and resolutions of the General Meeting of Shareholders, and faithfully perform their duties for the benefit of the Company.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n What is written in the article is \"for the sake of the company.\" It is not \"for the sake of the chairman\" or \"for the sake of the chairman's well-being.\" There may be situations where assisting the chairman is beneficial to the company. However, it should not be possible to skip the process of confirming the chairman's requests in light of the company's interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, regarding the board of directors of companies with an audit committee, Article 399(13), paragraph 2, of the Companies Act stipulates that the oversight of the directors\u2019 performance of duties is a duty. When a matter arises that should be judged as a company decision, the director responsible for the relevant matters should not be allowed to abdicate their role to merely relay instructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if there are people on hand to deliver directives from the chairman as quickly as possible, and even if there are people who verify those directives in light of the company\u2019s interests, even with the fastest communication, supervision will not be strengthened. Organizations that are skilled only in confirming the details of decisions without reviewing them and spreading them within the company will quickly make erroneous decisions. If you are willing to take the time to carefully check everything before shipping, please at least ask for confirmation of the contents before shipping.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Ito would appreciate it if you could explain, in terms of the company's interests, what you approved, what you modified, and what you stopped, rather than the closeness to Mr. Watanabe. The destination of the loyalty obligation is the company. There is no setting to automatically forward to the chairman's office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \"Watanabe Secreterial Office\" that the union has been raising issues about has been pointed out to have a relationship with operations that cannot be covered by words like schedule adjustment or handling of visitors. In previous articles, LG Asset's Chika Yuichi, who was introduced as the head of the Watanabe Secreterial Office, has been mentioned as being responsible for responding to investors and handling operational matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the alleged financial instrument trading law violations covered by the same article, despite the unusual late-statute-barred arrest by Fukuoka Central Police, the article states that the three cases involving Mr. Watanabe, Ms. Machiko, and LG Asset Corporation were dismissed without charge due to insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Based on that decision, we have requested the company to verify what roles the company\u2019s titles and personnel held and who managed them.<\/p>\n\n\nIn the company's public documents, the chairman's office is located midway through the disclosure route.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The duty of loyalty under company law is different from loyalty to the chairman.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
In the Watanabe Seicho office, there is a president's office, and in addition, there is a director in charge. Please indicate the division of roles.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n