Skip to main content
Language at work

English at work in Japan

By July 22, 2010May 28th, 201934 Comments3 min read21,493 views

English at work in JapanIn Japan, “English as official language policy” (英語公用語化) is currently trending on social networking sites. Two large Japanese corporations, Rakuten and Uniqlo, recently announced the adoption of English as their official corporate language, and everyone is talking about it. It all started last month when Rakuten’s CEO, Hiroshi Mikitani, told the media that the company – the biggest online shopping site in Japan – would adopt English as its official in-house language by 2012. The new language policy is part of their strategy to expand into the global market. Shortly after Mikitani’s announcement, Tadashi Yanai, President of Uniqlo – the sixth largest fashion retailer in the world –followed suit, also announced the switch to English by 2012. Nissan, led by their French-Brazilian CEO Carlos Ghosn, had already had English as its official language for some time.

The level of public debate about these corporate language policies is amazing and is characterized by two contradictory positions: pro and contra English-as-an-official-language at work in Japan. From the perspective of Nissan, Rakuten and Uniqlo, English is obviously the language of globalisation, an indispensable tool to increase their competitiveness in the global market. Mikitani asked rhetorically: “If our workers can’t speak English, like those workers in Europe, how can we compete in the global world?” It makes perfect sense to many debaters, and some are even suggesting that it is an opportunity to consider adopting English as the national language.

Not everyone is so enthusiastic, of course, and the other side of the debate is led by scholars such as Masaki Oda and Tatsuru Uchida. Uchida is concerned that the English-Only approach would demoralise workers and have a negative impact on the overall quality of the workforce. The English-as-corporate-language policy might create an environment where competent workers without English competence are being marginalised or even dismissed from their jobs, while incompetent workers with good English proficiency are being promoted.

The strongest criticism, however, has emerged not from academia but from within the corporate world. Takanobu Ito, the CEO of Japan’s giant carmaker Honda has labeled the imposition of the use of English in workplaces within Japan simply as “stupid.” He argues that to be competitive in the global market really means to be strategically flexible in all areas, including language use. As a successful corporate leader with ample international experience, Ito’s words, too, carry a lot of weight with the public. As soon as he made his statement, uncountable tweets and blog posts gave a thumbs-up to Ito’s stance with a common expression of “ホンダ△” (Honda △ – the triangle symbolizes the upward status of Honda).

Those opposed to the imposition of English as the corporate language within Japan complain that Uniqlo and Rakuten are now focusing less on the needs of their Japanese workers and customers. The idea that Japanese workers would converse in English among themselves in shops in Japan has predictably drawn a lot of ridicule as in this example:

妻が「今日から我が家の公用語を英語とする」と宣言した。これは怖い。楽天やユニクロ以上の怖さだよ。俺はもうずっと黙っているしかないな。(My wife just declared “We will adopt English as our official family language from today”. I’m scared. This is scarier than Rakuten and Uniqlo. I will just have to remain silent from now on).

I chuckled at this tweet but cannot help wondering whether the fear to be condemned to silence in English is not very real for some of the workers at the companies with English as their official language.

So far, the two sides of the debate are still battling it out and it remains to be seen who will win the argument. However, one winner has already emerged: the English language teaching industry. English-as-corporate-language policies may well turn out to be an unexpected savior for the industry with its shrinking market share.

Kimie Takahashi 高橋君江

Author Kimie Takahashi 高橋君江

高橋 君江 is Visiting Associate Professor at International Christian University, Tokyo. Before joining ICU in 2014, she was Lecturer at the Graduate School of English at Assumption University of Thailand (2011 - 2014) and Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Macquarie University, Australia (2007 and 2011). Kimie is an Honorary Associate in the Department of Linguistics, and continues to co-supervise several PhD students with Ingrid Piller at Macquarie University.

More posts by Kimie Takahashi 高橋君江

Join the discussion 34 Comments

  • Laurance Cathyryn C. Grona says:

    On this blog post, it was imparted how the English language is perceived in the entrepreneurial and professional sphere, as the key to keep pace and maintain space in the global market. Furthermore, it is insinuated, as manifested with the implementation of ‘English as the official language policy’ by well-known Japan companies, how it could be treated as a measurement or reflection of one’s competency. Indeed, English skills equates to a substantial advantage and therefore, corresponds to a massive importance. With this, I understand the outlook behind the implementation of the policy in subject, by those business organizations that have enforced it. However, I beg to disagree with its implementation and I think that the implication of the policy is quite problematic. Treating English as the official language in the workplace of countries it is not native of could oblige its citizens to be focused more on grasping proficiency and learning English than their supposed mother tongue. Relatively, it could devalue the native language of the countries it is applied in. Furthermore, the implementation of the policy in Japan is unnecessary as most customers there are Japanese who are more comfortable and proficient with the utilization Japanese Language. Having said these, I admire the judgement and reasoning of Honda’s CEO regarding the policy. As asserted, the global competitiveness that a lot of company is trying to achieve will be successfully possessed by being strategically flexible in all areas, including language use.

  • Carlos John Manapat says:

    I think that the imposition of such an “English as official language” policy towards the echelons of the Japanese corporate world will hurt the very core of its culture, as many people would prefer hiring an interpreter over using their poor fluency skills. Such a policy would create a stigma that would affect those who are good at their mastery and those who cannot in a typical salaryman workplace. In other words, I believe that the imposition of the policy should be limited to various circles of the workplace integrated into the realms of globalization. While English has established itself as one of the world’s leading lingua franca, it would be impossible to grasp its reach to other cultures. Throughout history, the sociolinguistic culture of Japan is robust enough to adapt to the globalized society.

  • Zion Bishop Ortiz says:

    It’s amazing to see that although this post has been published approximately 12 years ago, it is still very relevant. With the continuous evolution of the English Language as a global language, its wide use can indeed offer numerous advantages for companies who are aiming to target the majority of the global market. Adopting a company policy that adheres to the use of ‘English only’, however, is quite a different story. Though English can increase and raise a company’s market and global competency, I believe the use of one’s local language can be much more advantageous for such a working environment — perhaps due to the objective and practical nature of the corporate world working environment.

  • Jann Kyla Discallar says:

    In the competitive global market where English mostly dominates the said realm, I somehow understand some Japanese people’s sentiments about integrating English in the workplace. It is, however, somewhat drastic or “too much” to push an “English as official language policy” amongst corporations in the said country. Supporters of the said policy must first and foremost consider any impact that this may have on workers in terms of possible language discrimination/inequalities as well as its effect on Japanese culture in the workplace. Making use of English is alright, but pushing through with such policy is, in my opinion, not the way to do it. If they truly want to improve the state of English proficiency amongst Japanese workers and employees in order to keep up with globalisation, then they could perhaps address and improve on their educational system which does not exactly enforce the kind of English that could make their students decent and competent speakers. I have a Japanese cousin and from what she has told me, the English being taught at schools consisted of low-frequency vocabulary and its prioritisation on grammar over its conversational value.

  • linguisticslover says:

    This article is still relevant today even if it’s already 12 years ago as companies continue to implement English for global competency but never really do a research first on how this would affect their employees’ well-being.

    • Kenneth Dizon says:

      As leaders of a certain company, they are the ones that should be empowering their workforce; by imposing such language policies it does the exact opposite of: empowerment. Thank you for the very enlightening blog post

  • Maybelle Go says:

    This article not only shows the power of language but also the power between buyer and seller. Between the buyer and seller, the buyer wields the most power because they are the ones who will purchase a product from the seller and to whom the seller must adjust. Because these companies want to promote their products to consumers all over the world, as Mikitani has stated, it is understandable why they would implement the English policy, as English has a lot of economic power. However, I do not completely agree with the policy wherein everyone has to speak in English. I think it would be okay if they had a certain group that would speak to or interact with people abroad in English, while those who focus on technical things in their work could just simply converse in their mother tongue. I believe that this policy puts additional pressure on those who are about to enter the workforce as well as those who are already there. I have some experience teaching Japanese students English as a part-time job before, and I would recall that a lot of the adults that I would teach would often say that they had to learn English for work purposes. Though it’s nice that some companies would pay for their employees’ classes, it does also add pressure for them to learn well, especially if their jobs are also stressful and hectic.

  • Eric Estefan B. Badong says:

    English has become now the language of integration and of Globalization. Reading this article made me realize once again of the different opportunities that mastery and competency on the English language could actually give a person or groups of people most especially for those who are working in the field of commerce, trade, and businesses. We cannot deny that English is powerful enough that most of us have reached already a consensus that English is indeed the language of trade and of the corporate.

  • Eriz Parazo says:

    To a great extent, globalization really caused English to emerge as a global force. However, in this particular scenario, imposing an English-as-an-official-language policy in the workplace would likely cause more harm than benefits for this holds the possibility of consequently stirring up power asymmetries and ideological exclusivities.

  • Zheng Wei says:

    The English language is still widely used in international business today. Given that Japan has one of the greatest economies in the world, many businesses need to be able to compete with their foreign rivals by speaking English. In their globalized enterprises, many Japanese corporations can communicate with a wide range of rivals by using English as their official language. First of all, because they are always around English-speaking people, their employees will be able to use the four English skills at work. Second, Japanese businesses may dismantle the hierarchical society that has been corrupted by customs like the attitude of reverence for the elderly. As a result, it is feasible to foster an atmosphere where individuals with exceptional creativity can openly discuss their ideas. Third, Japanese businesses can employ English to increase productivity and avoid the inconvenience of communicating with overseas businesses. As a result, it is obvious that Japanese businesses should mandate that their staff members utilize English at work since it is the best and only way to prosper in the age of globalization.

  • paulaysabel says:

    I really like how the CEO of HONDA clearly stated his opinion that the adoption of English as the language of their workplace in Japan will have a negative impact on the overall quality of the workforce. Because many Japanese workers are not that proficient with the English language. It just shows how great of a leader he is, he values competent workers rather than incompetent English proficient workers. Yes, adopting English as the official workplace language could be beneficial for certain jobs but should not be applied to the entire corporate structure.

  • Ghayle Roam D. Noche says:

    It is reasonable that several companies consider extending their market by establishing an English language policy at work. English, as a global lingua franca, can help businesses interact with a broader customer base. This can substantially improve the company’s marketing brand and reputation; yet, I agree that it might have a considerable impact on the worker’s competency. where language competency becomes a crucial component that can either dismiss or promote a worker. Owners must also take this into account the future outcome before implementing such policy because their employees are also the company’s backbone.

    • Thanks, Ghayle! Keep in mind that a company’s internal and external language do not necessarily need to be the same … we also shouldn’t assume that consumers have higher levels of proficiency than workers – in fact, they are often the same people …

  • Audrey Guevarra says:

    It is evident that the English language is one of the best tools to adapt to globalization because numerous international companies have done this, particularly those mentioned in this blog. However, it is unreasonable to require the workers to have European English, given the emergence of World Englishes; hence, the discrimination against one’s English must not be recognized, and individuals must accept the difference between Englishes.

  • Daniel Earl Juanga says:

    I wonder if such linguistic policy is driven by the idea of the English language as the language of globalization, which might have put an underlying pressure on brands and companies that are not of western origin or have not adopted the English language, such as those mentioned in the article. We cannot deny that the English language is a significant ticket to “getting the name out there.” However, the article poses great concern about fully adopting English as the official corporate language. It is great to weigh in and showcase the positive inclinations and negative attributes of adapting the English language among non-English brands or companies, while simultaneously valuing the culture, norms, and accustomed language among these local brands or companies.

  • Ria Reñido says:

    Employing the English-only policy in corporations have its advantages and disadvantages. And in the context of Japanese corporations, it may broaden the scope and/or reach of the company to other countries however, there may be some discrepancies on the side of the employees. Indeed, it may have greatly benefited the company and its sales but it does not take into account the inclinations of the employees. Even though this article has been published twelve years ago, I yearn that if ever companies would enact a policy similar to this; they should consider its efficiency for the company and most especially for their workers. As pushing through with policies like the English-only policy legitimizes the issue of language discrimination and unfairness in the workplace when it should be rapport that is being established.

  • Jose Eleazer Espanta says:

    Given that this was written more than a decade ago, I hope these policies did not push through or were revised somehow. I understand that the English language can be an excellent tool for globalization. However, it shouldn’t be required for the entire company. Global companies like Rakuten, Uniqlo, and Nissan have different sectors inside their institutions. one can argue that the corporate and/or public relations sector does, in fact need English to increase their global reputation. Still, I find it hard to believe that English can benefit the more blue collared jobs such as the manufacturing department.

  • Crista Cadorniga says:

    Language policies are currently eliciting a variety of responses, particularly when one considers the society they affect. It impacts the identity it develops in its community and reflects, positively or negatively, on the nation as a whole. However, it has been believed that some competences are dependent on various modes of communication, which is not the case. Considering how European businesses establish languages, English is merely an accessory or bonus. I hope that firms will not rigorously adhere to such policies.

  • Brittany Kirsch says:

    I believe that the corporations who opted for the above-said language policy at work in Japan could have employed a more effective use of the English language than resorting to an “English as the official language policy” for their companies. If the corporations’ aim is to globalize and ‘internationalize’ its interests in their effort to expand their markets, they could have used the English language for external affairs only and not for internal relations. Because imposing such a policy within their company, which directly affects their non-native English workers, may only disrupt their overall work dynamic; thereby, providing a massive impact on both their work and brand.

  • noaa says:

    I wonder how could this influence in terms of employee relations..

  • Soren says:

    A quick one: who says that workers in Europe speak English? In which part of Europe? In Geneva? In Paris? In Munich? In Rome? I admit that Scandinavians/Dutch are good at second and third foreign languages. But not the Romans (France, Italy, Portugal, Spain) nor the Germans/Austrians. You will not find many English speaking workers at Peugeot, Renault, BMW or Audi. Of course, engineers and managers at those companies might speak English with various levels of proficiency – but dont take it for granted, either. I have worked with many directors/managers in French-speaking countries with no or little English proficiency. Just look at the way French politicians sound and you can imagine the rest of the country…

  • sam c says:

    it will only hurt the company, It could be beneficial for certain jobs but should not be applied to the entire corporate structure. Remember China is starting to manufacture better quality stuff these days watch out japan

  • Khan says:

    I agree with the points raised by Steven. It makes sense to have a section of the department which can or entrusted with the responsibilty of communicating with the world outside. I also as Steven, question and challenge the word: International. Does it mean a few selected countries of the world where English is spoken as the first language or it means all the other countries. The word International is very deceptive and doddgy and a lot of discriminiation has been going on based on this word. Similarly the word Standardized, Native and Non-native etc.

    I think in a multilingual world with so fact communication and travelling, it is our responsibilty to revist the denfinitions of terms like native and non-native, mother tongue etc They need change, dont they?

  • steven says:

    English is not taught as a means of communication in Japan – it is taught simply as a subject that must be passed at school along with maths, science etc. In a test you are either right or wrong with little middle ground – pass or fail. Consequently, when many people try to speak English, they are continually asking themselves is what I just said right or wrong? or in many cases they will not even speak for fear of being wrong and hence embarrassed.

    With a declining birthrate, no immigration and the highest public debt in the world, the need for japanese companies to source more markets outside the country is obvious. The need for every staff member to speak English however, isnt. Having one section dedicated to overseas business is a strategy that has been used by many companies throughout the world quite successfully over many, many years. Forcing current staff to speak English will have a negative impact on productivity and morale.

    Also, in regards to the concept of being international, there is a little more to it than just the ability to speak English. It also covers the fair and equal application of legal and social standards to all people, both native and non native people (ie: foreigners) in your home country. The idea of one rule or expectation for locals and another for non native cannot be considered international.

  • vahid says:

    Dear Khan,

    Hello Again,

    Yes, you are definitely right!

    They use their own rhetorics to intensify THEIR OWN truth. Nietzche writes:

    What therefore is truth? A mobile army of metaphors,
    metonymies, anthropomorphisms: in short a sum of
    human relations which became poetically and rhetorically
    intensified, metamorphosed, adorned, and after
    long usage seem to a nation fixed, canonic and binding…
    (Cited in the Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Language, Peter Lamarque, Ed.)

    Health Peace,

  • Khan says:

    Hello Vahid

    Thanks Vahid for your kind words . It really boils down to agrmumentation and rhetorics in the case presented by Kimie- the most enduring intellecutal legacies of Aristotle and his followers. I am sure you will have noticed the play on emotion by the use of the we and our. In fact, people have won and lost many battles by the application of false logic and emotional rhetorics- dangerous weapons!

    Best
    Khan

  • vahid says:

    Dear Khan,

    I really liked this:
    Battle of arguments vs. Rhetorical weapons

    Best,

  • Khan says:

    Thanks Kimie for the lovely post. It offers an extremely interesting case of language policy at the level of financial institution where people are unable to understand or politically confuse the real issue behind such moves and the interest of the people who benefit from such moves at the expense of others. I really want to comment on the oft-repeated, less questioned argument of English-only: If our workers can’t speak English, like those workers in Europe, how can we compete in the global world?” As we can see it makes a clear and direct equation between English and Competition in a global world. It seems to follow from a wrong assumption that global market competetion means competion in English. Do workers compete in global market in English or do they compete because of the quality of work they do in these industires? The second part of the argument makes a rather huge and false picture of Europe as if entire Eurpoe speak English-only. Workers in Europe speak a multitude of Langauges. Europe is as multilingual a continent as any other continent in the world. It is not English-only. There are two more important words in the argument which needs to be unpacked: our and we. The use of plural pronouns are very well known for their covering up mechanism though you have hinted in your post on the social actors these seem to hide. Who do we mean by our people we?

    Thanks once again for allowing me to see how change in policy is initiated and how rhetorics help people achieve or win their battle on weak arguments!

  • Motoko Sugano says:

    Good-bye Uniqlo!
    When I read this news elsewhere in Japanese, I made a little resistance act: I threw all of my Uniqlo clothes away (except the pair of black skinny pants … ) and decided never to buy anything from that brand. I always felt guilty buying clothes at Uniqlo shops — I mean whos behind cheap clothes? Now the company is cutting more costs by introducing monolingual corporate language policy. Lets keep our eyes on how the company evaluate the employees English competency.

  • Do you think the fear aspect is what is holding people back? The only way to really become proficient in a language is to use it. Japanese people, in general, can already read and write in English. What is the last hurdle? Speaking. And with that one thing I have noticed is confidence. More than anything else the thing that separates the good English speakers for the poor ones, is the level confidence.

    This is a more charged question, What is the confidence level of Japanese people, in general when it comes to languages, or other areas of culture and life?

    Peace

Leave a Reply