ホーム
/ インサイト
/ 記事
/ The Three Models of Asian Shareholder Activism

The Three Models of Asian Shareholder Activism

Until recently, the prevailing view in Asian boardrooms held that shareholder activism was primarily a Western phenomenon. But in 2026, an increasing number of foreign investors and shareholder-friendly regulatory reforms have shifted that perspective. The Asian activist landscape has not only expanded but also evolved into three distinct markets, each driven by unique financial and regulatory catalysts.

For corporate leaders, the challenge is no longer just about managing campaign volume. It is about understanding the specific legal, cultural and regulatory nature of activist pressure. According to Diligent Market Intelligence, globally, CEO turnover within 12 months of an activist campaign nearly tripled from 2023 to 2024.¹ In Asia, where stability is highly valued, this metric underscores the need for preparedness.

The modern governance playbook requires a tailored approach, one that recognizes that activism in Tokyo is motivated by fundamentally different reasons from activism in Seoul or Singapore.

Japan: The Focus on Capital Efficiency

Japan remains the most active market in the region, defined by a significant increase in campaign volume. According to Diligent Market Intelligence, Japan saw a record 108 activist campaigns in the 2025 season — a 74% increase since 2018.²

The Tokyo Stock Exchange’s 2023 directive urging management to be “conscious of cost of capital and stock price” created a clear framework for activist engagement.³ Consequently, companies trading below a 1.0x Price-to-Book (“P/B”) ratio face heightened scrutiny from emboldened activists.

The standoff at Seven & i Holdings, when the company’s Board was forced to weigh a hostile Canadian buyout against a domestic privatization plan, illustrated the new reality: under Japan’s modern M&A Guidelines, protecting management has ceased to be a valid defense against a superior price.⁴

Because political defenses are fading, the battlefield has shifted entirely to the financial. Investors are focused on balance sheet efficiency and capital allocation. Organizations can prepare with a financial vulnerability assessment to rigorously evaluate whether the current corporate structure delivers optimal value compared to alternative strategies proposed by shareholders.

South Korea: The Alignment of Policy and Governance

While Japan is defined by the sheer volume of new campaigns, South Korea is experiencing a surge in activity driven by a unique “pincer movement” where regulatory policy and activist interests have perfectly aligned. The market recorded 78 public campaigns in 2024, a notable increase that signals a fundamental shift in how Korean companies are policed.⁵

This rise is not random; it is the direct result of the government’s crackdown on the “Korea Discount” — the persistent undervaluation of Korean firms caused by complex conglomerate structures, low dividend payouts and governance that has historically favored controlling families over minority shareholders.⁶

The primary engine of this change is the government’s “Corporate Value-Up Program,” which has effectively deputized investors to enforce national policy.⁷ The state has a critical economic imperative for this program: with a rapidly aging population, the National Pension Service (“NPS”) requires higher equity returns to remain solvent.⁸ Consequently, the government needs stock prices to rise. This creates a powerful convergence of interests where an activist’s demand for higher Return on Equity (“ROE”) or the cancellation of treasury shares is not seen viewed as foreign interference, but as a form of patriotic alignment with the Financial Services Commission’s (“FSC”) agenda.

For boards, this alignment creates a dangerous new reality. They now face a dual imperative: they must meet the regulatory expectation to publish robust “Value-Up” plans while simultaneously managing shareholder demands for immediate returns. The only effective defense in this environment is governance modernization — a strategic pivot from a family-centric management style to a shareholder-first capital policy. Companies that fail to proactively disclose their plans to enhance capital efficiency risk becoming targets not just of private funds, but of regulatory pressure, leaving them with few allies in a dispute.

Singapore: The Rise of “Crisis Activism”

In Singapore, the rules of activist engagement are dictated by simple math. Unlike in the United States, many listed companies here are majority-owned by a single family or a state-linked entity, meaning the “insiders” often hold more than 50% of the votes.⁹ Consequently, a standard activist campaign to fire the CEO is usually mathematically impossible because the controlling family will simply vote to keep themselves in power.

Because of this structural “blocker,” activists have moved away from general popularity contests. Instead, a distinct new trend has emerged where investors target specific moments of failure — operational crises, debt defaults or lowball offers — where the board loses the moral authority to lead and the “insider” math stops protecting them.

The most potent evidence of this shift occurred in May 2024 with the Cordlife Group boardroom revolt. Following the Ministry of Health’s exposure that the company had mishandled storage tanks and damaged client cord blood units, substantial shareholder Nanjing Xinjiekou argued that the issue was a fundamental breach of directorial duty rather than a mere accident.¹⁰ By weaponizing this specific operational failure, they successfully rallied enough support to vote out the acting Chairman and independent directors, proving that an operational crisis can now be fatal to a Board’s tenure.¹¹

The collective lesson for boards is that the era of the passive Singaporean shareholder is effectively over. This aggression is part of a broader pattern; investors are not waiting for regulators to punish bad management. They are doing it themselves.¹² If a company faces a debt crisis or an operational crisis (like Cordlife), it is now immediately vulnerable to a regime change campaign.

Integrated Preparedness: The “Simulation” Standard

Whether addressing capital efficiency in Tokyo, policy alignment in Seoul or crises in Singapore, the common denominator is the need for more robust coordination. A recent industry survey revealed that 65% of public directors view their boards as prepared for activism, and more than 60% have taken specific actions to prepare for potential activist engagement.¹³

Leading boards are increasingly utilizing Simulation Workshops (often called “War Games”) to test their readiness. These exercises — simulating the first 48 hours of a campaign — allow management teams to refine their decision-making protocols across the legal, finance and communications functions before a live scenario emerges.

Ultimately, the most resilient companies are those that integrate strategic communications with corporate finance expertise, treating governance as a continuous strategic dialogue with the market, rather than a compliance checklist.

Footnotes:

1: “The Shareholder Activism Annual Review 2025,” Diligent (February 18, 2025).

2: “Shareholder Activism in Asia Reaches Record High, Driving Corporate Governance Reforms, According to Diligent,” Diligent (May 27, 2025).

3: “Action to Implement Management that is Conscious of Cost of Capital and Stock Price,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (March 31, 2023).

4: “Couche-Tard scraps $46 billion bid for Japan’s Seven & i,” Reuters (July 17, 2025).

5: “Shareholder Activism in Asia Reaches Record High, Driving Corporate Governance Reforms, According to Diligent,” Diligent (May 27, 2025)

6: Lee, Jihoon and Park, Ju-min, “S.Korea unveils reform steps to tackle ‘Korea discount’; traders not convinced,” Reuters (February 26, 2024).

7: “Capital Market Reform,” Republic of Korea Financial Services Commission (August 1, 2024).

8: Ji-hye, Jun, “Concerns grow over sustainability of national pension fund amid decreasing subscribers,” The Korea Times (February 9, 2025).

9: Lan, Luh Luh, “Corporate Governance in Singapore – The Road Thus Far,” European Corporate Governance Institute (February 2023).

10: Lim, Jessie, “Nanjing Xinjiekou seeks shareholders’ support at AGM to emerge from ‘darkest chapter’ in Cordlife’s history,” The Straits Times (May 9, 2024).

11: Cheah, Megan, “Cordlife shareholders vote to remove 3 directors, including co-founder Ho Choon Hou, from board,” The Business Times (May 14, 2024).