For Engagement & Stewardship Investors
The grounded, quantified truth behind engagement campaigns.
Japan is the world's most compelling engagement market, and its governance is the hardest for outside capital to see into. ValuuCompass reads every listed company's own filings and scores the gap between what its board says and what it delivers: governance effectiveness, machine-verified, page-cited, and peer-relative.
Why Japan, why now
Governance reform is moving. Visibility isn't.
Regulators, the exchange, and the Stewardship Code are all pushing the same way, but the governance evidence that wins a campaign still sits inside Japanese-language filings most managers can't read at scale.Below-book names, namedThe TSE now calls out companies trading under 1× book and expects a credible capital-efficiency plan. Boards feel the pressure.
Stewardship with teethJapan's Stewardship Code now asks for substance over form, and explicitly welcomes collaborative engagement.
Cross-shareholdings unwindingPolicy shareholdings (政策保有株式) are disclosed, holding by holding, in every securities report. We extract every one.
A disclosure wallThe evidence exists, buried in narrative-heavy, Japanese-language filings that global data vendors flatten into ratings.
The evidence problem
Campaigns are won on evidence. Evidence is expensive, and still gets disputed.
Behind every engagement sits weeks of analyst work per target: segment decomposition, peer benchmarking, governance review. And after all of it, claims built on third-party ratings still get contested in the IR meeting. Evidence from the company's own filings doesn't.Building the case today
Weeks of analyst work per target: segments, peers, governance, frameworks
Claims that rest on third-party ratings management can dismiss
The Japanese filings that would settle the argument sit unread
No baseline between meetings, so outcomes stay anecdotes
Campaigns on ValuuCompass
Target to campaign-ready dossier in minutes, not analyst-weeks
Every claim page-cited to the company's own filings
Demands ordered by winnability, each with a named peer precedent
Re-measured when the next filings publish: outcomes you can show LPs
One platform, one loop
Find the target. Build the case. Run the campaign. Prove the change.
Find the mispriced laggard, open its dossier, send the demands its own filings justify, escalate on a ladder, and verify the change in next year's data. Every stage feeds the next.Originate
Screen the universe for mispriced laggards whose own filings justify a campaign.Build the case
Open the dossier: thesis, peer standing, and page-cited evidence in the company's own words.Engage
Send the demands, escalate on a ladder, and keep the institutional memory as you go.Monitor
News radar and a grounded research assistant keep you ahead between filings.Verify
Next year's filings re-measure the gap. Outcomes become measured deltas, not anecdotes.Originate · Targets
From screen to campaign in one platform
Targets finds undervalued companies whose stakeholder performance the market hasn't priced, and turns each one into an evidence-backed engagement campaign. Strategy presets (Balanced, Deep Value, Governance First) re-weight the screen to your fund's style.The origination grid
Stakeholder-value percentile against profitability. Bottom-right: the credibility-gap quadrant (high profile, low verified delivery) where campaigns earn their keep.
Four lenses on every listed company
MispricingSub-book P/B, EV/EBITDA, FCF yield, return laggards. Every company scored against its GICS industry peers.
Balance-sheet slackNet cash, equity-ratio bloat, under-earning ROE, and cross-shareholdings extracted directly from securities filings.
Governance angleDisclosure, assurance, and governance gaps that are cheap for the company to fix, the winnable asks.
Hidden qualityStrong stakeholder performance the market hasn't paid for. Conviction names, not just targets.
Build the case · The dossier
The first draft of your IC memo and your letter to management
Click a target and the platform assembles the campaign raw material, with verbatim, page-cited quotes from the company's own filings behind its weakest indicators. A demand letter grounded in the company's own words.Engagement thesisSituation, mispricing case, demands ordered by winnability, catalysts, risks, and the re-rating case. Drafted from the data.
Peer standingWhere the company sits against its industry on every indicator and every financial metric, so "lagging" is never a matter of opinion.
The ask listThe specific indicators where the company trails peers most, each with the named best performer already doing it, and the prescribed target.
“Toyota already discloses this.” Every ask ships with the named peer precedent, the argument management can't wave away.
The say-do gap
A governance-effectiveness benchmark, not another ESG score
Every indicator is scored commit → disclose → deliver → verify. When a board commits and discloses but never delivers or verifies, that gap is governance effectiveness, quantified, peer-relative and page-cited. A company cannot disclose its way to a good score, which is exactly why the score holds up.Intent0–1
Commitment
Is there a formal, written commitment? Board-endorsed, with specific targets behind it.Example score1 / 1
Transparency0–3
Disclosure Quality
How complete and transparent is the reporting? From silence, to claims, to calculation-ready data.Example score3 / 3
Outcomes0–10
Execution
Is there measurable evidence of outcomes against the target? Only scored once disclosure is calculation-ready.Example score7 / 10
Trust0–2
Data Assurance
Has it been independently verified? Third-party audit, certified methodology. Only ~10% of claims land here.Example score1 / 2
S1-A3Gender pay-scale equityOne indicator, scored four ways. A single number can paper over a weak spot.
1/1Commitment
3/3Disclosure Quality
7/10Execution
1/2Data Assurance
7.2Overall
“You've committed and disclosed. Value sits at 4/10, assurance at 0/2. That's not an ESG finding, that's a governance finding. And it's the ask.”
Engage · Run the campaign
From demand to delivered, on an escalation ladder
One click turns a demand into a structured campaign: a causal argument an IC can debate in thirty minutes (stated commitment, performance gap, consequence, change lever), each link anchored to scored indicators. Every demand becomes a card on an escalation ladder, from private dialogue through proposal to delivered and verified, with owners, deadlines, and an activity log that becomes institutional memory.From data points to causal impact
N3-A2
Operations Energy ReportingStrongenables
N3-B1
100% Renewables OperationsDevelopingdrives
N1-A2
Carbon NeutralityDevelopingearns
C3-A2
High Customer SatisfactionStrongcompounds into
SH1-A1
Shareholder ValueBusiness valueOwnership & workflow
To do2
N3-B1: 100% Renewables OperationsSign renewable PPAs for remaining facilities
JKDue Aug 12
N1-A2: Carbon NeutralityClose residual emissions with verified offsets
MRDue Sep 02
In progress1
C3-A2: High Customer SatisfactionTie sustainability messaging to the CSAT survey
ALDue Jul 28
Delivered1
N3-A2: Operations Energy ReportingComplete site-level energy audit
JKDue Jun 30
IC memo, private letter, AGM question set, each brief tuned to its reader, with the anticipated pushback attached.
Monitor
Stay ahead between filings
Radar
Configurable news monitoring on every watchlist, urgency-tagged. Emerging controversies and catalysts at your targets surface on their own, no manual checking.Research Assistant
A conversational analyst over the whole dataset (“who increased cross-shareholdings this year?”, “show employee-pillar laggards in autos”), answering from live, cited data, not memory.Verify
The loop no one else closes
The same engine that found the gap re-measures it. When the next filings publish, the new assessment scores whether the demanded change actually happened: campaign cards reach verified only on measured evidence. For LP reporting and Stewardship Code disclosure, engagement outcomes stop being anecdotes and become measured deltas.A target's verified value, through the campaign
Baseline at origination, demands on the ladder, and the re-measured score climbing against the industry, cycle over cycle.
Where say-do gaps end upEvery major blow-up shared one shape: strong commitments, no verification.$40B+ in combined losses from stakeholder-risk failures, and 94% of investors already believe sustainability reports contain unsupported claims. When commitment runs high but delivery and assurance run low, a board is making commitments it can't prove, a governance failure in plain sight. That gap is your campaign agenda.
Pre-crisisCommit.Discl.Exec.Assur.
VW (Nature)HighMedLowNone
Wells Fargo (Customers)HighLowLowNone
DWS (Nature)HighLowNoneNone
Your next target?????
Built for contested rooms