Who Signs the Audit

Every Japanese annual securities report names its auditor, and most of them say how long the relationship has lasted. The sentence sits in 第４ 提出会社の状況, in the corporate governance part, under the heading 監査の状況, audit status, and the item 会計監査の状況, the status of the accounting audit: the firm's name, the 継続監査期間, the continuous audit period, the partners who signed, the size of the team, and, within the next few pages, a two-year table of what the firm was paid. In the June 2026 reports of thirty-five of the largest filers, four firms hold every appointment: 有限責任あずさ監査法人, the firm the reports place in the KPMG network, signs 12; 有限責任監査法人トーマツ, placed in the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu network, signs 11; EY新日本有限責任監査法人, placed with Ernst & Young, signs 7; and PwC Japan有限責任監査法人, placed with プライスウォーターハウスクーパース, signs 5. The period is printed in two forms that do not convert into each other: 15 companies print a number of years, from Mitsubishi Corporation's 73年間 to SMC's ３年間, and 20 print a starting year, from Shin-Etsu Chemical's 1951年以降 to FUJIFILM Holdings' 2016年以降. Toyota prints 2006年以降 and a lineage back to a 1982 merger; Sony Group prints 遅くとも1961年以降, at the latest since 1961, counting the network; Hitachi prints a chain of five firm names beginning in 1970; Keyence prints 1987年以降; Nintendo prints 1962 and adds that this is confirmed to the extent it could be investigated.

The item follows a template, and most filers letter or number its parts: a. 監査法人の名称, the firm's name; b. 継続監査期間, the period; c. 業務を執行した公認会計士, the certified public accountants who executed the work; d. 監査業務に係る補助者の構成, the composition of assistants; e. 監査法人の選定方針と理由, the policy and reason for selection; and f. the evaluation of the firm by the audit committee or board of corporate auditors. Immediately after it comes 監査報酬の内容等, the content of audit fees: a table with two years across and two rows down, 提出会社 for the filing company and 連結子会社 for consolidated subsidiaries, a row Kyocera labels 連結子会社等 and notes as including non-consolidated subsidiaries, each split into 監査証明業務に基づく報酬, fees for audit certification work, and 非監査業務に基づく報酬, fees for non-audit work, in millions of yen; and in most reports a second table with the same shape for organisations in the same network as the auditor. The wording moves from company to company. Hitachi heads its item 会計監査人の名称, using the Companies Act term for the accounting auditor rather than 監査法人; Honda runs the whole thing as prose under ＜会計監査＞; Nippon Steel heads it 会計監査人の状況; NTT and Tokyo Electron put the period inside a sentence rather than after a letter. The reader who wants one line — who, since when, for how much — has to find it in each company's own layout.

This desk read the item in seventy reports, the June 2026 and June 2025 annual securities reports of the same thirty-five companies, from the heading 会計監査の状況 or its equivalent to the end of the fee tables, and transcribed the firm, the period sentence as printed, and the first fee table as printed. The prior-year column of every June 2026 table was compared with the current-year column of the same company's June 2025 table, and the two agree in all thirty-five cases; where a company's two rows differ from its printed total by one million yen, which happens in a number of tables through rounding to the million, the printed total is used. Apart from the desk's own tallies of companies and the reference conversions to US dollars, nothing in this piece is computed: a period printed as a starting year is left as a starting year, a period printed as a count of years is left as a count, and where one company's fee is described as higher or lower than the year before, that is a comparison of two printed figures. Firm names are given in the Japanese form the reports print, with full-width Latin letters normalised, and each firm's network is the one the report names in the heading of its second fee table, or, where that heading refers only to organisations in the same network without naming it, as Nintendo's does, the network the firm's own name carries. Yen figures are converted to US dollars at ¥163.8 = US$1 for reference only.

Toyota's item, on pages 110 and 111, opens with a line saying that what follows includes the state of the audit before the company's move to a company with an audit and supervisory committee, and names PwC Japan有限責任監査法人. Under b. 継続監査期間 it prints 2006年以降, since 2006, and then a table of who audited the company after the July 1982 merger with Toyota Motor Sales: 監査法人伊東会計事務所 to the fiscal year ended March 2000, and 中央青山監査法人 from the fiscal year ended March 2001 to the fiscal year ended March 2006. Three notes follow: the Ito firm merged into 中央青山 on 1 January 2001; 中央青山 belonged to the same network as ＰｗＣあらた有限責任監査法人; and ＰｗＣあらた merged with ＰｗＣ京都監査法人 on 1 December 2023, changing its name to ＰｗＣＪａｐａｎ有限責任監査法人. Four partners are named, and the team behind them is 公認会計士55名, 55 certified public accountants, 公認会計士試験合格者等30名, 30 who have passed the examination, and その他73名, 73 others. The fee table prints ¥1,107 million (US$6.8 million) of audit certification fees for the filing company, ¥1,279 million (US$7.8 million) for consolidated subsidiaries and a total of ¥2,386 million (US$14.6 million) for the year ended March 2026, against ¥2,438 million (US$14.9 million) a year earlier; non-audit fees to the auditor are ¥21 million (US$0.13 million) against ¥19 million (US$0.12 million). The second table, for the プライスウォーターハウスクーパース network excluding the auditor itself, prints ¥6,394 million (US$39.0 million) of audit certification fees and ¥634 million (US$3.9 million) of non-audit fees, against ¥6,341 million (US$38.7 million) and ¥628 million (US$3.8 million), almost all of it under the subsidiaries row.

Sony Group's item, on pages 103 and 104, is written as prose and separates two dates. The first sentence says the company has had an audit contract with PwC Japan有限責任監査法人 since 2007. The line headed 継続監査期間 then reads 遅くとも1961年以降（同一のネットワークに属する組織等に係る期間を含む）: at the latest since 1961, including the period attributable to organisations belonging to the same network. Four partners are listed, each with an asterisk, and the note says the number of consecutive years of audit-related work is not stated because it is within seven years; the assistants are 公認会計士37名, 37 certified public accountants, and その他136名, 136 others. The fee table prints ¥2,457 million (US$15.0 million) of audit certification fees in total for fiscal 2025, of which ¥696 million (US$4.2 million) is for the filing company, against ¥2,278 million (US$13.9 million) a year earlier; non-audit fees to the auditor are ¥81 million (US$0.49 million) against ¥107 million (US$0.65 million). The network table prints ¥4,292 million (US$26.2 million) of audit certification fees and ¥309 million (US$1.9 million) of non-audit fees, against ¥3,987 million (US$24.3 million) and ¥569 million (US$3.5 million), with dashes on the filing-company row in both years. The paragraph on fee policy says that fees for audit and non-audit work are decided after the audit committee's prior consent, to preserve the auditor's independence.

Hitachi's item, on pages 94 and 95, prints under （ロ）継続監査期間 not a number but a history: from 1970 the audit was performed by 公認会計士深瀬会計事務所; in 1971 by 武蔵監査法人, founded by Fukase and others; in 1986 by センチュリー監査法人, formed by merging 武蔵; in 2000 by 監査法人太田昭和センチュリー, formed by merging センチュリー; and now by EY新日本有限責任監査法人, the same firm under its changed name. A further sentence says that since 2003, when the auditor's network affiliation changed to Ernst & Young, the group has unified its auditors worldwide, overseas subsidiaries included, on EY. The item also describes partner rotation: engagement partners do not serve more than seven consecutive accounting periods and the lead partner not more than five; a partner who has served seven periods takes a five-period interval before returning, and a lead partner who has served five does not return. Four partners are named, supported by 32 certified public accountants and 82 other staff of the firm. The fee table prints ¥666 million (US$4.1 million) of audit certification fees for the filing company and ¥566 million (US$3.5 million) for subsidiaries, a total of ¥1,232 million (US$7.5 million) against ¥1,035 million (US$6.3 million); the non-audit column reads ¥34 million (US$0.21 million) for the filing company, noted as mainly consulting and assurance work, and ¥7 million (US$0.04 million) for subsidiaries, noted as mainly assurance work, a total of ¥41 million (US$0.25 million) against ¥43 million (US$0.26 million). The second table, headed for EY and its group, prints ¥5,923 million (US$36.2 million) of audit certification fees and ¥738 million (US$4.5 million) of non-audit fees, against ¥5,788 million (US$35.3 million) and ¥974 million (US$5.9 million).

Keyence's item, on pages 27 and 28, is the shortest of the five. Under イ 監査法人の名称 it says 有限責任監査法人トーマツ has been appointed as auditor under an audit contract covering the Companies Act and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act; under ロ 継続監査期間 it prints 1987年以降, since 1987. Two partners are named; the assistants are 公認会計士11名, 11 certified public accountants, and その他16名, 16 others. The fee table prints ¥37 million (US$0.23 million) of audit certification fees for the filing company, dashes on the subsidiaries row and in both non-audit columns, against ¥34 million (US$0.21 million) the year before — the smallest audit fee total among the thirty-five. The second table, for organisations in the デロイトトウシュトーマツグループ, prints ¥13 million (US$0.08 million) of audit certification fees and ¥134 million (US$0.82 million) of non-audit fees, against ¥11 million (US$0.07 million) and ¥132 million (US$0.81 million), and a note says the non-audit work for the company and its subsidiaries is mainly tax-related.

Nintendo's item, on pages 37 and 38, puts the period in its first sentence: the company has confirmed, to the extent it could investigate, that it has had an audit contract with ＰｗＣＪａｐａｎ有限責任監査法人, at that time the 宮村久治事務所, since 1962, for audits under the Companies Act and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. Three partners are named, of whom one, 西村祐介, also appears in the June 2025 report, which named 鍵圭一郎 and 浦上卓也 alongside him; the assistants are 公認会計士4名, 4 certified public accountants, and その他23名, 23 others, described as exam-passers and systems audit staff. The fee table prints ¥104 million (US$0.63 million) of audit certification fees for the filing company and ¥19 million (US$0.12 million) for subsidiaries, a total of ¥124 million (US$0.76 million) against ¥120 million (US$0.73 million), and a non-audit fee of ¥2 million (US$0.01 million) where the prior year printed a dash; the note says the non-audit work was the preparation of a comfort letter for the secondary offering of the company's common shares. The network table prints ¥429 million (US$2.6 million) of audit certification fees and ¥99 million (US$0.60 million) of non-audit fees, against ¥385 million (US$2.4 million) and ¥95 million (US$0.58 million). The June 2025 report carried, on page 44, an item headed 監査法人の異動, change of audit firm: the 83rd fiscal year was audited by ＰｗＣ京都監査法人 and the 84th by ＰｗＣＪａｐａｎ有限責任監査法人, because on 1 December 2023 the Kyoto firm merged into ＰｗＣあらた有限責任監査法人, which changed its name the same day. The June 2026 report no longer carries the item; the 1962 sentence names the successor firm.

The 15 companies that print a number of years are, in descending order: Mitsubishi Corporation 73年間; Denso 58年; ITOCHU 58年, with the span spelled out as 1969年３月期〜2026年３月期, the fiscal year ended March 1969 to the fiscal year ended March 2026; Daikin 56年７ヵ月, 56 years and 7 months; Mitsui & Co. 53年間; Oriental Land 39年間; KDDI 34年間; Panasonic Holdings 23年間; Honda 21年 and Daiichi Sankyo 21年間; SoftBank Group 20年間 and Nippon Steel 20年間; Takeda 19年間; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries ９年間; and SMC ３年間. In every one of the fifteen, the June 2025 report of the same company prints a figure one year smaller — 72年間, 57年, 57年, 55年７ヵ月, 52年間 and so on down to 8年間 and ２年間 — and names the same firm. Honda defines its number: the period is the one for which the current auditor has continuously audited the consolidated and separate financial statements in the company's annual securities report, and a separate sentence says the firm's network, KPMG, has audited the company for its US SEC registration since 1962. Mitsui & Co. adds a sentence of policy under the firm's name, that as a rule it unifies its audit engagements on Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu for the speed and reliability of consolidated closing.

The 20 companies that print a starting year run from Shin-Etsu Chemical's 1951年以降 through Murata Manufacturing's 1968年以降, Kyocera's 1970年3月期以降, FANUC's 1975年以降, Recruit Holdings' 1984年以降, NTT's 1985, and the three 1987s of Keyence, East Japan Railway and Central Japan Railway, the last printed as 1987年４月以降, to the newer relationships: Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group 2002, Mizuho Financial Group 2003, Tokyo Electron 2005年3月期以降, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group 2005, Toyota 2006, HOYA 2009年３月期以降 and FUJIFILM Holdings 2016年以降. Kyocera explains its year in two steps: the contract with 京都監査法人, now PwC Japan有限責任監査法人, dates from the fiscal year ended March 2008, but the firm's substantive predecessor, the Kyoto office of 監査法人中央会計事務所, has been under contract since the fiscal year ended March 1970, so the period is printed from that date. The three bank holding companies each print their own founding year and then a note reaching back to 1976: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group writes that 株式会社三菱銀行 contracted with トーマツ, then 監査法人西方会計士事務所, in 1976; Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group writes that 株式会社住友銀行 contracted with 監査法人朝日会計社, a predecessor of あずさ, from 1976; and Mizuho Financial Group writes that 株式会社第一勧業銀行 and 株式会社富士銀行 contracted in 1976 with the firms that became EY新日本, then 監査法人第一監査事務所 and 監査法人太田哲三事務所.

5 of the thirty-five qualify their period in the sentence itself. KDDI prints 34年間 and a note that the period was investigated by reference to the time of its stock listing because a fuller investigation was extremely difficult, so that the period may exceed it. Oriental Land prints 39年間 and the same reason, counting from its 28th fiscal year, when 監査法人朝日新和会計社, one of the predecessors of あずさ, was appointed, and says the actual period may be longer. Advantest prints that EY新日本 has audited it since fiscal 1983, when it listed on the Second Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, that investigation before then is extremely difficult, and that the period may therefore exceed the years stated. Nintendo's 1962 is confirmed 調査可能な範囲で, to the extent investigable; Sony Group's 1961 is prefaced by 遅くとも, at the latest. In the text extracted here, none of the thirty-five uses the word 不明, unknown, for the period; the companies that cannot fix the date say so in a sentence of their own. Tokyo Electron's page shows that the same heading can carry two meanings: its firm-level relationship is given in prose as an audit contract with あずさ since the fiscal year ended March 2005, while its table of partners has a column headed 継続監査期間 that prints 1年, 1年 and 3年 against the three names.

The fee tables give a second axis. Taking the total row of 監査証明業務に基づく報酬 to the auditor for the year ended March 2026, the five largest are SoftBank Group ¥5,995 million (US$36.6 million), Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group ¥5,587 million (US$34.1 million), Mizuho Financial Group ¥4,401 million (US$26.9 million), Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group ¥4,280 million (US$26.1 million) and NTT ¥3,603 million (US$22.0 million); the five smallest are Keyence ¥37 million (US$0.23 million), FANUC ¥48 million (US$0.29 million), Oriental Land ¥105 million (US$0.64 million), SMC ¥117 million (US$0.71 million) and Nintendo ¥124 million (US$0.76 million). Against the prior-year column, 27 totals are higher, 7 are lower — Toyota, Tokyo Electron, Denso, Mitsubishi Corporation, HOYA, Panasonic Holdings and Takeda — and Murata Manufacturing's is the same, ¥278 million (US$1.7 million) in both years. Takeda's table, headed 前年度 and 当年度 rather than by consolidated fiscal year, prints ¥2,382 million (US$14.5 million) and ¥1,690 million (US$10.3 million), both on the filing-company row with dashes for subsidiaries; KDDI's prints ¥1,232 million (US$7.5 million) and ¥1,644 million (US$10.0 million). SoftBank Group's non-audit column moves from ¥253 million (US$1.5 million) to ¥914 million (US$5.6 million), and the text under the table says the filing company's non-audit work in the year was the preparation of comfort letters for bond issues and support for preparing to apply the SSBJ standards, with the subsidiaries' work mainly comfort letters and advice on the reliability of non-financial information.

The second table, for the network excluding the auditor, prints a larger audit certification total than the first in twenty of the thirty-five reports. Toyota prints ¥6,394 million (US$39.0 million) of audit certification fees to the プライスウォーターハウスクーパース network beside ¥2,386 million (US$14.6 million) to the auditor; Hitachi ¥5,923 million (US$36.2 million) to EY beside ¥1,232 million (US$7.5 million); Honda ¥4,918 million (US$30.0 million) to KPMG beside ¥1,281 million (US$7.8 million); Sony Group ¥4,292 million (US$26.2 million) beside ¥2,457 million (US$15.0 million); Kyocera ¥2,294 million (US$14.0 million) to PricewaterhouseCoopers beside ¥431 million (US$2.6 million). In each of these the network's fee sits on the subsidiaries row, and the filing-company row of the network table reads a dash for audit certification work. Mitsubishi Corporation introduces its second table with a sentence saying that the company and its consolidated subsidiaries commission audit certification and non-audit work from corporations belonging to the same network as its auditor, and prints ¥4,312 million (US$26.3 million) of audit certification fees there against ¥2,573 million (US$15.7 million) to the auditor. What the two tables together separate is the fee paid to the Japanese firm that signs the opinion from the fee paid to other organisations in its network, as each company classifies them; the tables do not say where or on what the network's work was done.

The partners' own tenure is printed in three styles. Kyocera prints 継続監査年数 beside each of its three partners, 5年, 3年 and 1年; KDDI prints ３年, ５年, ３年 and １年 in parentheses after four names; Takeda prints ２年, １年 and ６年; Shin-Etsu Chemical prints ６年, ３年 and ４年 in a table. A second group prints a sentence instead of numbers: Sony Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group and FUJIFILM Holdings say the years are omitted because all are within seven; FANUC's note says the continuous years are seven or fewer; ITOCHU says all partners are within the statutory limit; Nippon Steel says its three partners' continuous years are within seven. A third group describes the rotation rule rather than the individuals: Denso, Mitsui & Co., Murata Manufacturing, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Hitachi, East Japan Railway and Advantest each print that the lead partner does not serve beyond five consecutive periods and other partners beyond seven. The firm may have been there for fifty years; the people signing are on a clock the reports also print.

Read across the thirty-five, the item answers three questions with the company's own words: which of four firms signs, how long the company itself dates the relationship and in what form, and what the firm and its network were paid in each of the last two years. It does not answer a fourth — how long the relationship has lasted on a single definition — because the reports do not share one: Honda counts the years the current firm has audited the annual securities report; Sony Group counts the network; Kyocera counts a predecessor office; Toyota counts from a name it lists as beginning in 2006 while printing the firms before it; and five companies qualify the figure in the sentence that carries it. For a reader who needs the firm and the date for a given company, the page reference is the fastest route: the item is at or near the page numbers given in the sources below, in every case a few pages before 役員の報酬等, the directors' remuneration item that follows it.