Below is the English translation of the article:
“【IR投資関係者必読】パーソルHiProで、責任者解任／サービス廃止が予想されます”
originally published on April 13, 2025 by Inclusive Solutions LLC.
This English version is intended for overseas readers, including international investors, members of the PERSOL Group, and individuals involved in HR and compliance.
If you find any mistranslations or inaccuracies, please contact us.
The Japanese original is below:
This article was originally published on April 13, 2025, when Inclusive Solutions LLC reported the HiPro issue as an IR-related problem earlier than any mass media outlet in Japan. After this point, because the legal and public-relations divisions of PERSOL Group and PERSOL CAREER continued their silence, the HiPro issue developed into a social scandal.
This article is the first document that defined the HiPro issue as an IR problem and predicted that PERSOL CAREER would internally try to end the matter by replacing responsible persons or discontinuing the service. At that time, no mass media recognized the seriousness of the HiPro issue. For this reason, we consider this article to have high historical value when looking back at the history of Japan’s human-resources industry. We therefore keep it here and continue to make it publicly available.
— When neither PR staff nor lawyers showed their names, and all “responsible persons” disappeared —
In the spring of 2025, suspicions surrounding PERSOL CAREER CO., LTD., one of Japan’s major HR service companies, were published through our company’s public information site. These articles rapidly spread and dominated search engine results. When searching keywords such as “Teppei Nomura,” “PERSOL CAREER suspicion,” or “HiProTech統括部,” our company’s whistleblowing articles appeared at the top of Google’s organic search results, even though these articles were not official PR statements from the company.
Despite this situation, PERSOL CAREER has not issued any rebuttal.
More precisely, the first reaction was a vague deletion request sent from an anonymous sender called “Customer Center.” After that, this “Customer Center” left only the phrase “a lawyer will respond,” then became unreachable. In addition, Mr. Teppei Nomura—the general manager of the HiproTech division—did not reply to our inquiries and suddenly disappeared from the public business scene.
While the company’s reputation continues to worsen in search results and on social media, why does the company remain silent? And why is this issue expected to reach the level of “dismissal of responsible executives” or “withdrawal of the service”?
In this article, we analyze the structural reasons why PERSOL CAREER cannot provide even one rebuttal, based on facts, timelines, and evidence. We also explain why this situation is directly connected to IR risk and reputational risk.
The Abnormality of PERSOL Providing “No Rebuttal At All”
1. Collapse of the Decision-Making Process
Inside the company, the understanding between senior management and on-site staff is not aligned. The involvement of lawyers is unclear, and no person in charge of negotiation has been clearly indicated. Even after several weeks have passed since the initial whistleblowing, the company has not established any official legal opinion or external communication process. From this significant delay, it is possible to read that the company’s internal decision-making is not functioning properly.
2. Abandonment of Social Credibility (Dominance of Search Results)
For search terms such as “PERSOL CAREER suspicion” and “Teppei Nomura,” a third-party whistleblowing site dominates the top organic search results. Because the company has not released any rebuttal article or sincere apology, the company is in a situation of complete defeat in the “public sphere” of search results.
3. Maximization of Personal Responsibility Risk and Concealment Behavior
After the project was suspended, the agent engaged in actions similar to “non-lawyer legal activity,” such as intervening in contracts, calculating work volume, or negotiating price reductions. However, the company has not presented any official opinion. Since no responsible person has shown their name, the only crisis response the company has taken is that an anonymous “Customer Center” claimed there was “no illegality.” This suggests the possibility that the company is avoiding formal responsibility and relying only on anonymous communication.
※ For details regarding PERSOL’s silence, which should be called “abnormal,” please refer to the related articles listed below.
Hypotheses on Why PERSOL Provides “No Rebuttal”
There are several strong hypotheses explaining why PERSOL does not attempt any rebuttal to our claims. These hypotheses are limited to organizational dynamics and internal politics inside PERSOL, and in any case, they run against public values such as ESG management.
Reason 1: The internal decision-making process is completely broken
Our public questions have been sent to multiple contact points (legal division, public relations division, and the customer center). We have clearly stated the names of responsible persons and deadlines for replies. Nevertheless, the company has not provided even one sentence of rebuttal.
This indicates not simply the “intention not to answer,” but the possibility of the following:
- The company has not decided who should answer.
- Senior management and on-site responsible persons do not share the same understanding.
- Even the opinions of outside lawyers (legal counsel) cannot be managed internally.
In other words, a “death of decision-making” may be taking place. It is highly possible that responsible persons hesitate to provide any official explanation because once someone answers formally, that person becomes responsible. This structural situation is considered one of the main reasons why the silence continues.
Reason 2: “They cannot deny the facts” = “There is no room for rebuttal”
Most of the arguments we have presented are based on:
- Email transmission records
- The fact of unanswered communication
- Deletion requests from individuals who did not show their name
To rebut these points, the company would need:
- Clear chronological documentation
- Official written statements
- Lawyer-reviewed responses
If the company tries to rebut without preparing these, new contradictions may be exposed. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that they are unable to rebut because they cannot deny the factual basis.
Reason 3: The organization understands that “any rebuttal will make the situation worse”
As of April 2025, our whistleblowing articles are displayed at the top of Google search results for keywords such as “Teppei Nomura PERSOL” and “HiproTech suspicion.”
If the company submits a rebuttal, the following may happen:
- We will publish additional articles with counterarguments
- Search results will again shift in our favor
- The names of company accounts or responsible persons will spread online
Because of these three risks, “doing nothing” may be considered the company’s maximum damage control.
Message to Investors and Media Professionals
If PERSOL CAREER conducts a “brand change,” “organizational restructuring,” “business transfer,” or “reassignment of responsible persons” for the HiProTech service, these actions may represent a “closure of the issue through structural change,” reflecting the reality of “loss of control over search results and loss of social credibility.”
If these actions occur, they may not be simple “problem solving,” but rather possible signs of “concealing evidence.” Therefore, media professionals, shareholders, and audit bodies should persistently ask:
- When and where was the governance judgment inside the company made?
- Did the legal counsel really exist, and did they properly participate?
- Why did no one take responsibility and respond to specific accusations by name?
It is necessary to continue raising these questions repeatedly.
**[Added on May 24, 2025]The Sudden Appearance of Yojiro Kaburagi — A Possible Signal of “Closing the Issue Through a Structural Change”?**
A little more than one month after this article was published on April 13, a small event occurred that may support our earlier concerns. According to the announcement released by PERSOL CAREER on May 22, Yoijiro Kaburagi—the person responsible for the entire HiPro service—“has concurrently assumed the role of heading the Agent Service Division since April 2025.”
While Mr. Teppei Nomura, who is at the center of the suspicion, remains silent and unreachable, there are traces of internal handling that appear unnatural. We had already warned more than a month earlier that such internal movements could represent not “firefighting,” but possible “removal of evidence.”
A detailed summary of suspicions relating to Mr. Kaburagi can be found in the related article below.
Realistic Possibilities of Executive Dismissal and Service Termination
Inside PERSOL CAREER, crisis-management tactics such as “responding through lawyers” or “sending deletion requests under the Customer Center name” are no longer effective. Even so, the company continues its abnormal silence, which could be described as “paralysis” or “rigidity.”
Considering:
- The silence and unknown whereabouts of Mr. Teppei Nomura
- The expansion of search-result contamination
- The situation where “no rebuttal is provided while one side’s narrative dominates”
it is highly possible that the company is already considering or implementing internal measures such as:
- Establishment of an investigation committee that only performs “governance performance”
- Gradual downsizing or discontinuation of the HiProTech service (rebranding of the brand)
- Resignation or reassignment of responsible executives
Concerns Regarding the Capability of PERSOL Group’s PR Department
The situation in which whistleblowing content appears earlier and more prominently in search engines than the company’s official information is the worst crisis-management outcome that occurs when an organization neglects communication. In today’s digital environment, the various suspicions displayed publicly through search engines will eventually become training data for AI systems. As a result, they may form a kind of “permanent stigma” that even Google cannot easily remove in the future.
Especially for media organizations, financial institutions, research companies, and other stakeholders, the following points deserve close attention:
- The problem does not appear to be a mistake at the on-site level, but rather the possibility of an organization-wide abandonment of explanatory responsibility
- It may be impossible to confirm or ensure “effectiveness” in governance and compliance
- From the perspective of IR and ESG, there is a suspicion that insufficient disclosure has already become a normal condition inside the company
Further Consideration Based on PERSOL CAREER’s Subsequent Actions
About the New Executive Officers Appointed in April 2025
According to PERSOL CAREER’s public relations announcements, two new executive officers (Ms. Saki Morita and Mr. Atsushi Ishigami) were appointed in April 2025.
It is necessary to observe future developments while considering all possibilities, such as whether these organizational changes were intended to “hide suspicions” or whether they were preparations for restructuring and renewal.
The June 2025 PERSOL Holdings Shareholders’ Meeting Should Also Be Monitored
The main issues related to the HiPro problem at the shareholders’ meeting of PERSOL Holdings are summarized in the article linked below.
Whether the management team of PERSOL Holdings will be able to explain, at the June 2025 shareholders’ meeting, the absence of responses from the legal division, the PR division, and senior management throughout the entire situation is also a point that deserves attention (as of May 18, 2025).
The “Empty Announcement” of the Career SBU
In a situation where the company cannot take any effective actions against these critical management risks, continuing to speak only about visions or future plans may itself be evidence of a lack of practical ability. The announcements from the Career SBU may indicate not that the company has strong strategy or planning capabilities, but rather that “there is nothing else the organization can do besides present idealistic phrases.”
This may suggest that the organization’s functional ability is significantly impaired.
Conclusion: To Media Professionals, IR Staff, and Investors
This article was written from our company’s independent perspective, with the intention of predicting the future of the industry.
However, what this article highlights is a new type of CSR risk in an era where “the dominance of narratives in the search space” has real impact. Avoiding information disclosure may temporarily reduce risk, but in the long term, “silence itself becomes the risk.” This article attempts to offer such a new viewpoint.
In other words, the failure of PERSOL CAREER in this situation indicates the defeat of traditional corporate crisis-response methods such as:
- “Gaining time by making internal processes unclear”
- “Using regulations, legal departments, or lawyers as shields to pressure individual customers or freelancers”
The essence of this matter should be seen as a failure of reputation-risk management in the digital age. Therefore, this issue should not be viewed merely as a problem of the HiProTech service alone. It may influence the reputation of the entire PERSOL Group and, in the mid- to long term, affect the company’s stock price and corporate value.
For media organizations and market participants, it is important to observe closely whether the “personnel changes,” “service integrations,” or “communication responses” that appear on the surface do not hide more fundamental signs of abandoning explanatory responsibility or reorganizing the internal structure.