[Retirement Age Extension, Time to Choose] Fast-Changing Sectors Like Semiconductors and Automobiles Oppose... Finance and Construction Support

75% of Semiconductor Firms and 62% of Automotive Companies
Say "Continued Employment" Is Not Necessary
Emphasis on Technological Adaptability and Flexibility in Restructuring
84% of Finance and 63% of Construction Companies Support Extension
Belief That It Enhances Organizational Continuity and Stability

The proposal to extend the retirement age to 65 has elicited sharply divided opinions in the business community, depending on the industry. In manufacturing sectors such as semiconductors, automobiles, and steel, many companies responded cautiously to the introduction of the system, citing the rapid pace of technological change and the need to maintain productivity. In contrast, in industries such as finance, construction, and logistics, there was a predominance of support, with emphasis placed on the experience and stability provided by skilled workers. These responses reflect the belief that adaptability to technology and organizational dynamism should take precedence over simply retaining older workers.

According to a survey commissioned by Asia Economy and conducted by the market research firm Mono Research, which polled 101 out of the top 500 domestic companies by sales from April 24 to 29, there was a stark contrast in responses between manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors regarding the "Retirement Age Extension (65) Corporate Status and System Demand Survey." The workforce structure by industry and the capacity to adapt to technological changes appear to be the main variables influencing attitudes toward extending the retirement age.

By industry, there was significant opposition to extending the retirement age, particularly in heavy and chemical industries. In the semiconductor sector, 75.0% of companies responded that continued employment was "not necessary." In the automobile sector, 62.5% of companies gave the same response. In the steel and shipbuilding sectors, more than half (60.0%) of companies expressed a negative stance. In the electrical, electronics, and battery sectors, 58.3% were also opposed. In the petrochemical and chemical products sectors, 57.1% said it was not necessary, far exceeding the overall average of 39.6%.

The reasons varied. Among semiconductor companies, 66.7% cited "personnel bottlenecks and stagnation in job ranks" as the reason for their opposition. In the automobile sector, 50.0% pointed to "reduced capacity to hire new young employees." Similarly, 40.0% of steel and shipbuilding companies cited the same reason for their opposition.

These industries, facing rapid technological change, appear to be concerned that if older workers remain in the organization for extended periods, structural problems such as blocked personnel flows and difficulties in hiring new employees may arise. A representative from the semiconductor industry stated, "In the semiconductor and automobile sectors, the rapid pace of technological change and the highly automated nature of these industries make it inevitable to be cautious about extending the retirement age. While we recognize the skill level of older workers, we cannot overlook the greater importance of adaptability to technology and flexibility in structural reforms."

On the other hand, industries supporting the extension of the retirement age also showed clear characteristics. In the finance sector, 84.2% of the 19 respondent companies said that extending the retirement age was necessary. High proportions of companies in leasing, wholesale, and logistics (80.0%), construction (63.6%), and information and communications (66.7%) also saw it as necessary.

These industries share the common feature of relatively lower physical labor demands and a high proportion of experience-based roles, such as risk management, asset management, and internal control. The responses appear to stem from the belief that continued employment of older workers enhances organizational continuity and stability.

The most frequently cited reason among companies supporting the extension was "maintaining the skill level of older workers" (41.0%). This was followed by "continued demand for personnel in specific job areas" (19.7%) and "the possibility of technology transfer within the organization" (18.0%). Notably, in the finance sector, more than half of the companies (56.3%) cited "maintaining the skill level of older workers" as the main reason. A financial industry representative commented, "Even with a set retirement age, many employees already take early retirement around age 55. If the retirement age is extended, there is hope that skilled workers can be utilized for a longer period." He added, "There are many roles based on experience, such as credit screening, auditing, and risk management, so skilled workers have more opportunities to contribute to the organization than in manufacturing."

In practice, it remains common for companies to process retirements immediately upon reaching the age of 60. According to the survey, 58.4% of respondent companies said they "process retirement without separate reemployment after the retirement age." Only 35.6% rehire employees as contract (or special contract) workers for a certain period after age 60. Just 3.0% operate with a retirement age above 60, and only 1.0% of companies have no set retirement age at all.

In open-ended responses, there were repeated opinions that "reemployment after retirement should be left to individual discretion" and "should be managed in the form of consulting or on a project basis," reflecting the cautious approach companies are taking toward employing older workers.