In international construction projects, contracts with construction companies are typically based on standard forms such as FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers), JCT (UK), AIA (USA), or client-specific terms. In contrast, Japan’s private-sector construction projects most commonly use the “Min-Kan (Seven Association) Joint Agreement for Construction Contracts”, commonly known as the Seven Association Contract, the standard model for construction agreements.

Given these differing backgrounds, negotiations to reconcile contract terms between clients based on global standards such as FIDIC and Japanese construction companies using the Seven Association Contract often require considerable time. This alignment process often leads to schedule extensions during the early stages of the project.

Moreover, differences in assumptions underlying contract terms and risk-sharing lead Japanese construction companies to adopt a cautious approach when participating in projects commissioned by foreign clients.

In Japan, contractor who is named as “principal employer (Motokata-Jigyosha in Japanese)” holds primary responsibility for overall safety & health management under the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

Articles 29 and 29-2 of the Act require the principal employer to provide necessary guidance and instructions to related subcontractors and their workers. This system ensures comprehensive safety oversight throughout the entire construction site.

Consequently, in Japan, external safety consultants generally do not directly manage construction sites. On-site safety & health are typically managed by GCs (such as site supervisors) alongside quality and schedule in an integrated manner.

As a result, safety engineers dedicated solely to safety management, common in Western countries, are generally not appointed in Japan. Safety-related costs are included as a part of the principal employer’s site management costs and are not separately itemized as “safety costs” in the quotation.

Nevertheless, under the Industrial Safety and Health Act and related regulations, construction projects that meet certain project size and conditions require the principal employer to appoint a “Chief Safety and Health Supervisor” and a “Safety and Health Supervisor.”

Major Japanese GCs have established their own internal quality standards based on years of construction experience. These standards comply with official specifications and regulations including the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism’s “Building Standard Specifications for Public Works,” the Architectural Institute of Japan’s (AIJ) “Standard Specifications for Architectural Works (JASS),” and the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS).

At Japanese construction sites, GCs such as site supervisors and chief engineers typically oversee quality, schedule, and safety & health management as an integrated role. Similar to safety & health management, specialist engineers focusing solely on quality control are usually not appointed.

Under the Act on Architects and Building Engineers (Act No. 202 of 1950), a construction supervisor (Koji-kanrisha工事監理者), who belongs to the designer or architect office, is appointed separately for quality management. This construction supervisor holds legal responsibility for verifying that construction is carried out according to the design documents.

This dual system—internal quality control by the GC and external verification by the construction supervisor—creates a robust double-check mechanism that supports the quality of construction in Japan.

On the other hand, quality inspections by the client are generally conducted only at the final completion inspection stage. During construction, quality checks and inspections are primarily carried out by the GC and the construction supervisor. Therefore, GCs are expected to maintain a high level of self-management capability and a robust quality assurance system.

Furthermore, in Japan, legal responsibilities for contractual non-conformity are clearly defined to ensure quality after completion. Under the Civil Code and the Construction Business Act, contractors are liable for defects in the completed building that do not comply with design documents or contract terms. They are obligated to address such defects through repairs, rework, or compensation for damages.

In this way, internal quality control by GC, external verification by construction supervisors, client inspections at project completion, and the legal warranty system for contract non-conformance collectively ensure the reliability and long-term performance of construction quality in Japan.

In Japan, the GC as a prime contractor assumes full responsibility for safety & health and quality. Under the Architect Act and the Industrial Safety and Health Act, providing authoritative guidance or instructions on these matters in a manner that carries legal responsibility is extremely difficult for parties other than the GC, including construction managers (CMrs) or specialist engineers.

This structural characteristic often causes confusion for many foreign companies when managing projects in Japan.

Therefore, in Japan, clients, CMrs, and third-party specialists generally take the role of monitoring the safety & health, quality, and schedule management carried out by the GCs.

By leveraging CM expertise, foreign clients can navigate Japan’s regulatory environment, mitigate risks, and achieve optimal project outcomes.