Last night, at an onsite meeting with local American institutions, I heard a Panel guest make this comment about overseas expansion into the Chinese market: The biggest risk is policy uncertainty. Because legal definitions and interpretations are unclear, in extreme cases, business models may become illegal overnight. This kind of uncertainty is a risk that multinational companies, especially large and listed companies, cannot bear and can easily trigger chain reactions.
This concern is not new, but this is the first time I have heard offline and face-to-face from a successful company issuing serious warnings to companies planning to do business overseas. Since it is within a small circle of technology companies, each of which has similar demands for infrastructure such as data and privacy laws, the impact of the warning will undoubtedly be far more profound than that of financial magazines and newspapers.
From here, I also discovered a huge information gap, and multinational companies have huge misunderstandings about the Chinese market.
Myth 1: China’s legal system matches its status as a great power.
I was surprised to find that most people believe that China has developed a certain legal foundation and legal system to develop into the world's second largest market position. Although China has continuously revised its laws in recent years, ostensibly making its boundaries clearer, in fact, the Chinese market has never been governed by law.
Theoretically, the order of management effectiveness from large to small should be laws, departmental regulations, and administrative proclamations. But this generation of leaders places more personal will above laws and regulations at all levels. What goes up takes effect, so there will be a situation where window guidance is more effective than the law. Simply put, with just one phone call, a certain business of the company cannot continue.
Therefore, entering the Chinese market is not about how to interpret and interpret the laws, but about using the right process to find the right people and keeping the status updated at all times.
Misunderstanding 2: China is an open market and can be entered at any time.
In Chinese, the words "enter" and "forbidden" have the same pronunciation. But anytime access is not true, but anytime ban is true. For example, the recent legalization of Tesla's autonomous driving in China does not meet the requirements of the Chinese government because it has technically solved specific problems. More, I think the deal was struck politically.
The Chinese government has always used the market, or to be more precise, the vast consumer groups of the Chinese people, to make transactions with the outside world in exchange for political benefits. Internally, only material abundance, economic growth, and sufficient employment can demonstrate the legitimacy of governance. Externally, they show favor to leading foreign-funded enterprises in exchange for changes in the international political stance of entrepreneurs. In the eyes of rulers, the market is private property. Regardless of whether it is packaged as state-owned assets or party property, in the final analysis it is the private property of several families.
Therefore, before entering the Chinese market, multinational companies must think clearly about what can be exchanged, so as to meet the demands of the Chinese government while protecting their own interests.
In the final analysis, when developing overseas markets, whether it is China or other Asian countries, when formulating business strategies and goals, in addition to respecting the law and culture, we need to pay attention to core interests, paths and people at key nodes. These are not taught in business schools, and they are also fatal points that cannot be seen from a distance.
昨晚，在一场美国本土机构的交流会上，听到一位Panel嘉宾对海外扩张进入中国市场作出这样的评价：最大的风险是政策的不确定性。由于法律界定和解读都不清晰，在极端情况下，一夜之间可能业务模式都变成非法。这种不确定性是跨国企业，特别是大型和上市企业无法承受的风险，容易引发连锁反应。
这种担忧不算新鲜，但这是我第一次在线下面对面地听到一家成功企业对打算开展海外业务的公司发出认真的告诫。由于是在技术型企业的小圈子内，各家对数据和隐私法律等的基础设施诉求类似，所以告诫的影响力无疑会远比财经杂志和报纸来得深远。
从这里我也发现了很大的信息差，跨国企业对中国市场是存在极大的误解的。
误解一：中国的法律制度与其大国地位相匹配。我很惊讶地发现，大部分人认为，中国发展到现今的全球第二大市场地位，已经具备了一定的法律基础和法制。虽然近些年，中国不断修订法律，表面上将边界更加清晰化，但事实上，中国市场从来就不是依靠法律治理的。理论上，管理效力从大到小的排序应该是法律、部门规章、行政文告。但这一代领导人更多地将个人意志凌驾于各级法律法规之上。上行下效，于是就会出现窗口指导的效力高于法律的情况。简单说，一个电话，企业的某项业务就不能继续。所以，进入中国市场不在于如何诠释和解读法条，而是需要用对的流程找到对的人，并时刻保持状态更新。
误解二：中国是开放市场，可以随时进入。在中文里，“进入”和“禁入”的词汇发音是一样的。但是随时进入不成立，而随时禁入是真实的。比如最近的特斯拉自动驾驶在中国合法化，并不是从技术上解决了特定问题，才符合中国政府的要求。更多地，我认为是从政治上达成了交易。中国政府向来是拿市场，或者更确切地说，是拿广大的中国民众消费群体，来与外界做交易，以换取政治利益。对内，物质丰富、经济增长、就业充分，才能彰显执政正当性。对外，对头部外资企业示好以换取企业家国际政治立场的改变。市场在统治者眼中，是私产。无论包装成国有资产还是党产，归根结底是几个家族的私产。所以，跨国企业在进入中国市场前一定要想清楚，有哪些是可以拿出来进行交换的，在满足中国政府诉求的同时，保护自身利益。
归根结底，海外市场拓展，无论是中国还是其他亚洲国家，在制订商业战略和目标时，除了尊重法律和文化，更需要关注的是核心利益、路径和关键节点上的人。而这些是商学院不会讲的，也是站在远处看不到的致命要点。
Comments