Deadly Sins of International Business Blog

There’s something remarkable going on in China’s automotive industry. Yes, there’s growth, but there’s more to it. Chinese automaker BYD that is backed by Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, Inc has set up a Chinese 50-50 joint venture with Daimler in late May. The goal of the joint venture is to jointly design and produce an all-electric vehicle for the Chinese market. This will add a new dimension to Daimler’s expansion in China. Having recently experienced above average sales growth, Daimler also has plans for an engine factory in China – the first one ever outside of Germany. Naturally, Daimler as a corporation thinks of opportunities first and I, as an academic, think of the risks first. Joint ventures haven’t been known to be among the easiest ways to cooperate across borders, especially in China. This one, however, seems to be on a straight trajectory to success. The Chinese government is reported to have announced that it will order 100,000 of the new vehicles come out of the Daimler-BYD joint venture. Although details of the agreement haven’t been made public yet, the government is expected to honor its commitment by 2012. What’s interesting about this is that initial plans to subsidize private consumers for buying electric cars seem to have been scrapped after they drew criticism from the Chinese Communist Party for benefiting mostly the nouveau riche in China. Someone has been doing an excellent job lobbying the Chinese government. For once, it seems that what’s good for an automotive manufacturer will also be good for the environment. And for BYD, the deal is a godsend, too. After record increases in 2009 (by an astonishing 160 percent), it had to announce in early August that it’ll cut its sales targets by 25 %. Obviously, ‘too big to fail’ exists in other countries, too…

Of course, what is commonly referred to as the Chinese phoenix, the fenghuang, only distantly resembles the phoenix of the West. So, erudite reader, please forgive the amateurish use of the phoenix as a metaphor for what’s going on in China’s automotive sector. Mercedes, BMW, or Audi are all reporting very positive developments from the Chinese market. This confirms what insiders to the automotive industry and experts in cross-cultural marketing have long pointed out silently. It’s not necessarily (only) available income that drives purchasing decisions, but national culture plays a big role, too. Income levels in China would suggest that smaller models are sought after, but the opposite is true. Status, power and prestige are very important elements of Chinese culture. Several years ago now, Volkswagen had planned to rapidly increase market share in China by offering a small car – assuming that with rising levels of affluence, everyone would buy a small, entry-level car. Guess what, they didn’t. The polo was simply too small for the Chinese market. Today, larger Volkswagen models such as the Passat or the Tiguan are doing a lot better. Owning a luxury car is the ultimate sign of social status, and so demand in the premium automotive segment is on a constant rise. In July, Audi sold about 50 percent more cars in China than last year, BMW about 80 % more and Mercedes-Benz even tripled its sales. And all of this despite the rather high luxury taxes in China which raise the prices of the flagship models – the S-Class, the 7-series, or the A8 – to about double from what they are in Europe. These developments certainly come at the right time for luxury carmakers whose sales have been less than favorable in their core markets in the West in past years. The Chinese fenghuang is a symbol of virtue and grace – very similar to what the Mercedes brand stands for. Maybe my use of the metaphor isn’t that off after all.

It looks like Honda’s China troubles are over for now. Its Chinese joint ventures, Guangqi Honda Automobile and Dongfeng Honda Automobile, will resume operations after having made significant concessions to workers who went on strike mid-May. There were complaints of working conditions and low wages. Honda agreed to raise wages by 25 %. Yes, twentyfive percent. Such a significant increase can only mean (or at least hint to) that Honda has been doing what many multinationals are often accused of – the exploitation of cheap local resources, such as labor. And in fact, workers at Honda or at similar plants earn as low as 1,000 Renminbi monthly, about 150 US$ and have not received a wage increase in five years. What’s the lesson to be learned? Moving production to a low-cost location is not necessarily a bad thing – after all, there’s very little choice for companies in some industries if they want to stay competitive. Besides, foreign direct investment is also helping the development of local economies. However, creating ever worsening wage disparities at foreign subsidiaries of multinational companies over time makes them less welcome than they may have initially been. Besides, in Honda’s case, the company has ambitious plans of growth in the Chinese market. Last year, it produced about 600,00 vehicles in China, but it is looking to increase its capacity by 30 percent to more than 800,000 cars by 2012. The expansion banks on increases in domestic purchasing power. And this is where being not locally responsible becomes a very short-sighted strategy – not only did Honda nothing to contribute to increases in purchasing power, it is also slaughtering its own image.

Other Japanese multinationals in China have recently announced similar increases in output – Nissan plans to produce more than one million cars by 2012, Sharp will double the number of retail outlets, fashion retailer Uniqlo intends to open 1,000 stores by 2020. What happened to Honda recently provides a good lesson for these Japanese companies and for all multinationals from other countries.

Chinese carmaker Zhejiang Geely will acquire Swedish Volvo from American Ford Motor. Geely has come a long (and fast) way from its modest beginnings as a motorcycle parts manufacturer to what is now China’s 12th largest automotive manufacturer. Being the 12th may not mean a lot in other markets, but consider two things: First, China is a huge market. Second, Geely has impressed at many car shows with high-powered concept cars and seems to be determined to grow further and gain market share. For Ford, selling Volvo is not only part of its recent strategy to sell off non-core brands (it earlier sold Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata of India), but it’s also quite an infusion of liquidity – out of the reported selling price of 1.8 billion US$, 1.6 billion will be in cash. For now, Geely has promised to leave Volvo alone, but it has also not failed to mention that it has already recruited a new team of executives to ‘oversee’ things at Volvo…!

Tomorrow, the trial against four executives of the UK-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto will open in Shanghai. The executives have been charged with stealing commercial secrets and receiving bribes and are facing up to 20 years in prison. Both the protection of intellectual property and anti-corruption laws are important domains of the legal environment in any market, so what’s wrong with enforcing these laws? Well, two things. The first is that the facts of the case are not quite clear. Not much has been disclosed about the case, but it seems that what the Chinese courts see as infringements on trade secrets may be what business insiders consider rather normal gathering of industry information. Secondly, the trial may turn out to be highly political and less factual. It is commonly accepted in China that judges weigh both legal and political aspects of cases and sometimes give precedence to the political aspects and interests, including the protection of local markets and companies. That the court hearings will take place behind closed doors certainly contributes to concerns that this may happen in this high profile case, too. Could all of this have prevented? Yes, maybe! Multinational companies such as Rio Tinto simply must be aware of the land mines that are buried all over China’s business environment and proceed with appropriate caution. In a way – to stick with the theme of this blog – it is a case of pride that often shows itself as ignorance concerning differences and threats in the external environment.

Have you ever heard of Li-Ning? You will. Li-Ning is a Chinese sportswear company with about 1 billion US$ in annual revenue and more than 7,000 stores in China. The company was founded in 1990 by Li-Ning, a Chinese gymnast who won three gold medals in the Summer Olympics of 1984. To Li-Ning, starting a sportswear company has been a matter of national pride. He recalls the moment when he stood on the podium in 1984. Looking down, he realized that he was wearing a foreign brand, something that he wanted to change once and forever. Today, his products are endorsed by non-Chinese athletes, such as Baron Davis of the LA Clippers. Not only does Li-Ning’s logo bear a striking similarity with the Nike Swoosh, Li-Ning now has also set up shop in Nike’s front yard. In February, Li-Ning opened its first American showroom in Portland’s Pearl District. To this blogger, that’s just a sign of the things to come. Many industries and companies will see increased Chinese competition in their home markets.

I just realized something. With all the discussion around Google’s threat to leave China, many people seem to have forgotten (including myself, I admit), that this may indeed be China’s century. With an abundance of qualified labor, smart (albeit not always fair) economic policies, unlimited foreign reserves and much more, China is on the way to change the global economic landscape. As Dani Rodrick of Harvard University recently mused, tremendous change may be ahead of us. We’ll not only see more powerful Chinese companies of all sectors in the global marketplace, we’ll also see a change in the global political and legal framework shaped by a more Chinese view of the world. If it’s true that wealthy families in Manhattan are increasingly hiring Chinese speaking nannies so that their children learn the language of the future, I can only ask why are they smarter than many corporations who still see China as a potential market instead of a competitor that needs to be taken very seriously.

Following Google’s threat to leave China, the International Herald Tribune reports that many foreign companies confirm growing hurdles to doing business in China. Complaints range from intellectual property theft to pressures to source locally to blunt breeches of contracts by joint venture partners. There are allegationns that many of these practices are not just due to opportunistic behavior by individual companies, but tolerated and promoted by the government. After initial improvements in the business environment shortly before and after China joined the WTO in 2001, China seems to be back on a protectionist route. Foreign investment is still restricted in some sectors, patent and trademark infringements continue, and the Chinese government is even imposing export controls on certain minerals which will ultimately create shortages on global markets. Is China simply weary of foreign companies? What is more likely is that China is continuing on its path to create an environment in which Chinese companies can grow and ultimately will be ready to compete in global markets.

German toymaker Steiff, famous for its teddybears and other stuffed animals, announced that it will pull out of the Chinese market soon. Like many other companies, Steiff entered China (in 2004) in an effort to reduce costs and remain competitive with its range of high-quality toys that are often more collectors items rather than toys. From the outset Steiff was battling with low quality manufacturing. Workers didn’t seem to be capable or willing to adhere to Steiff’s strict strict quality standards. Even intensive (and expensive) training has not shown much effect because of high turnover among workers which is quite common in China. When, in addition, wages began to rise, the venture simply didn’t seem to hold its initial promise and Steiff decided to leave China.

As reported earlier (on this blog and elsewhere) Chinese automaker SAIC will enter into a 50:50 joint venture with GM to sell small cars and light trucks in India. There’s not only the GM angle to this move. Viewed from the SAIC angle, memories from the recent past arise. In 2004, SAIC purchased a majority stake from Korean Ssangyong motors which ended in one big disaster with Ssangyong seeking bankruptcy protection. Most recently there have even been allegations of intellectual property theft. The Koreans blamed the Chinese, and the Chinese the Koreans – just what you would expect of two countries that haven’t head the best of relations throughout history. Now, what about India? What makes SAIC confident that the same challenges won’t emerge in India. Or, if they emerge, what makes them believe that they’re now better at handling them. And, would Indian consumers be interested in a predominantly Chinese car?