15 六月, 2007
中國「娃哈哈」？哈哈！
中國飲料界霸主「娃哈哈集團」，與生產Evian礦泉水聞名於世的法國達能（Danone）集團，因合資爆發爭議，撕破臉鬧上法庭，足以讓所有對中國市場心存幻想的台灣政客與企業，引以為鑑！
英國《經濟學人》雜誌最近一篇專文，以達能及匯豐銀行的教訓，剖析了中國對中外合資企業「鳥盡弓藏」心態，以及這些企業遭受的困境與矛盾，值得與大家分享。
聯合報之前譯介報導《經濟學人》專文時，錯誤引用，將去蔣化誤喻為40年前的中國「文化大革命」，誤導讀者。這邊來個中英並陳，以昭公信。
不過看權威財經雜誌精彩的剖析之前，先來段工商服務，進段令人「爽歪歪」的娃哈哈產品廣告，可不要以為他們向不懂事的孩子推銷春藥喔～
◎ Joint ventures in China
中國合資企業
Wahaha-haha!
娃哈哈，哈哈！
THEY seemed like promising deals at the time. When Danone, a French food giant, acquired a 51% stake in Wahaha Beverage, a Chinese firm, in 1996, it considered it a coup. And in 2004 HSBC became the envy of rival banks when it acquired a 19.9% stake in Bank of Communications, the smallest of China's national banks and the only one that, by law, allowed for the possibility of full acquisition. In what has become a painfully familiar experience in China, however, both companies have since run into trouble. Danone's partnership with Wahaha has erupted into an acrimonious public dispute and the huge growth in Bank of Communication's assets has placed it within the small group of powerful banks that the Chinese government will not permit to be taken over.
這些合作當時似乎前景看好。1996年，法國食品業巨頭達能公司（Danone）收購了中國娃哈哈飲料公司51%的股份，並自認為是高明之舉。2004年，匯豐銀行收購了中國最小的國有銀行交通銀行19.9%的股份，而且交通銀行還是中國唯一一家法律允許外資全面收購的銀行，這令業內對手嫉妒不已。然而，兩家企業自此便陷入了困境，而這種情況在中國已是司空見慣，讓人苦惱。達能與娃哈哈的合作突然引起了激烈爭議並公開化，交通銀行資產的極大增長也使得其躋身為數不多的大銀行之列，而中國政府是不會允許外資接管這樣的銀行的。
Danone and HSBC are hardly the first to have been hit. Faced with a geographically vast but promising market obscured by a thicket of complex and contradictory rules, many foreign firms have entered China via joint ventures—and then been left grinding their teeth. The list touches every industry, including cars (Peugeot), spirits (Remy Martin), beer (Foster's), steel (Fletcher Challenge), media (News Corporation) and telecoms (too many to list).
達能與匯豐絕非是最早遭此打擊的企業。許多外國企業藉由合資關係進入中國，面對的是一個地域遼闊、充滿希望的市場，卻被雜亂無章、自相矛盾的規定弄得糊裡糊塗，但它們也只能徒嘆奈何。這些外國公司涉及各個行業，包括汽車（如標致Peugeot）、烈酒（如人頭馬Remy Martin）、啤酒（如Foster’s）、鋼鐵（Fletcher Challenge）、媒體（新聞集團News Corporation）以及電信（不勝枚舉）。
In theory, the case for joint ventures was compelling. The foreign partner provided capital, knowledge, access to international markets and jobs. The Chinese partner provided access to cheap labour, local regulatory knowledge and access to what used to be a relatively unimportant domestic market. The Chinese government protected swathes of the economy from acquisitions, but provided land, tax breaks and at least the appearance of a welcome to attract investment.
理論上看，合資具有十分有利條件。外方負責資金、知識、國際市場以及就業，中方則提供廉價勞力、地方法規常識和曾經不起眼的國內市場。中國政府雖然阻止外資大規模併購本國公司，卻可以提供土地和優惠稅額，並且對吸引外資至少能表現出一種歡迎的態度。
In practice, these arrangements have collapsed for three reasons. Chinese companies were happy to receive money and technology, but did not want to be mere adjuncts to foreign firms; in many cases they have large, often global, ambitions of their own. Too often the allocation of profits and investments was unclear, leading to endless squabbling. But perhaps most importantly, China has now changed, says Jesse Chang of TransAsia Lawyers, a law firm that advises foreign firms.
實際上這些似乎約定俗成的事情都被完全變調了，原因有三：中國企業對引進資金和技術不亦樂乎，卻不甘心只做外資的附屬品；他們大多野心勃勃，眼光常常盯著全球市場。利潤和投資的分配經常是一筆糊塗賬，爭吵沒完沒了。不過在TransAsia律師事務所（專為外資服務）的Jesse Chang看來，最重要的可能還是，中國現在變了。
China has become far more open legally because of commitments made to the World Trade Organisation as a condition of membership. But its hunger for foreign investors has been sated. The availability of labour and land has fallen, domestic capital is abundant, the local market is now understood to be among the most attractive in the world and sentiment has become more nationalistic and self-satisfied. So there is less interest in providing access to foreign partners.
作為加入WTO的條件之一，中國承諾更開放市場，事實也的確如此。不過，中國對外國投資者的渴望已經得到了滿足，勞動力和土地減少了，國內資本充裕，本地市場如今也被公認為是全球最具有吸引力的市場，中國人的民族主義情感和自滿情緒也日益強烈，所以他們也沒多少興趣來接納外國合資者。
When Danone made its investment, Wahaha says it knew little about business and welcomed a partner. Now, alive to the opportunities, it is outraged that it must clear plans with a foreign majority owner which has its own alternative strategies in China through various other (though less important) joint ventures—and it is even more outraged that Danone wants full ownership. Danone says it believed things were going smoothly until 18 months ago, when it discovered Wahaha had started a parallel firm to market similar products. It says it hopes to resolve the dispute.
娃哈哈表示，當年達能投資該公司時，它對行業知之甚少，所以歡迎合資者。現在機遇多，它也明顯意識到了這一點，但讓它憤怒的是，一個佔其公司多數股份的外資企業卻在中國透過其他各種合資關係（儘管並不關緊要）謀求多元化發展，而它卻必須對這個外資俯首聽命。令娃哈哈大為光火的還有，達能竟然想擁有它的全部所有權。達能公司稱，雙方合作一直比較順利，直到一年半以前，它發現娃哈哈開了一家生產和銷售類似產品的公司，並希望能化解爭議。
Better-positioned are a small number of firms that were clever enough (unlike Danone) and allowed by law (unlike HSBC) to wrap up their original joint ventures amicably. Unilever has shut down more than a dozen and Coca-Cola and Starbucks have recently bought out their Chinese partners. “For a joint venture to be successful,” says Jonathan Woetzel of McKinsey, a consultancy, “you have to plan for it to die.”
只有少數企業境況比較好，它們都非常靈活（不像達能）且在得到法律許可的情況下（不同於匯豐），與中方保持著友好的合資關係。聯合利華（Unilever）已經關閉了十多家分廠，而可口可樂和星巴克最近買斷了其中國合作方。McKinsey諮詢公司的Jonathan Woetzel說：「合資要想成功，一開始就要做好散夥的準備。」
※僅供非商業性分享部分內容，版權完全歸屬原著作單位、《 The Economist 》所有，英文全文參見：
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9040416