The Guardian - China-Beijings mixed messages leave businesses questioning investments in China
October 1, 2023 5 min 872 words
这篇报道呈现了中国政府在吸引外资和国家安全之间的矛盾局面，以及对一些公司的打压措施。这种政策和立场的混淆给国内外企业带来了不确定性，对中国投资的信心受到了威胁。 中国政府一方面坚称国家对外资敞开大门，支持私营企业发展，但另一方面，加强国家安全意识，与不断升级的地缘政治紧张关系形成鲜明对比。这种不一致性导致了许多企业对中国市场的投资产生了疑虑。欧盟贸易委员瓦尔迪斯·多姆布罗夫斯基在北京表示，欧洲企业开始“质疑他们在全球第二大经济体的地位”。 最近，欧盟和美国商会发布了关于中国商业环境的沮丧报告。在美国商会调查的企业中，有52%表示对未来五年感到乐观，达到历史新低。欧洲商会的报告则批评了北京政府的“信息混乱”，称其正在侵蚀投资者信心。这种模糊不清的政策导致了更多不确定性。 中国和外国企业在中国面临越来越多的困难，这可以从赛诺菲的案例中看出来。赛诺菲是瑞士农业科技巨头，原本计划在上海的科创板上进行100亿美元的上市。然而，两年多后，赛诺菲仍未上市。美国的银行因涉及赛诺菲的上市交易可能会受到美国监管机构更严格的审查，这也可能导致更多的监管挑战。 此外，中国政府对国内上市公司也加强了监管，引入了“交通灯”制度，以引导资金流向战略领域，禁止了某些行业的公司在中国主要股市上市。此外，中国公司要在海外上市面临更多障碍，新的规定规定，公司不得“歪曲或贬低国家法律政策、商业环境和司法情况”，这使得公司陷入了“两难境地”。 这些措施使中国在一些关键领域的市场规范距离国际规范越来越远。中国政府表示将创建一个新机构来支持私营企业，以提振信心。然而，最近两年对中国一些最大的科技、房地产和教育企业进行的监管打压给企业带来了沉重打击。 此外，中国引入了一项反间谍法，规定未经授权获得的“文件、数据、材料”可能构成间谍行为。这一法律的模糊措辞让许多商界人士感到担忧。这些政策变化似乎表明中国政府更加重视国家安全，而不仅仅是企业的经济利益。 尽管没有人预期国际企业会完全撤离中国，但中国市场的吸引力可能开始失去光彩。这一情况引发了对中国商业环境的广泛讨论，特别是在国际企业和投资者中。
In July 2021, Chinese markets braced for a buzz. Syngenta, the Swiss agritech giant, filed for a $10bn-dollar listing on Shanghai’s STAR Market, a tech-focused stock exchange.
It should have been a win-win for China; Syngenta said it would invest some of the new financing into agricultural technology, promising an injection of cash into an important sector. But, more than two years later, Syngenta still hasn’t listed.
Beijing insists that China is open for business and that it is committed to supporting the private sector. But a renewed focus on national security coupled with rising geopolitical tensions is damaging confidence. Speaking in Beijing last week, Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU’s trade commissioner, said that European businesses were “questioning their position” in the world’s second largest economy.
In September, the chambers of commerce of the European Union and America published gloomy reports about the state of business in China. Of the companies surveyed by the American chamber, 52% said they were optimistic about the next five years, a record low. The European chamber’s report lambasted Beijing’s “mixed messaging”, which it said was eroding confidence.
“The level of ambiguity has become more prominent over the past year,” Jens Eskelund, the president of the European chamber, told the Guardian.
Syngenta’s case is a textbook example of the growing difficulties facing Chinese and foreign businesses alike in China. After falling out with the STAR Market for reasons that remain unclear, the company won approval in June from the Shanghai Stock Exchange. And although international banks including UBS, HSBC and JP Morgan have reportedly been vying to work on the multimillion dollar deal, geopolitical pressures have threatened to derail the listing.
Syngenta is owned by ChemChina, a Chinese state-owned chemical company that is associated with China’s military, according to the US department of defence. That means that, at a minimum, American banks could be subject to greater scrutiny from US regulators if they facilitate the Syngenta listing, which in turn could portend greater regulatory challenges.
But there are barriers from the Chinese side, too. At the start of this year the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) introduced a “traffic light” system for listings to direct funding into strategic areas, with local companies in certain industries such as Covid-19 testing and alcohol banned from China’s main stock markets.
Chinese companies wanting to list overseas face even more hurdles. In March, the CSRC issued a new set of rules governing international IPOs. Buried among the 25 regulations was an article that states that firms may not “distort or derogate the national laws and policies, business environment and judicial situation”.
That puts companies in a “catch-22 situation”, according to Henry Gao, a law professor at Singapore Management University. “If [companies] don’t comply with Chinese rules, they won’t be able to get the approval for the overseas listing; but if they follow the Chinese rules, they could be sued by the foreign exchanges and shareholders for misrepresentation.”
Last year, for example, Ming Yang Smart Energy Group, a Guangdong-based renewable energy company, listed on the London Stock Exchange, raising $657m. Its prospectus for the listing noted that the Chinese legal system is based “on government policies and internal rules (some of which are not published on a timely basis or at all) that may have a retroactive effect”. Now, such disclosures, which are legally required by international stock exchanges, may violate Chinese rules.
Such measures mean that China has moved further away from market norms in a number of key areas according to Rhodium Group, a thinktank.
This month, Beijing said that it would create a new body to support the private sector in a bid to boost confidence. Businesses have been hammered by a two-year regulatory crackdown on some of China’s biggest tech, property and education companies.
In June, Beijing introduced a counter-espionage law, which said that the unauthorised obtaining of “documents, data, materials” could constitute a spying offence. The vague wording of the law spooked many businesspeople.
“How can you ensure that you are not inadvertently transmitting a state secret if you are not clear what is a state secret,” said Eskelund. The law came months after police visited the offices of several western consultancies and due diligence firms and, in the case of one, Mintz, detained five employees and fined the company $1.5m. Some of these visits are thought to be related to research done in areas deemed sensitive, such as Xinjiang supply chains and semiconductors.
“Frustration with the Chinese business environment had been building for a long time,” said an American consultant and investor who left China in 2020. He noted that many of the policies, particularly regarding the handling of data, have been in place since before Xi Jinping came to power in 2012.
But Xi’s rule has been characterised by a renewed focus on national security, with local and foreign businesses expected to support the priorities of Beijing, rather than the bottom line. But while no one expects international firms to withdraw from China altogether, the sparkle of the Chinese market may be starting to lose its shine.