“Foreign Companies Face Communication Challenges in China”
As global economies attempt to rebound and re-establish relationships following the pandemic, one theme has emerged: international business is cautiously treading through new waters in China. The recent Global China Summit, held by JPMorgan in Shanghai, exemplified this cautious approach. Despite calling together nearly 3,000 international participants with the slogan “Ready for Renewal,” the conference was almost entirely closed to the public eye.
Foreign enterprises in China have been navigating increasingly tight restrictions on communication, especially since tensions between Beijing and Washington began to rise. Even so-called “bad publicity,” which is often effective for generating buzz in the United States, is viewed negatively in China. As a result, foreign companies have been opting for increasingly secretive and scheduled approaches to communicating in mainland China, leading to complications for investment banking research, economic analysis, and even internal communication.
The implications of the current climate in China extend far beyond the corporate world, as communication restrictions have extended to education, media coverage, and even public discourse. However, as China continues to tighten its grip on communication, it becomes increasingly difficult for international businesses to make the investments and partnerships necessary for success in the region.
As China shifts towards more insular, controlled communication, companies are faced with the challenge of navigating a country that largely operates behind closed doors. Though corporations may face difficulties communicating, understanding the nature and importance of China’s restrictions can help to guide effective and respectful communication strategies moving forward.
Summary:
JPMorgan’s recent Global China Summit exemplified the cautious approach many international businesses are taking as they navigate communication issues in China. Tensions between Beijing and Washington have added to these difficulties, leading foreign companies to opt for increasingly secretive and scheduled communication strategies. Practical limitations presented by the pandemic have only exacerbated this trend. However, the implications of communication restrictions extend beyond the corporate world, reaching education, media coverage, and public discourse. Despite these challenges, understanding the nature and importance of China’s restrictions can help companies forge successful partnerships and investments in the region.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
This week, for the first time in several years, JPMorgan held its Global China Summit in mainland China. The Shanghai conference brought together nearly 3,000 participants from around the world under the slogan “Ready for Renewal”.
At first glance, the event was meant to be another example of China’s reopening to international business after the pandemic. But rather than a cause for open celebration, it was a very cautious affair, as exemplified by the US bank’s approach to its own event.
With the exception of an interview on Bloomberg TV by CEO Jamie Dimon and a few with the national media, the conference was held entirely behind closed doors in a nearly successful exercise in avoiding any political landmineering.
In this regard, it has encapsulated an increasingly important principle for foreign enterprises on the mainland. If in an American world all publicity is good publicity, then in Chinapublicity is very often bad, even if it is sometimes unavoidable.
An observer from China who attended the conference said the overall environment for communication within the country was the worst it had seen in many decades of experience. At the event itself, Henry Kissinger, who turned 100 this week and was apparently serenaded by a choir of Happy birthdaystressed the need to “speak” in a private video link from the United States.
But companies with big ambitions in China are caught up in tensions between Beijing and Washington. Dimon, in private comments at the event, affirmed the “complexity” of the international order now surpassed that seen during the Cold War.
In the absence of being able to speak freely or remain silent, strange contortions arise. In press conferences held by the Chinese government, the language is not just scripted, but carefully curated to avoid surprises. Such an approach far predates the Communist Party, as it is amply described in the terms used for the style of form essays required for the Ming Dynasty civil service exams.
Foreign companies are rarely required to communicate within mainland China, but more and more are opting for a similar approach when they do. A JPMorgan conference attendee complained that the event’s panels seemed highly scheduled.
While pre-pandemic China would not have been described as an environment conducive to open discourse, the zero-Covid era has changed the tone significantly. Criticism of the government’s sweeping attempt to stamp out the coronavirus has essentially been outlawed, and all media coverage of the process has been tightly controlled.
The zero-Covid regime was abruptly abandoned late last year, but some of its practices persist: A separate Shanghai conference this week, hosted by the New Development Bank, required attendees to take a PCR test within 12 hours of 9 a.m. :30 start.
And the cold on the speech continues. Even in a week that marked the first anniversary of the end of the two-month blockade of Shanghai, one of the most extraordinary events in modern history, it was hardly talked about.
Dimon is a sufficiently respected figure in China that he was almost immediately forgiven for joking in Hong Kong in 2021 that his bank would outlive the communist party. And this week, while he privately stressed long-term commitments, his public comments included sensitive criticisms of the Chinese government and the “uncertainty” he has produced.
But Dimon was also unable to answer repeated questions about whether to meet with senior national officials. And when he met with Chen Jining, the top Communist Party official in Shanghai, a day before the conference, JPMorgan declined to comment on what he described as a “private” meeting. By this time state media had already published a report of the meeting on social media, including Dimon’s “made” points about support for Shanghai that went far beyond his own public comments.
Such caution points to a larger problem. The implications for other forms of language, such as investment banking research, economic analysis, or even how companies transmit information internally from their mainland operations to headquarters in Europe or the United States, are little. known. At the JPMorgan conference, speakers largely wanted more communication. The irony is that the event itself has been co-opted into an environment where this has become largely impossible.
https://www.ft.com/content/2b4412b0-ef56-42af-847c-ead3ffbff0ea
—————————————————-