RSS Feed

« Time's The China Blog Has Something To Say | | China Court Kills Yamaha Imposter's Joyride »

New York Times And Steve Dickinson On The Danone Wahaha China Dispute And On Avoiding Your Own

Posted by Dan on June 14, 2007 at 09:34 PM

David Barboza, who has been doing a great job covering the Danone-Wahaha dispute (see his New York Times article, "Rancor Level Rises in Rift Over Danone China Venture"), just came out with a new story on the dispute in the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times, entitled,  "A brawl threatens a huge investment by Danone in China, in which he interviewed CLB's own Steve Dickinson.   For background on this dispute, check out my earlier posts:

  • "Danone v. Wahaha -- Which Of Us Is The Most China Rookie?"
  • "China Litigation: You Want Government With That?"
  • "Danone and China's Wahaha: A Lecture on How (Not) to Make Allies Enemies"
  • Barboza's new article does a great job explaining some of the things that caused this venture to go wrong and Steve does a great job explaining how Danone's joint venture problems are anything but unique.  The article starts out talking about how two years ago Danone "began noticing something peculiar in the financial figures coming from their joint venture here with the Wahaha Group."  A "lengthy investigation" led Danone to conclude that Wahaha's chairman, "Zong Qinghou, was operating a series of secret parallel companies outside the joint venture - companies that were mimicking the joint venture and siphoning off millions of dollars." 

    The article then discusses how after months of negotiation between Danone and Zong the parties could not resolve who has rights to the Wahaha brand and as the fight for control over Wahaha continues. 

    Barboza rightly deems this fight as emblematic of the "pitfalls of doing business in China" and Steve Dickinson agrees:

    "This is a cautionary tale," said Steve Dickinson, a Shanghai-based lawyer at Harris & Moure. "This is not a message that you can't do business in China, but if you come to China and let the Chinese run the business without supervision, they can do this kind of thing.

                                                  *   *   *   *

    "This is a flashback," said Dickinson at Harris & Moure. "This is why a lot of companies don't do joint ventures any more. Many of them ended up like this. You need to have protections in place."

    Taking up where Steve left off, Andrew Hupert at the Diligence China blog has a post, entitled, "Don't get Danonized ' 5 Steps for Protecting Your JV or Partnership Interests in China," setting forth how not to avoid emulating Danone in China.  Hupert sets forth the following five steps, all of which must be in your contract with your joint venture partner:

    1.   Have people on the ground. Your OWN peopleNot your Chinese partner's classmates or relatives, but someone who will protect your interests.  You want need to choose the joint venture's key people and that means Human Resources (HR), Procurement/Purchasing and Finance.  You need to have your own top managers make regular visitors to interact with key departments and to make management know you are part of the team.

    2.   Institute multiple data flowsThe head of the joint venture's HR department reports to your head of HR.  "Same with Finance, Ops, Marketing, Etc."  This gives you regular reporting and it maintains interaction between your people and theirs.

    3.   Recognize HR, Finance and Purchasing are key choke points.
    Westerners focus on Marketing and Operations as the key areas for data flows, because this is where the most sensitive information is easiest to measure.  But since Chinese operations "run on HR and Purchasing" it is there that you will get a clearer picture on what is happening with the joint venture company.  "Look at who your sources for products and services are ' that's how your local managers are building their new ops."

    4.  Rotate their people through your offices.  Every department head or senior manager should be rotating through your head office every year.  Hold conferences outside China (Macao, HK, Singapore, Hawaii) to "get key people off their home turf where your people can build stronger relationships."  Wine & dine key middle managers and "drop broad hints about bringing them over to high-profile posts in the US or European branches:"

    There's an excellent chance that these important staffers don't have any great love for their Mainland bosses ' but they don't think they have any alternative. If these people think they have a shot at a western career path, they may get a lot more loyal to your interests in a hurry.

    5.   Move quickly to co-opt or get rid of shadow leadersEvery Chinese organization has a 'shadow leader' who informally controls a wide range of activities.  You can use these shadow leaders initially to "help organize your operation quickly, effectively and at low costs, " but once they have served this purpose "you need to get them on your team or get rid of them."

    Yogurt anyone?

    Comments

    Clients occasionally report that their Chinese subs/affiliates/branches appear to operate almost independently, with local Chinese managers telling foreign HQ "Look, this is China, not [whatever country's name],we know how to do it here." They try to build a mystique and insulate their own power. HQ has to resist the impulse to respect blindly such claims. Good management is good management, period, requiring central supervision. Management may have slightly different flavors from country to country, but if HQ permits unbridled independence, "flavors" turn into horrible aftertastes which require astringent purging.

    "They try to build a mystique and insulate their own power. HQ has to resist the impulse to respect blindly such claims."

    Expat managers often lay the same excuse to justify inflated budgets, so this should be no surprise. The chinese add a smoother texture to it.

    NH -
    Oh yeah, real smooth. "Wahaha wan sui!!"

    NH-
    Yes, this also occurs, however, the expats have to face the music back at HQ when they return, so they have their own incentive to play it carefully if they hope for longevity.

    The problem of Foreign companies is also an expat problem. They tend to behave like ostrich. When they see a problem, they put the head in the sand. They think it will solve by iteself but because there is accumulation of problems, they cannot hide and the problem starts to be unsolvable. Don't tell me that Zong Qing Hou cannot set parallel companies during years and that the Foreign management cannot see it. I cannot believe or they have really sh.t in the eyes!

    Romain,
    I doubt they had "mi tian gong" in their eyes. More likely, it was a case of knowing some of what he was doing, and thinking that some slack had to be cut in his direction, but (1) never suspecting it was growing to the extreme proportions it did; or (2)suspecting it, possibly even knowing and worrying about it, but not knowing how to deal with it; or (3) knowing and cajoling/negotiating w/Zong to curb or cease his activities as conflicts of interest, but getting nowhere. One needs to remember who Zong was, in Danone's commercial estimation, and the dangers of rocking an otherwise profitable boat. If litigation goes forward in California, we may be able to learn more about it as discovery proceeds. I am less certain that more facts will see the light of day if litigation proceeds in China, until a judgment is finally rendered. Anyone care to comment on this litigation aspect?

    Post a comment

    (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

    » China's Joint Venture Jeopardy China Law Blog
    The Wall Street Journal just ran an article I wrote, entitled, "Joint Venture Jeopardy".  It is on the Danone-Wahaha dispute and it gives a few basics for avoiding joint venture problems.  For those of you coming here for the first ... []

    » Danone Wahaha: An Update China Law Blog
    The China Business Law Blog has a nice update on the Danone Wahaha litigation around the world. The sense is Danone is winning in court and I cannot help but wonder if it is because it is spending more on lawyers. I do not know this to be the case,... []

    Subscribe Using ANY Feed
    Tell The World About China Law Blog

    Recent Posts