As anti-government protests in Hong Kong intensified this month, KPMG issued a directive to its employees in the territory: Do not speak on behalf of the company in public. It went on to say that the firm supports China’s policy for governing Hong Kong.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), another Big Four accounting giant, sent a similar message to staff telling them to avoid disclosing anything about the company on social media platforms, according to e-mails seen by Bloomberg.
This is the new reality for multinational businesses that have long grappled with a thorny question on China: What is the price of access to Asia’s biggest economy? Beijing’s response to the protests, most notably its clampdown on Cathay Pacific Airways this month, has provided one answer: compliance with the Chinese Communist Party’s world view, from senior management on down.
Illustration: Yusha
“The Chinese government doesn’t see business as being separate from the state and it has made it clear that if you want to do business in China, you’d better toe the line,” said Steve Vickers, chief executive officer of political and corporate risk consultancy Steve Vickers & Associates, and the former head of the Royal Hong Kong Police Criminal Intelligence Bureau.
PwC said in an Aug. 5 statement that it fully respects people’s right to freedom of speech, but regrets the escalation of violence related to the protests.
The firm also condemned “the use of social media to spread false messages using the firm’s corporate identity” that it said were designed to mislead the public.
KPMG on Thursday e-mailed its Hong Kong staff reminding them not to engage in unlawful acts whether they are at work or not and to refrain from speaking to the media without prior approval, according to a copy of the message seen by Bloomberg.
KPMG did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Cathay, Hong Kong’s flagship airline, has become a symbol of what happens when a company is judged to have crossed China’s red lines.
After some of Cathay’s staff came out in support of the Hong Kong protests, state-backed firms imposed boycotts on the airline and Chinese regulators threatened to block its access to Chinese airspace.
Within days, Cathay’s chief executive resigned and the company acceded to a list of Beijing’s demands. At least three pilots have also left, one after he reportedly made comments about the protests to passengers on a flight to Hong Kong from Tokyo.
Few corporate targets are as big as Cathay, a Hong Kong icon whose business would be crippled if it lost access to China. Yet scores of other international companies — from automakers to fashion brands to banks — could easily find themselves in a similar position.
HSBC Holdings is a prime example. Founded in Hong Kong in 1865, the bank switched its base to London before the handover to China in 1997, yet still generates half its revenue in Asia, including China.
On the protests, the bank has so far appeared unwilling to rein in its workforce, which stood at 238,000 full-time employees in June. According to the Financial Times, HSBC managers allowed staff in Hong Kong to attend a mid-week demonstration in June, as long as they did not break the law.
“The bank has always respected our employees have their own personal views on political and social matters,” HSBC said in an e-mail.
That could be a risky stance. A cornerstone of HSBC’s strategy has been to leverage its foothold in Hong Kong to deepen its push into China, where it already offers corporate and retail banking services.
The bank took a clearer stance on Thursday. In an advertisement in the Chinese-language Hong Kong Economic Times, HSBC said the rule of law is indispensable for the territory.
“We are very concerned about the recent social events and strongly condemn any violence and actions that disrupt social order,” the bank said in its ad.
HSBC was already in an uncomfortable spot over Washington’s legal and political tussle with Chinese technology company Huawei Technologies, a major client of the bank. US prosecutors drew on HSBC’s relationship with Huawei to build its case against an executive at the telecommunications company, the Financial Times reported last month.
China has plenty of reasons to show restraint. The government’s pressure tactics could backfire if international companies decide to leave the mainland or Hong Kong, taking with them technical expertise and good-paying jobs. Anything that erodes Hong Kong’s status as a global financial center would also hurt Chinese companies that rely on the territory for offshore funding.
“This drives China straight toward what some US hawks seek: economic isolation,” said Victor Shih (史宗瀚), associate professor of political economy, and Ho Miu Lam chair in China and Pacific relations at the University of California, San Diego.
Even if the Chinese government eases up, international companies are unlikely to escape scrutiny from the country’s increasingly nationalistic online community.
Several global brands, from Versace to Calvin Klein, have apologized in after Chinese Internet users called them out for products and company Web sites that identified Hong Kong as a distinct country, rather than being part of China.
A senior executive with a European luxury brand, who asked not to be identified given the sensitivity of the subject, said the operating assumption for years has been to be careful with China and politics.
Brands carefully monitor the local response to marketing, the person said, and should be willing to cancel even high-budget initiatives if necessary.
In the high-end fashion world, star designers have long had freedom to push boundaries. Yet in the wake of an incident like Dolce & Gabbana’s chopstick debacle last year — in which the brand was scrubbed from Chinese e-commerce sites after posting videos of a clueless Chinese model trying to eat pizza and cannolis with chopsticks — even those rules are changing.
A top executive at a European luxury group, who also asked not to be identified, said they are now coaching designers to cleave closely to pre-approved messages.
Complying with China’s rules can be challenging, especially for companies with employees who might not agree with the party ideology. Yet businesses who want access to the US$14 trillion economy might not have a choice.
“I’m a democracy guy, but you have to face the current situation,” Vickers said. “I’m not saying it’s right or legal. I’m just saying that’s how it is.”
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS