莫迪在印度 India has made noodles out of Modi’s message
When Nestlé’s Maggi noodles were declared one of India’s most trusted consumer brands last year, alongside Colgate, Dettol and Nokia, a Bangalore commenter on the Economic Times of India’s website retorted: “It is time that India and Indians wipe out all foreign brands from this list. It needs to make its mark in the world.”
去年，雀巢(Nestlé)旗下的美極(Maggi)麪條同高露潔(Colgate)、滴露(Dettol)及諾基亞(Nokia)一起榮獲印度最受信任的消費品牌時，班加羅爾的一名評論員在印度《經濟時報》(Economic Times)網站上反駁道：“現在是印度和印度人民將所有外國品牌從這一榜單上清除的時候了。印度需要在世界上留下自己的標誌。”
By coincidence, what one minister dubbed the country’s “Inspector Raj” was about to take action. A food inspector plucked a Maggi packet from a shop in Uttar Pradesh in January, starting a farcical sequence of events that culminated in Nestlé incinerating 400m packets of innocent noodles. Only this week, after global sales were dented, has the brand returned to the shelves.
巧合的是，印度一名部長所稱的“檢驗員拉吉”(Inspector Raj)正打算採取行動。今年1月，一名食品檢驗員從北方邦(Uttar Pradesh)的一家商店拿走了一包美極麪條，從此引發了一系列鬧劇，最終導致雀巢銷燬了4億包其實沒什麼問題的麪條。只是在最近（在美極麪條全球銷量下降後），該品牌才重新在印度上架。
Narendra Modi, India’s reform-minded prime minister, is visiting the UK and Turkey this week, bearing his “Make in India” appeal to multinationals, backed by the easing of barriers to foreign direct investment. But the Maggi noodles case shows that national leaders may talk but tax authorities, food inspectors and local bureaucrats often do not listen.
致力於改革的印度總理納倫德拉莫迪(Narendra Modi)最近對英國和土耳其進行訪問，承諾減少針對外國直接投資(FDI)的壁壘，用“在印度製造”(Make in India)的口號吸引跨國公司。但美極麪條事件表明，不管國家領導人說了什麼，稅務部門、食品檢驗機構及地方官僚體制常常當作耳旁風。
In claiming — on the basis of disputed evidence not backed up by other countries’ findings — that Nestlé’s noodles contained too much lead, India’s main food inspection body blithely undermined Mr Modi’s welcome. It added to a growing realisation among multinationals that emerging markets are not the one way bet, full of eager customers, they once hoped. These are tricky territories in which it is easy to get entangled.
聲稱雀巢生產的麪條含鉛量超標（基於有爭議的證據，而這些證據並未得到其他國家檢驗結果的支持）之舉，意味着印度主要食品檢驗機構滿不在乎地打破了莫迪的歡迎姿態。這進一步增強了跨國公司本已日益強烈的意識：新興市場並不是他們曾經期望的單向押注，滿是踊躍的消費者。這些是棘手的地方，外國企業很容易陷入麻煩。
In a sense, they always knew it. Only the truly naive thought it would be as easy to move into China as into Cincinnati. But the risks appeared to be containable, especially when they were being lured by smiling politicians, and the rewards for leaping into the unknown great. In practice, there have been more pitfalls than some realised and lesser rewards.
從某種意義上說，他們一直都知道這一點。只有真正幼稚的人才會認爲進入中國像進入辛辛那提(Cincinnati)一樣容易。但以往風險似乎可控，尤其是在他們受到笑臉相迎的政客吸引、而躍入未知所帶來的回報巨大之時。但在現實中，他們遇到了比預想更多的陷阱、更少的回報。
The economic climate does not help. China’s rate of growth has dropped and Brazil and Russia are expected to contract this year. Goldman Sachs has closed its Brics fund, dedicated to profiting from the potential of Brazil, Russia, India and China, due to underperformance. Foreign investors can no longer surf a wave of rapid growth.
經濟環境也不給力。中國經濟增速已經下降，巴西、俄羅斯經濟預計今年將出現萎縮。由於表現不佳，高盛(Goldman Sachs)已關閉了旗下的金磚國家(Brics)基金，後者旨在獲益於巴西、俄羅斯、印度和中國的增長潛力。外國投資者再也無法搭上快速增長的順風車。
Meanwhile, the regulatory setbacks multiply. Nestle’s noodles imbroglio follows others for foreign multinationals in India, notably over tax. Vodafone won a victory in the Mumbai High Court last month over an effort by India’s tax authorities to raise its liabilities by hundreds of millions of dollars. The same court ruled last year in favour of Shell over a similar claim.
與此同時，監管方面帶來的挫折不斷增多。雀巢麪條風波與在印度的其他外國跨國公司的遭遇如出一轍，特別是在稅務方面。上月，沃達豐(Vodafone)在孟買高等法院獲得了勝訴，此前印度稅務部門試圖讓該公司補繳數億美元的稅款。去年，孟買法院在一起類似的案件中做出了有利於殼牌(Shell)的判決。
Foreign multinationals can at least rely on the Mumbai court to be dispassionate. Its judges gave short shrift to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in August, describing its decision to ban nine varieties of Maggi noodles on the basis of flawed tests as in breach of natural justice.
外資跨國公司至少可以信賴孟買法院作出公正判決。8月，該院法官未理會印度食品安全與標準局(FSSAI)，稱該局基於有缺陷的檢測禁止9類美極麪條出售的決定違反了自然公正原則。
Other countries are equally testing. GlaxoSmithKlinewas fined 300m by a court in China last year after becoming a public example in its crackdown on bribery. Sifiso Dabengwa, chief executive of the South African mobile company MTN, which sells services across Africa and the Middle East, resigned on Monday after regulators in Nigeria fined the group $5.2bn.
其他國家同樣也很棘手。在成爲中國打擊賄賂的公開案例後，葛蘭素史克(GlaxoSmithKline)被中國一家法院罰款3億英鎊。南非移動通信企業MTN（在非洲及中東各地提供服務）首席執行官思費索達本古瓦(Sifiso Dabengwa)在尼日利亞監管機構對該集團罰款52億美元后最近宣佈辭職。
Foreign multinationals are not the sole targets of officious supervisors. Nor are they solely at risk in emerging economies, as European banks have found in the US. Several large Chinese state-owned enterprises and their senior executives have suffered badly from the country’s anti-corruption campaign. But foreigners present obvious targets when times are tough.
外資跨國公司並非好管閒事的監管機構的唯一目標。他們也並非只在新興經濟體遭遇風險，歐洲的銀行在美國也同樣遭遇風險。幾家大型中國國有企業及其高管在該國的反腐運動中遭受了嚴重衝擊。但在艱難時期，外資企業更容易成爲靶子。
That puts a premium on fitting in, not merely by adapting the Big Mac to local culture and selling Chicken Maharaja Macs instead, but becoming part of the fabric of the economy. “You cannot afford to be regarded as the imperialist. You must show how you benefit the country,” says Peter Williamson, a professor of international management at Cambridge university.
這意味着必須付出額外代價“入境隨俗”，不僅僅是讓“巨無霸漢堡”(Big Mac)適應當地文化，轉而銷售“雞肉大王漢堡”(Chicken Maharaja Macs)，而且還要成爲當地經濟的一部分。“你承受不起被視爲帝國主義者的後果。你必須展示自己如何讓所在國家受益，”劍橋大學(Cambridge University)國際管理學教授彼得威廉森(Peter Williamson)說。
But Nestlé did not do very much wrong, and certainly not enough to deserve a 20 per cent fall in its sales in India. Its mistake came after the fact rather than before, in failing to respond quickly and assertively enough to the accusations. By the time it hit back, the claim that its noodles were poisonous was all over social media. Nestlé was no arriviste trying to cram a global product down local throats. It has operated in India for 103 years and started manufacturing there in 1961. Maggi has been a popular brand since its launch in 1983 — noodles that could be cooked in a few minutes, were cheap enough for most people and fitted with their busier lives.
但雀巢並沒有做錯什麼，肯定不至於讓其在印度的銷售額下降20%。雀巢的錯誤在於在事件發生後沒能快速、自信地迴應指控。等到雀巢作出反駁時，關於其麪條有毒的傳聞已經傳遍了社交媒體。雀巢並不是試圖讓當地人接受某款全球產品的新來者。它已經在印度經營了103年，並且早在1961年就開始在印度生產。自1983年推出以來，美極一直是廣受歡迎的品牌——這種幾分鐘即可煮熟的麪條對大多數人來說足夠便宜，而且適合他們的忙碌生活節奏。
Nestlé India has been quoted on the Mumbai exchange since 1968; it employs 7,000 people directly and another half a million indirectly; it takes milk and dairy supplies from 100,000 farmers in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan; it runs global research and development for noodles in India; and it has nine health laboratories. It is not, in other words, a stranger.
雀巢印度(Nestlé India)自1968年就在孟買交易所掛牌上市；它直接僱用7000人，間接爲50萬人提供就業；它從旁遮普邦(Punjab)、哈里亞納邦(Haryana)和拉賈斯坦邦(Rajasthan)的10萬戶農民那裏收購牛奶和乳製品；它在印度對面條進行全球研發，而且擁有9個健康實驗室。換句話說，印度人對雀巢並不陌生。
It is customary in such cases to ask what the big corporation should have done better and Nestlé will learn lessons, especially in how it communicates. But it was India’s fault rather than Nestle’s and the moral for growth economies is this: if the rewards for coming to your country have fallen, you must reduce the risks too.
在此類事件中，人們往往會問，大公司怎樣才能做得更好，雀巢將吸取教訓，尤其是在溝通方面。但這是印度（而不是雀巢）的過錯，該事件對增長型經濟體的寓意是：如果你國的投資回報下降，那麼你必須把風險也降低些。
