通用电气首席执行官杰弗里•伊梅尔特曾说中国市场很大，但很难。和秘鲁、蒙古和澳大利亚等增长型区域相比，伊梅尔特认为：“这些地区同样很大，但不是那么难。”无可置疑，外国公司在华经营的黄金时代已经结束。

上周，在中国的境外非政府组织受到了有史以来最强烈的冲击。将于2017年1月生效的新法律规定，所有境外非政府组织都要有一家正式的中国担保组织。受影响的组织多达7000个，其中包括一些最有名望的机构，比如绿色和平组织、清华-卡内基全球政策研究中心、爱百福、比尔和梅琳达•盖茨基金会等。许多项目很快就会被砍掉，其他一些也将打道回府。

20世纪80年代以来，境外非政府组织一直在为中国的发展需求提供资金、技术和专业人才。在很长一段时间里，中国政府对此态度不定，一直游走于怀疑和容忍之间。这让许多观察人士相信社会进步不可避免。他们的思路是，随着世界的联系程度达到前所未有的水平，它就会变得更加平坦。然而，此番对境外非政府组织的加强监管充分表明，情况也许恰恰相反。对企业领导人和跨公司负责人来说，这说明他们需要重新评估自己的中国策略。

上述限制条件出现后，没有哪位CEO会打算向冷漠的中国政府解释自己公司的经营政策。劳动力成本上升已经造成许多公司向东南亚转移，比如越南、柬埔寨和孟加拉国。原因很简单，它们希望控制对中国工厂的过度依赖。外国品牌发现自己不时地成为咄咄逼人的中国消费者的靶子——沃尔玛被指销售假驴肉，肯德基所用鸡肉抗生素超标，钓鱼岛问题激起反日情绪造成丰田汽车销售暴跌。美国商会今年的问卷调查表明，75%的会员公司觉得现在自己在中国已经不那么受欢迎了。

当然，中国6-7%的增长率仍非常高，就算和2002-2008年间的飞速发展时期（平均增速为12%）相比也是如此。在基础设施、人才和发展潜力方面都达到此种水平的地区寥寥无几；也没有哪家《财富》500强企业承担得起忽视中国的后果。但在如此之多的因素共同影响下，企业进入市场的方法必须有所变化，而不是天真地在中国淘金。

在华经营的整体成本越来越高，这一点已经很明了，高层需要对中国劳心费力的程度也超过以往。以伊梅尔特为例，他每年至少来中国两次，每次都会在GE研究中心逗留几天，会晤政府官员，了解中国最新的行止法规，并按中国的目标来调整GE的安排。这些措施成本不菲，都需要时间和金钱。因此，企业进入中国市场的努力必须要在中国讲得通，而且对其他市场也要有实质意义。

我们看到，企业已经把在中国的行动作为整个新兴市场策略的一部分。举例来说，诺华公司、葛兰素史克以及强生都已在中国设立了先进的研究实验室。生物和化学高级人才比比皆是以及大规模税收减免的传统优势仍在，而且这些研究中心都把精力集中在发展中国家常见的疾病上。受气候、饮食习惯、生活水平以及生活方式影响，各个地区的病患情况都不相同，中国则特别适于开发肝炎、结核病、胃癌和肝癌治疗药物。

GE医疗保健业务更进一步。它以中国为基地，开发出了手机大小的超声诊断仪。这种仪器定价1.5万美元（约9.75万元人民币），比GE的高端超声诊断仪便宜15%。这样的便携设备在农村医疗机构非常有用，那里的医生要直接做出诊断，比如肝肿大、胆囊肿大以及胃部异常。在美国，这种手持设备也找到了新的应用途径，而且不会影响现有高端仪器在大医院的销售，那就是在全科医生和护理人员进行预检时发挥作用。

能调动全世界最优质资源的能力才是跨国公司的真正优势。

在中国取得成功当然很重要，但前提是这也有助于在其他地区获得成功。(财富中文网)

霍华德•于是洛桑国际管理发展学院战略管理和创新系教授，专攻技术创新、战略转型和管理调整。2015年，工商管理类资讯网站Poets & Quants将于教授评为全球40位40岁以下最佳教授之一。他在哈佛商学院获得博士学位。

译者：Charlie

审校：詹妮

General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt once described China as big, but hard. Compared to other growth regions, such as Peru, Mongolia, and Australia, Immelt conceded, “These places are equally big, but they are not quite as hard.” There is no disputing that the golden age of foreign companies doing business in China is over.

Last week saw the most sweeping crackdown on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in China yet. The new law, to be effective by January 2017, requires all foreign NGOs to have an official Chinese sponsor. None would be allowed to raise funds in China nor conduct any political activities. A staggering 7,000 foreign groups will be affected, including some of the most venerable names: Greenpeace, the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, The Bethel Foundation, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others. Many programs will soon be curtailed, and others simply sent home packing.

Since the 1980s, foreign NGOs have been contributing money, technology, and expertise to address China’s development needs. For a long while, Beijing exhibited mixed responses to this, from suspicion to tolerance. That led many observers to believe that societal progress was inevitable. As the world becomes evermore interconnected, it will become flatter, the thinking goes. Yet, the latest toughened stance on foreign NGOs is a good reminder that the exact opposite might be happening. For business leaders and heads of multinationals, it is a call to reassess their China strategy.

With the latest clampdown on NGOs added into the mix, no CEO wants to have to explain his or her company’s policies about corporate dealings with unsympathetic Chinese authorities. Rising labor costs have caused many a company to flock to Southeast Asia—from Vietnam to Cambodia or Bangladesh—for a simple reason: They want to limit their overwhelming reliance on factories in China. At times, foreign brands find themselves under fire by belligerent local consumers: Walmart China was accused of selling donkey meat, KFC chicken was laden with excessive antibiotics, and Toyota sales tumbled when anti-Japan sentiment flared up over the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. A survey by the American Chamber of Commerce this year showed that 75% of member companies in China felt that they were less welcome now.

To be sure, China’s growth rate of 6% to 7% is still very high, even when compared to its heady era between 2002 to 2008, which averaged 12%. Few places offer the same level of infrastructure, talent, and growth potential all at the same time; and no Fortune 500 company can afford to ignore the Middle Kingdom quite yet. But with so many strings attached, companies’ go-to-market approach must be more nuanced than a naïve hunt for big fortune in China.

It is a known fact that the overall cost of China is getting higher, and the demand for attention from top management there is becoming evermore taxing. Immelt, for example, goes to China at least twice a year, spending a few days at GE’s GE -0.83% research center, mingling with government leaders, understanding China’s latest do’s and don’ts, and aligning GE’s agenda with China’s ambition. These efforts don’t come cheap. They require time and money. Companies’ efforts to access the Chinese market must therefore make sense in the country, but also be relevant for other markets.

Already, we have seen companies frame their efforts in China as part of wider strategy focused on emerging markets in general. Novartis NVS -0.28% , GlaxoSmithKline GSK 0.17% , and Johnson & Johnson JNJ 0.59% , for example, have all set up advanced research laboratories in China. The conventional advantages—like the abundance of biology and chemistry PhDs and generous tax concessions—still apply, but these centers are focusing on diseases commonly found in developing nations. Because of the climate, dietary habits, living standards, and lifestyle, diseases vary across regions, and China is particularly suitable for developing treatment for hepatitis and tuberculosis, as well as gastric and liver cancer.

GE Healthcare went further. Using China as a base, it developed a compact ultrasound machine about the size of a mobile phone. Priced at $15,000—less than 15% of GE’s high-end ultrasound machines—the pocket-size device proves highly useful in rural medical centers where it was deployed by doctors for straightforward application, such as detecting enlarged livers, gallbladders, and stomach abnormalities. The handheld device has since found new applications in its home market back in the U.S.—not to cannibalize existing sales of high-end equipment in large hospitals, but to capture new applications among general practitioners and paramedics when providing pre-screening services.

The ability to extract the very best all over the world is in fact the true advantage of being a multinational.

Winning in China makes sense, but only if it also helps win elsewhere.

Howard Yu is professor of strategic management and innovation at IMD. He specializes in technological innovation, strategic transformation and change management. In 2015 Professor Yu was featured in Poets & Quants as one of the Best 40 Under 40 Professors. He received his doctoral degree at Harvard Business School.