隨著中國政府開始放寬零售和日用消費(fèi)品等非重要行業(yè)的外資所有權(quán)限制，在中國與7-11（7-Eleven）相互競爭的日本全家便利店（FamilyMart）打算與中國的商業(yè)合作伙伴分道揚(yáng)鑣。

在做出決定的當(dāng)下，中國的便利店市場正如火如荼。該領(lǐng)域的規(guī)模預(yù)計(jì)將在未來五年內(nèi)增長超過60%，達(dá)到270億美元。歐睿國際（Euromonitor International）認(rèn)為，這是城市迅速發(fā)展，居民希望全天24小時(shí)都能獲取食品、小吃和飲料帶來的附加效應(yīng)。

根據(jù)彭博社熟知內(nèi)情的消息源和得到的法律文件，全家的母公司全家UNY控股（FamilyMart UNY Holdings Co.）正在通過起訴終止與頂新國際集團(tuán)（Ting Hsin International Group）在中國的合作伙伴關(guān)系，它認(rèn)為這家總部位于臺(tái)北的集團(tuán)沒有公平地分享連鎖店飛速擴(kuò)張帶來的收益。

這是最新的一起涉及中國合資企業(yè)的爭端，因?yàn)橹袊畬?duì)尋求進(jìn)入其廣大消費(fèi)市場的外國公司設(shè)立了嚴(yán)格的限制。在2004年全家的合資企業(yè)成立時(shí)，想在中國開店，幾乎所有境外公司都必須與本土公司合作。

從那以后，面對(duì)國際企業(yè)在不公平競爭方面施加的壓力，中國政府放開了市場準(zhǔn)入限制。如今，只有農(nóng)業(yè)和科研等受到保護(hù)的特定領(lǐng)域才需要通過合資途徑進(jìn)入中國市場。

自此，消費(fèi)巨頭開始設(shè)法擺脫合資企業(yè)，從而獨(dú)享自身的知名品牌帶來的利益。例如，星巴克（Starbucks）就在2017年以13億美元買斷了其在華東地區(qū)作為伙伴的合資企業(yè)，這是公司當(dāng)時(shí)最大的一筆交易。第二年，星巴克就聯(lián)手阿里巴巴開始了咖啡快遞。如今，星巴克開始與中國一家價(jià)值十億美元的咖啡初創(chuàng)公司瑞幸咖啡展開競爭，這也體現(xiàn)了中國零售行業(yè)競爭的加劇。

按照合作協(xié)議，頂新負(fù)責(zé)讓中國的2,500家全家門店有效運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，并與這家日本公司共享利潤，支付特許經(jīng)營費(fèi)。

彭博社的消息源要求在涉及公司內(nèi)部事務(wù)時(shí)保持匿名，他透露，全家在頂新與合資企業(yè)的注冊(cè)地開曼群島提起了訴訟，要求合作伙伴放棄60%的股權(quán)。

盡管頂新的創(chuàng)始者是臺(tái)灣人，但公司在20世紀(jì)80年代末中國經(jīng)濟(jì)騰飛之前就進(jìn)入了中國大陸，被認(rèn)為是本土企業(yè)。它旗下還有其他食品和飲料品牌，包括中國領(lǐng)先的方便面廠商。

消息源表示，頂新稱全家的特許經(jīng)營費(fèi)比7-11等競爭者收取的平均水平要高出三倍。

文檔顯示，全家聲稱，頂新試圖把使用品牌的特許經(jīng)營費(fèi)從目前的1%降低至0.3%或更低，并已有七個(gè)月沒有繳納該項(xiàng)費(fèi)用。某位人士表示，這筆費(fèi)用隨后已經(jīng)付清。

文檔顯示，這家日本公司還表示，頂新并未充分披露合資企業(yè)相關(guān)的交易信息，全家日本方面無從得知合資企業(yè)的盈利情況。

位于東京的全家公司的發(fā)言人大月信介表示：“對(duì)于訴訟問題，我們目前無可奉告?！边@家公司有50.1%的股權(quán)由貿(mào)易公司伊藤忠商事（Itochu Corp.）所有。頂新在郵件聲明中稱，由于合同保密協(xié)議，他們也不宜發(fā)表評(píng)論。

歐睿的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，盡管7-11在中國的門店更多，但全家在這些日本競爭者最為成功，它的市場占有率為8.4%，銷售額為170億美元。全家在中國的占有率僅次于本土的東莞市糖酒集團(tuán)有限公司，后者主要面向中國欠發(fā)達(dá)地區(qū)銷售低成本產(chǎn)品。

盡管中國正在與美國展開貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)，但政府也準(zhǔn)備在2020年放開銀行業(yè)和汽車制造業(yè)等領(lǐng)域的完全外資所有權(quán)限制，并減少強(qiáng)制性技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓。歐洲巨頭西門子（Siemens AG）和阿爾斯通（Alstom SA）認(rèn)為，將關(guān)鍵技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓給中國的合作伙伴，是它們最終在高鐵建造的國際競爭上落后于中國國有企業(yè)的原因。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

Japan’s FamilyMart—a 7-Eleven competitor in China—wants to part ways with its Chinese business partners, amid loosening foreign ownership restrictions for non-critical industries such as retail and consumer goods.

The move comes as China’s convenience-store market is set to grow by more than 60% to $27 billion in the next five years. That’s a byproduct of rapid urban growth and demand for around-the-clock food, snacks, and beverages, according to Euromonitor International.

FamilyMart UNY Holdings Co. is suing to end its Chinese partnership with Ting Hsin International Group, saying the Taipei-based conglomerate hasn’t fairly shared gains from the chain’s rapid expansion, according to sources familiar with the matter and legal documents seen by Bloomberg.

The spat is the latest tussle involving joint ventures in China because of government restrictions on foreign companies seeking access to its vast consumer market. In 2004, when the FamilyMart joint venture was formed, non-Chinese businesses were mostly not allowed to set up shop in China without a local partner.

In the years since, under pressure from the global business community over an uneven playing field, Beijing has eased access and now requires joint ventures only in certain protected sectors such as agriculture and scientific research.

Consumer giants since have been wriggling out of their joint ventures in order to reap the benefits of their marquee brand names for themselves. For example, in 2017, Starbucks paid $1.3 billion to buy out its East China joint venture partners in its then-biggest deal ever. The following year, Starbucks teamed up with Alibaba to deliver coffee. And in another sign of increased retail competition in China, Starbucks is now battling Luckin, a billion-dollar Chinese coffee start-up.

Under terms of the partnership, Ting Hsin effectively operates more than 2,500 FamilyMart stores in China, sharing profits and paying royalties to the Japanese company.

FamilyMart has filed a lawsuit in the Cayman Islands—where Ting Hsin and the joint venture are registered—to force its partner to relinquish its 60% stake, said Bloomberg sources, who asked not to be identified discussing internal company affairs.

Although Ting Hsin’s founders are Taiwanese, the company has had a presence in China since the late 1980s, before the country’s economy opened up, and is considered a local entity. It also controls other food and beverage brands including China’s leading instant noodle maker.

Ting Hsin argues the royalty fees are three times higher than the average charged by rivals such as 7-Eleven, according to the sources.

FamilyMart alleges Ting Hsin sought to reduce the royalty fee it pays for use of the brand to 0.3% or less from the current 1% and withheld royalty payments for seven months, according to the documents. The payments were subsequently paid, one person said.

The Japanese company also alleges Ting Hsin didn’t provide adequate disclosure of transactions related to the joint venture that would give FamilyMart Japan a full picture of the venture’s profitability, according to the documents.

“We cannot comment on matters of litigation,” said Shinsuke Otsuki, a spokesman for Tokyo-based FamilyMart, which is 50.1%-owned by trading house Itochu Corp. Ting Hsin is not commenting due to contractual confidentiality agreements, the company said in a emailed statement.

Although 7-Eleven operates more stores in China, FamilyMart has had the most success among Japanese rivals, making up 8.4% of the market’s $17 billion in sales, according to Euromonitor. FamilyMart is second only to local chain Dongguan Sugar & Wine Group Co., which sells low-cost goods in less-developed parts of the country.

While it is caught up in a trade war with the U.S., China, separately, is preparing to open up sectors such as banking and auto manufacturing in 2020 to full foreign ownership, and curtail forced technology transfers. The shift of critical know-how to local partners is how European conglomerates Siemens AG and Alstom SA ultimately saw themselves out-competed globally in high-speed rail contracts by Chinese state-owned companies.