The BBC recently reported on Poland's rise in unemployment and the "exodus" of Poles in search of better jobs abroad. It reports on the government's efforts to invite Poles back home through initiatives like visiting pubs in the U.K. where Poles frequent.

What’s interesting in not merely the “grassroots” tactics, but the fact that nations are considering these types of campaigns. In light of globalization, heighten emigration and low birth rates in several European countries, we may very well be on the verge of new, creative nation-driven communications campaigns – directed not only at attracting tourists to visit, but at attracting nationals to move back to the homeland.

Dateline: Beijing. July 31, 2006.
Headline: Wal-Mart Workers form 1st Union

For those who didn't see this piece, compiled by the The Chicago Tribune news service, Wal-Mart is under fire in yet another global theatre. This time, it's China, where the government-controlled All-China Federation of Trade Unions has campaigned to set up branches in a country in which Wal-Mart employs 30,000 people at 60 outlets. In case the words didn't convey it, I'll say it more strongly: the Chinese government has demanded that the company allow organized labor in its stores.

In a book titled Stonehouse, a Chinese monk has written these poetic lines:

"Dense fog and clouds you can't push apart
suddenly appear and suddenly depart
clever people can wear themselves out
sun lights the rocks the same as before."

"Pushing the clouds away to let the sun shine through," one interpreter has written, is an old Chinese metaphor for accomplishing something impossible. In markets throughout the world, Wal-Mart is now trying to push the clouds away.

The Bentonville, Arkansas, company that Sam Walton founded in 1962 has transformed retailing. It has changed how manufacturers package and sell their products to retailers. It has brought fame and fortune to some suppliers, incredibly small margins of return and business challenges to others, and even ruin for some who've failed to crack the Wal-Mart code. Through its colossal purchasing habits, it has forced among its suppliers a greater sense of corporate stewardship influencing their employment, supply chain and even their environmental practices. (Wal-Mart's decision early in its corporate history to force the elimination of paper packaging for personal products has helped save millions of trees globally.)

Wal-Mart has brought retailing to urban and rural communities that otherwise would have seen a dearth of options where boarded up properties, burned-out "big boxes" and bankrupt mom-and-pop retailers riddled the landscape. It has brought jobs, energy, activity, new options and, of course "Always Low Prices" to people who can't afford anything more.

As the company has grown, however, pushing the clouds away has become more than a metaphor.

The Wal-Mart some praise is for others an adversary. In his book titled The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works - and How It's Transforming the American Economy, author Charles Fishman examines the good and the bad of the iconic retailer. The story of Wal-Mart, he writes, is about more than price-cutting and hard-nosed business. It's the story of how the American economy has changed over more than two decades and Wal-Mart's place at the epicenter of the globalization of business.

Wal-Mart was never expected to do battle with prospective neighbors, community leaders, elected officials, organized labor and competing retailers who have sought in skirmishes world-wide to contain this giant - and who portray its employment, pay and benefits practices as sub-standard. It has sent some suppliers into bankruptcy and forced jobs into overseas markets like China to ensure low prices, according to published reports. When Canadian employees sought to organize a Wal-Mart location, the company didn't negotiate; it simply closed the store and put embattled workers on the street. Wal-Mart recently shuttered in the dark of night an underperforming Sam's Club Warehouse in Natick, Mass., less than 12 hours after giving employees notice.

So now comes the first labor union in China; the sale of Wal-Mart operations in South Korea and Germany after the company miscalculated these markets; the adoption in states like Maryland and Illinois of a "big box" tax to impose penalties on companies like Wal-Mart that they believe may not provide adequate wages or benefits coverage for its employees; the guerilla-styled tactics of smaller, regional grocers and retailers doing their best to survive and wage war on Wal-Mart in key markets; and the marriage of activists, religious leaders, labor unions, community leaders and others to create initiatives such as "Wake Up Wal-Mart," a campaign to fight for improved conditions for employees.

There's a lesson here: Corporate values matter. Experience has taught us that corporations must carefully balance their business practices and decisions with the interests and values of the communities they serve - customers, employees, third party groups and others who have a voice or a vote that may determine their future. In this New Age of Corporate Social Responsibility, the pathway to progress is littered with the tattered brands of Enron, Snow Brand, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen and others that lost their way as clever people tried to push the clouds away and failed.

Trust is a fragile commodity. Once lost, it may never be reclaimed, no matter the value proposition or the legacy of past achievements.

Wal-Mart understands this lesson. Today, it is working actively to assert new wage and benefit standards for its army of 1.3 million employees that ultimately will lift all boats in a rising tide. The Washington Post reported its response to the areas battered by Hurricane Katrina - $20 million in cash donations, 1,500 truckloads of free merchandise, food for 100,000 meals and the promise of a job for every one of its displaced workers - turned the company into "an unexpected lifeline for much of the Southeast and earned it near-universal praise at a time when the company is struggling" with its public image. Through its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club Foundation efforts, the company has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to the communities it serves, with a special emphasis on supporting Hispanic and African American communities. On the sustainability front, the company has committed to investing $500 million in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; to being supplied 100 percent by renewable energy; to create zero waste; and to sell products that sustain natural resources and the environment - lofty goals, to be sure.

As Wal-Mart works achieves its goals for social responsibility and sustainability, new perspectives should emerge to balance its place among world leaders. Only time will tell whether the sun lights the rocks the same as before.

In public relations, we've traditionally focused our time and talents on talking: delivering messages through traditional media channels and by direct means.

Talking has been a key component of our craft for centuries.

But in the future, it’s clear PR practitioners must continue sharpening another skill set: the ability to listen.

I don't for a minute suggest that communications pros aren't good listeners. On the contrary, the communications function largely serves as the listening post for most organizations. Most of us pay close attention to what's being said about our companies and the clients we represent in the press and mainstream channels.

I’m simply suggesting that, in the next 50 years, we'll need to listen not only to those with the loudest voices and those with the largest followings… but we'll also need to improve the way we listen to individuals. We must become more active facilitators of dialogue.

The influence of the individual continues to grow. Want proof? Look no farther than consumer generated media such as blogs.

Just this week, David Sifry of CGM search engine Technorati issued an update on the current state of the blogosphere. And his findings clearly illustrate the growing importance of the individual's voice.

More than 50 million blogs now exist, and since 2002, the blogosphere has doubled in size every 6 months. 175,000 blogs are created every day (that's 2 new blogs each second).

And while the growth of new blog channels may eventually cool, studies suggest consumers are using their self-built communications tools to publish thoughts more frequently. The total volume of new blog posts continues to climb -- now to 1.6+ million new entries each day.

The clear implication for PR pros and the brands we represent is that the individual voice must be recognized, and relationships with unique customers and loyalists need to be cultivated more closely than every before.

Today, individuals expect and demand the companies they do business with to listen.

Earlier this year, a nine year old student in California wrote a letter to Apple Computer Chairman Steve Jobs with some recommendations for improving the company's venerable iPod.

Instead of an appreciative note back from Jobs or his staff, she received a letter from Apple's Law Department insisting that she not send "suggestions" to the company, telling her she can read the company's legal and privacy policies online if wanted to find out why.

Is this any way to build loyalty and relationships?

(Later, after local media picked up on this story, Apple reportedly changed its policies on responding to correspondence from consumers -- particularly children.)

As the cacophony of voices grows louder and louder, organizations need to pay close attention to what's being said, and look for opportunities to join and nourish the conversation.

Who knows – if we keep working at it, 50 years from now we might all be more skilled listeners. At least that's what my wife keeps hoping for.

While many American companies have made huge inroads into China, media companies have faced some significant obstacles entering into the world’s biggest marketplace. In March of 2006, Wenner Media’s Rolling Stone published its first Chinese edition, in conjunction with a state-owned publishing company. After one issue, government regulators shut it down saying the company didn’t have official approval.

Currently in China, all periodicals are published by the government. Anyone who wants to get into the market has to license its content to a government agency who will then print it in Chinese.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Time Warner’s Sports Illustrated is launching its first issue in China called SI China in conjunction with a Hong Kong-based partner. It will be interesting to see if SI fares any better than Rolling Stone.

Obviously, the sports content will be a lot less controversial than rock and roll in a country that is sponsoring the upcoming Olympic Games. This should make the magazine more acceptable to Chinese officials. In any case, American advertisers, especially sporting goods companies, are lined up to leverage the magazine to support their marketing efforts in China.

My guess is SI China will be the first of many American magazines that will penetrate the Great Wall. The business opportunities are too great to ignore, as long as the content is not perceived as offensive to the tastes of the Communist Party. It may be a slow process, but in the years to come, we can expect to see many of America’s most popular publications appearing on Chinese newsstands.

In our “Next 50 Years” booklet, we talk about the challenges associated with Globalization and the growing power of NGOs. The recent events in India have made these points painfully obvious for Coke and Pepsi.

It is hard to imagine two more global brands. Both companies’ logos are ubiquitous in almost every country in the world. But now in one of the world’s largest consumer markets, their primary products are on the verge of being banned. How could that happen? How could they let it happen?

It all began when an independent NGO, called the Centre for Science and the Environment, issued a report stating that both soft drinks contained harmful levels of pesticides. Following the report, the state of Kerala banned their sale. As the news spread, other states initiated similar restrictions until the ban reached quarter of India’s states. The bans have received widespread coverage accompanied photos Indian consumers tearing down Coke and Pepsi signs.

I will leave the analysis of what the companies did right and wrong to others but it should suffice to say that neither one was prepared for the speed and severity of the reaction to this activist group’s report. From newspaper accounts, it appears that their respective PR departments employed the same tactics for dealing with the issue that they would have used in Western countries with well crafted statements and independent tests. But in this case they didn’t work.

India is quickly becoming a modern democracy like the US, but the mindset of its people could not be more different. Western companies must understand these critical cultural differences if they are going to avoid problems like this in the future. Consumers across the globe are wielding more power than ever before, and consumer brands cannot afford to underestimate their impact on the marketplace no matter where they live.

By Lydia Lee, Shanghai
Chapter on Media – This is not a 5-second delay country

We all hear about censorship in China, but to see it first-hand is an eye opening and chilling experience.

Last June 4, I was traveling to Guangzhou, one of the so called first-tier cities in southern China. While resting in the hotel room, I came across the CNN channel, which by the way, is only available in 4 to 5 star hotels in China, as well as through a few illegal satellite providers whose penetration rate in China is miniscule. One of the headlines of that day was the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square, which every year is only commemorated overseas and never in China. As the commercials ended and the cameras returned to the anchor’s desk, as soon as she pronounced “Today marks the 17th anniversary of T-i-a-n-an…” the screen went black. The screen remained black for the next minute and a half, before returning to updates from the then-upcoming World Cup news.

Most of the people in the US are aware of the 5-second delay that resulted from the Janet Jackson incident. That 5-second was created not to censor, but to avoid any inappropriate on-screen behavior to be shown. Yet the one that I experienced in Guangzhou is censorship to the fullest. I learned that the government has a department with people watching TV 24 hours a day with their fingers poised over the “off” button. That finger will come thundering down onto that button when any negative words are uttered on air about China.

When I shared this story to my Chinese friends, they seemed indifferent, as this is part of growing up, of living in China, watching state controlled TV for the last 50 years and learning not to trust them. When I ask where they go for “real news”, the internet is by far the best choice, although access is also limited. Just last week, the Chinese government shut down an outspoken website apparently because of the reported killing of a villager trying to stop a demolition of his home by the local officials. The government has even started monitoring and controlling blogs. The phrase “Big Brother is watching you” actually means something over here.

Yet life goes on in China. Ordinary people’s lives are not really affected by censorship, as there are other things to worry about – tagging along with the economic boom, corruption, Beijing Olympics, etc… From their perspective, life is not so bad even if they don’t get real news.

You might ask: “How does this macro-situation affect a PR professional?” Well, the answer is to play by the rules and always be alert on new media policies. Try to align your messages with the government’s missions for the wellbeing of the society. This might sound a bit corny, but for a country with 1.3 billion people, stability is key.

China is not a 5-second delay country. This is a country that can afford to delay more than 5 seconds for the sake of stability.

Lots of people, not enough talents

The world most populous country has generated 4.1 million undergraduates alone in 2006. These highly educated youngsters not only have to compete among themselves but also against an additional 790,000 job seekers (2005 data) who are between jobs. Last week I was in a campus recruitment event, and the competition for an interview was fierce.

It seems with so many graduates each year companies have easier time to find candidates. If you think this way, you are too optimistic. Today in China, the most common topic among senior management is the lack of talents in an organization, especially those with solid experience and the right set of skills. 6 to 9 months search for the right candidate for some senior positions is common in Shanghai, and most of the time, the fight for this talent can be brutal. This translates to higher cost. In other words, if you want your job to be done ok, the cost can be reasonable in China. But we all know our clients want the best of the best. Then don’t be surprised to receive a high quotation that can be similar to that of New York or Chicago. Talents worth a lot in China, that’s also why they cost so much.

So you can say that when it comes to entry level positions, companies have the upper hand. But when it comes to senior level positions, the talent has the upper hand. This is just a matter of life here in China, today.

With no ending in sight of this trauma, many companies have started to plan programs to retain their talents. All of the sudden Chinese companies realize that talents are not easy to be replaced, and the cost of losing a talent results in losing business and connections. Benefits packages, as well as employee training courses have started to appear in many local organizations, but most of them are one-offs and lack of a unified, long-term strategy. This is part of growing pains – of a manufacturing base economy moving into a service and knowledge-base economy, but also represents immense opportunities for agencies providing services for employee retention.

A friend once joke that “people” is a commodity in China. I think – people, yes; talent, no.

Posted by Lydia Lee

An observation of recent China product recall incidents and its affect within China

You recall China made toys; I forbid the import of American beef. You say quality issue, I say political pressure. You want the Yuan to appreciate; I want you to leave the Yuan alone.

Sounds like a quarrel between couples, but Chinese people think it is all about domination and power. It is an American tactic to portray China as the big bad wolf.

As far as I can remember, there have always been problems with safety and quality control of China-made food and products. This issue is, sadly, a product of rapid development, where demand for goods outruns the speed of proper legislation and control mechanism. Then you add up multilayer of corruptions within the authoritative bodies and the lack of unbiased media and watchdog groups, and you get unsafe toothpaste, poisonous toys, bleached rice, and contaminated cooking oil, dangerous drugs. You have thousands of people die or becoming ill due to what is called “black heart merchants’ products,” but in the old and closeted China, thousand of people amount to nothing when compared to the total population of 1.3billion.

My neighbor once joked that to truly resolve the problem, China needs another SARS like epidemic to really have the government stand up and fix the problem once and for all. But we are now 365 days away from the 2008 Olympics. And that changes the dynamics.

With China gearing up for the Olympics, the ultimate global platform to show its muscle, the country is under more scrutiny. China officials know that to be a global player, you have to meet the global standards, but there is just no time to fix all the problems and meet the standards before August 2008. Thus in a culture where “saving face” is as important as any political maneuvering, China has to “fight” back sometimes, and divert what seems to be a control issue to a political issue.

For my part, I believe things will change for the better. A government which has “A Harmonious Society” as its governing theme will take some actions to pacify its constituents, and at the same time probably discuss the necessity for a global brand campaign to re-establish confidence for “Made in China” products. All of these will be as powerful as the proliferation of the Internet and its role in reshaping the marketplace. With a click away to less bias information, consumers worldwide, and in China, will use their purchasing power to dictate which products will stay and which will fade. Market forces will come to play, only that within China, it will take longer.

It is worth mentioning that 25 years ago, Taiwan went through the same phase, and the government launched the “M.I.T” (Made in Taiwan) campaign to re-brand Taiwan-made goods in the global market place. Although M.I.T has not reached the level of success of “Made in Japan,” maybe the Chinese government should use it as a learning tool and a blueprint for a re-positioning global campaign.

When I arrived to China, there was one thing that struck me as odd and peculiar – giving reporters, who attend a press conference, transportation stipend, or what’s commonly called among PR professionals – “media allowance (usually around USD 25 per reporter).” This is certainly something I have never seen before, and yes, it is common practice in China.

When we try to position this in front of global corporations, who are unfamiliar with Chinese media practices, most of the executives see this as a type of bribe, and challenge the PR agency instead. Whatever you call it, “media allowance” or “bribe,” one has to agree to the fact that the practice is there, and for the near future, it will not go away. So the dilemma here is: “should we follow the customs or should we uphold our principles?”

Actually things shouldn’t be taken that seriously. Why this is a practice lays upon the fact that most reporters earn very little (an entry level reporter might get paid around USD 300 a month), and asking them to travel to press conferences using their own money is just a bit too much to ask (an average Shanghai consumer reporter receives 2-3 press conferences invitations a day). So, a way to encourage them to come is to offer this type of allowance.

What you should know is that this allowance does NOT guarantee coverage. Good and extensive coverage still come from good news angles and meaningful messages; And these cannot be generated from a simple and customary token.

Talk about the irony - I am writing this blog because my flight was canceled due to bad weather in Central China. Then again, this might be the only time I will have to write and reflect about the recent snow storm that nearly paralyzed China.

Let me share with you the highlights what I observed during the last three weeks.

CNN's images of the chaotic Guangzhou train station, not surprising, was not shown on China's local networks, or at least I did not come across with those vivid images on local stations. Instead, what we saw is the effectiveness of the government in taking care of the travelers, providing temporary shelter and food. Images of high level government officials visiting railway stations, hard hit provinces and talking to ordinary people stranded on highways have been frequent in the last few weeks. Radio stations would announce the rapid recovery of electrical power in certain cities..... An atmosphere of unity, sacrifice and harmony. This is what the Party preaches.

Yet, what we also saw is that government officials would get angry in front of TV stations when they learn that something was not going according to plan. Like the mayor of Shanghai, TV stations showed him challenging and getting angry at Shanghai municipal department in charged of road cleaning and traffic, all in front of a camera crew. It seems that the government official wants to be portrayed as responsible, yet it is the layers of bureaucracy that is delaying the rescuing efforts.

To tell you the truth, it is hard to know the real damage of this storm, but what we know is that this storm has come at a very sensitive time - Beijing Olympics is just 7 months away. Worldwide media will be challenging China of its skills during crisis management. And I am sure that the Chinese government will use Katrina as a rebuttal, and with a bit of passion, the government might use the attacks as part of nationalism build-up.

So don't be surprised if you come across with ordinary Chinese citizens not aware of the near-breakdown at the Guangzhou railway station. Because they never saw it or heard about it!

About 10 day or so, the Olympic flame arrived to Chinese soil to begin a 3-month long relay that will culminate on August 8 at the Olympic Stadium in Beijing. And just 2 days ago, a devastating earthquake hit Sichuan, the most populous province in China.

From these two tales I have noticed how Chinese media has reacted to these two incidents. And here are some observations.

The Olympic torch relay overseas was heavily broadcasted by state media. I think it is fair to say that no one expected such violent disruptions to the relay for obvious reasons. From my conversations with local Chinese friends, and officials, they underestimated the power of NGOs and other private organizations. They were too focused on media, but forgot that media is just a medium. To many Chinese, the idea of NGO is foreign. Unlike the Coca-Colas, the Nikes, the Fords, there was no familiarity of these entities. It was hard to put a face onto a NGO, thus unable to fight back in an uniformed way. Thus when the CNN incident broke (Cafferty's remarks), it was a perfect chance to put a face to the disruption, and CNN was a big brand that Chinese loves to single out and challenge. But putting outrage aside, Chinese government and corporations are only starting to understand NGOs, and from a PR prospective, these are groups that will bring the most trouble and challenges to Chinese corporation when they decide to go abroad.

While citizens rally to boycott CNN, the media is also playing a bigger role in bringing the country together in time of devastation. 24hr non-stop of live report on the earthquake aftermath really put everyone on the same boat. Cash and goods donations have arrive in tons and the image of Premier Wen in the hard hit areas, visiting the victims really spell out "change" of some sort. In the past, China has been reluctant to broadcast tragedies, such as the Tangshan earthquake in late 70s, or the recent SARS. Yet this time is different. As if the government is trying to use the media to tell its stakeholders on what's happening, what the government is doing, and what are the challenges that it is facing. In some ways, the media reports have shown a positive attitude taken by the government, and we have heard high praise from the citizens on how the government has reacted quickly and effectively.

These two tales do share something in common. With increasing easy way to get information, the government understands that hiding is no longer a viable solution. Rather, use the media to rally its citizens is a quick and effective way. Yet, what remains is how long this openness is going to last, and if the media (or government) has the courage to report "what's not working." If that happens, it will be worth of another entry on this blog.

2008 has clearly been the year for China to be featured daily in the global media. The intensive coverage began on a positive note months back as the Olympic fever began, but then turned fairly negative as protestors targeted the Olympic torch relay as it crossed the globe to air concerns on various China domestic matters, most notably Tibet. It's been interesting to read the global media coverage compared to the domestic Chinese media coverage on both of these key events. To hear both sides of the story has been fascinating. This is the kind of stuff which doctoral students live for, and I'm sure someone is already writing that thesis right now.

Sadly, though, China is now dominating the global news once again but this time following this week's devastating earthquake in Western China. As I write, the death toll is reaching nearly 15,000 but we all are braced for the reality that this toll will dramatically increase in the hours and days to come.

Unlike SARS, there does not seem to be debate on how open the Chinese media have been during this tragedy. In fact, it's in many ways been a demonstration of how far China has really progressed. Within an hour of the disaster, President Hu Jintao had called for all-out rescue efforts. By early evening, Premier Wen Jiabo had already arrived in Sichuan province. Premier Wen Jiabo then visited those areas not simply for photo opportunities but to ensure the rescue work was progressing and he was personally comforting victims, in particular children. In respect of the tragedy, the Olympic Torch relay was scaled back and donations collected along the route. Further, China readily welcomed offers of international aid, not as a sign of weakness to accept help but in the spirit that any and all help is appreciated.

For global critics of Chinese journalism, it would be interesting to hear how they now regard China's openness. Since the tragedy struck, China has been delivering comprehensive coverage of the tragedy and essentially giving international media free reign to cover the aftermath. While the world's sympathy is with China today, one would expect questions soon to follow regarding building safety standards, food and water supplies and other matters. But China isn't focused on potential criticism today, it's focused on saving lives right now. One would expect China to receive high marks with freedom of the press for this disaster. In fact, some readers of international media have already complained about the graphic images of the dead. A number of readers in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post described the front page images of dead children's bodies as highly inappropriate – one reader said “I was saddened and horrified to be confronted with the graphic and frankly gratuitous image of dead children's bodies on the front page…”

Though these are difficult stories to read and images to see, it's critical that the world see the devastation in detail… and in the process, a different side of the Chinese people's hearts and souls. It's also important to look at the actions of the central government and local authorities who have acted with great care and speed during the nation's hour of need. Without question, the media have been able to document every step.

For once, global community, let's applaud China's press… no one could have been more open or accommodating than they have been since their worst earthquake in over a generation.

When I arrived to China, I was amazed by the high utilization of instant messengers. People not only use it as a quick means of communication, but it also serves as an excellent information dissemination tool (not to say, as a good back-up when email systems breakdown). The most popular IM are MSN and QQ, and Yahoo is seldom used locally due to low penetration rates.

MSN is widely used in our office and I can understand why. The tool is highly customizable, and has certain amenities that allow personalization. Users can write a personal note next to their ID, and their friends would see it. I see sometimes good wishing notes, or just plain announcements such as "My new cell phone number is XXX."

To set aside the benefits and threats of MSN usage in an office environment, recent incidents that affected China locally and globally has made MSN a tool to voice users view points. Just let me pick two examples: the Olympic torch relay and the recent earthquake in Sichuan.

During the Olympic torch relay, many demonstrations were held overseas to voice their "anti-China" sentiments, and those graphic videos of demonstrators trying to disrupt the relay were beemed back to China. This caused nationwide uproar, and together with CNN's remarks and news that Carrefour's owner supported the Dalai Lama, really brought up the nationalism sense among Chinese. In a few days after all these incidents, a trend got started, where a "red heart" symbol could be installed along your MSN ID through a few simple clicks. The heart symbolized "Love and Proud of China" and very soon, I could see my MSN friends all with hearts in front of their ID. It felt like an unspoken solidarity, a digital and quick way for people to show their point of views. Even though it was noise-less, but the visual impact is there!!

Just two days ago, with the Sichuan earthquake affecting all of us, another trend got started. This time, it had money attached. MSN partnered with Toyota, and to show our compassion and support to those who were affected by the earthquake, for every "rainbow" that was installed in front of the MSN ID, Toyota would donate a RMB 0.1 (1cent US). And within a couple of hours, over 800,000 people have signed up and join the parade of rainbows. To me, this is not only a remarkable effort by a Japanese company trying to show solidarity (remember, China and Japan have historical conflicts that are still not fully resolved), but also how an "old" industry tries to embrace new technology, and achieving good will and CSR along the way.