[luminiferous]

> Never heard of it, never thought about it, not sure why proving/disproving this is in the author's interest.

It is in Huawei's interest to not be labelled as a state-owned or state-controlled actor. The perception of being controlled by the Chinese state is precisely why many western countries are leaning away from purchasing Huawei networking equipment for their up and coming 5G networks, and also (at least in the case of the US) advising against, and then banning, consumer electronics made by Huawei. Huawei has been trying to convince the public that it is in fact employee owned and therefore not controlled by the Chinese state by touting its "employee virtual ownership program", and the purpose of this paper appears to be to dispel that notion.

[rolltiide]

Proving significant state ownership should be the goal then. Doesn't have to be majority. Maybe 15-30%?

Chinese state owns some of most Chinese companies. Some passive through the central bank open market operations, some more direct and controlling.

So it is almost like trying to prove a negative, with Chinese companies, but if we really want to dive deeper on this particular issuance, the opaque trade union governance is a nice tip of the iceberg.

I just think it is such a weird assertion to start with.