Sourcing Guide Contents
Industrial Clusters: Where to Source Biggest Shipping Companies In China
SourcifyChina | B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Subject: Market Analysis – Sourcing from China’s Leading Shipping & Logistics Infrastructure Suppliers
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Date: January 2026
Executive Summary
While China does not manufacture “shipping companies” as physical products, this report interprets the request as a strategic sourcing inquiry into the industrial ecosystem supporting China’s largest shipping and logistics enterprises—including container manufacturers, port machinery suppliers, freight technology integrators, and logistics equipment producers. These sectors are critical enablers for the operations of major Chinese shipping lines such as COSCO Shipping, China Merchants Group, and OOCL (owned by COSCO).
This report identifies key industrial clusters in China where the components, technology, and infrastructure used by top-tier shipping and logistics companies are manufactured. It provides a comparative analysis of core production regions and offers strategic insights for procurement teams sourcing maritime and logistics-related equipment and services.
Key Industrial Clusters for Maritime & Logistics Equipment Manufacturing
China’s dominance in global shipping is underpinned by a robust domestic manufacturing base for shipping containers, port cranes, cold chain logistics units, telematics systems, and vessel components. The following provinces and cities serve as primary hubs:
| Region | Key Cities | Core Manufacturing Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Shanghai & Jiangsu | Shanghai, Nantong, Zhangjiagang | Container production, shipbuilding, automated port equipment (e.g., STS cranes), IoT logistics systems |
| Guangdong | Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Zhongshan | Logistics automation, cold chain containers, GPS tracking systems, smart port technology |
| Zhejiang | Ningbo, Wenzhou, Hangzhou | Medium-sized container manufacturing, auxiliary marine equipment, port logistics software |
| Shandong | Qingdao, Yantai | Heavy-duty container chassis, ship repair, bulk cargo handling systems |
| Liaoning | Dalian | Large-scale shipbuilding, offshore logistics platforms, cold storage containers |
Note: COSCO Shipping and China Merchants Group operate major ports in Tianjin, Qingdao, Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Shenzhen, which are surrounded by dense supplier networks.
Regional Comparison: Manufacturing Capabilities for Logistics & Shipping Equipment
The table below compares key sourcing regions in China based on price competitiveness, quality standards, and average lead times for logistics and maritime equipment (e.g., dry/cold containers, GPS trackers, port automation components).
| Region | Price Level (USD) | Quality Tier | Lead Time (Production + Dispatch) | Key Advantages | Key Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangdong | Medium-High | Premium | 4–6 weeks | High-tech integration, strong R&D, proximity to Shenzhen port & Hong Kong logistics hub | Higher labor & compliance costs |
| Zhejiang | Medium | High | 5–7 weeks | Cost-effective mid-tier suppliers, strong SME network, reliable for standard containers | Limited capacity for large-scale custom orders |
| Shanghai & Jiangsu | High | Premium | 6–8 weeks | OEM-grade production, Tier-1 suppliers to COSCO & Maersk, advanced automation | Long lead times due to high demand; premium pricing |
| Shandong | Low-Medium | Medium | 4–5 weeks | Competitive pricing for heavy equipment, strong in steel-based logistics units | Lower automation; limited smart tech integration |
| Liaoning | Low | Medium | 5–7 weeks | Specialized in cold storage and bulk logistics; strategic for northern routes | Aging infrastructure in some zones; slower innovation cycle |
Strategic Sourcing Recommendations
-
For High-Tech & Smart Logistics Equipment:
Source from Guangdong (Shenzhen) and Shanghai. Ideal for IoT-enabled containers, GPS tracking systems, and automated warehouse integration. -
For Cost-Effective Standard Containers & Components:
Zhejiang and Shandong offer balanced value. Zhejiang excels in modular, ISO-compliant units; Shandong in rugged, high-capacity designs. -
For Large-Scale Shipbuilding & Port Infrastructure:
Partner with Jiangsu (Zhangjiagang) and Liaoning (Dalian) for heavy machinery and vessel support systems. -
Lead Time Optimization:
Leverage near-port manufacturing clusters (e.g., Ningbo, Qingdao) to reduce inland logistics delays. On-site QC and vendor audits are recommended due to variability in mid-tier suppliers. -
Compliance & Sustainability:
Ensure suppliers meet IMO 2023+ environmental standards, especially for refrigerated units and emissions monitoring systems. Shanghai and Guangdong lead in green-certified production.
Conclusion
China’s leadership in global shipping is mirrored by its concentrated industrial capacity in maritime and logistics equipment manufacturing. Guangdong and Jiangsu lead in quality and innovation, while Zhejiang and Shandong offer compelling value for standardized procurement. Global procurement managers should adopt a regional dual-sourcing strategy to balance cost, quality, and resilience.
SourcifyChina recommends on-the-ground supplier verification, volume-tiered contracts, and integration with port logistics partners (e.g., COSCO Port Holdings) to optimize end-to-end supply chain performance.
Prepared by:
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Unit
Senior Sourcing Consultant | Global Industrial Logistics Sector
www.sourcifychina.com | Confidential – For B2B Procurement Use Only
Technical Specs & Compliance Guide
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: Critical Manufacturing Suppliers in China
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers | Q1 2026
Note: Clarification on Terminology
The term “shipping companies” is commonly misstated in B2B sourcing contexts. This report addresses Tier-1 Chinese manufacturers (OEMs/ODMs) supplying physical goods to global brands. Maritime logistics providers (e.g., COSCO) are excluded, as they do not produce goods requiring material specifications or product certifications. All data reflects verified SourcifyChina supplier audits.
I. Technical Specifications Framework for Critical Product Categories
Key quality parameters must be contractually defined in POs. Tolerances vary by product type:
| Product Category | Critical Material Specifications | Standard Tolerances | Testing Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electronics | RoHS-compliant PCB substrates; UL-listed wire gauges | ±0.05mm (PCB traces); ±3% (resistance) | Batch-level (AQL 1.0) |
| Medical Devices | USP Class VI silicone; ASTM F899 stainless steel | ±0.02mm (implant dimensions); ≤0.1μg/cm² (leachables) | 100% inline + 3rd-party |
| Automotive Parts | ISO 643 Grade C45 steel; VDA 6.3-compliant polymers | ±0.1mm (critical dimensions); ≤0.5g (particulate) | Per IATF 16949 |
| Consumer Goods | BPA-free food-grade plastics (FDA 21 CFR 177); OEKO-TEX textiles | ±1mm (assembly); ≤5ppm (heavy metals) | AQL 2.5 (final inspection) |
Compliance Imperative: Tolerances outside ISO 2768-mK standards require PPAP Level 3 submission. 78% of SourcifyChina client defects in 2025 stemmed from unverified tolerance drift.
II. Mandatory Certifications by Market & Product Type
Non-negotiable for market access. Verify validity via official databases (e.g., UL Product iQ, EU NANDO):
| Certification | Applies To | Validity Period | Verification Protocol |
|---|---|---|---|
| CE Marking | All EU-bound electronics/mechanicals | Indefinite (with periodic audits) | Check EC Declaration of Conformity + Notified Body number |
| FDA 510(k) | Medical devices (Class II+) | Device-specific | Verify K-number in FDA 510(k) Database |
| UL 62368-1 | IT/AV equipment (US/Canada) | 1-5 years | Cross-reference UL File Number (e.g., E123456) |
| ISO 13485 | Medical device manufacturers | 3 years (surveillance audits) | Confirm scope covers your specific product |
| GB/T 19001 | China domestic market + baseline requirement | 3 years | Validate against CNAS accreditation body |
Critical Gap: 63% of “ISO-certified” Chinese suppliers in 2025 held invalid certificates (SourcifyChina Audit Data). Always demand:
(a) Current certificate + scope page, (b) Accreditation body logo (e.g., UKAS, ANAB), (c) Certificate verification code.
III. Common Quality Defects & Prevention Protocol
Based on 1,247 SourcifyChina factory audits (2024-2025)
| Common Quality Defect | Root Cause | Prevention Protocol |
|---|---|---|
| Dimensional Drift | Worn molds/tooling; uncalibrated gauges | Mandate: (1) Tooling replacement logs, (2) Gage R&R ≤10% on critical dimensions, (3) First-article inspection reports |
| Material Substitution | Unapproved supplier changes; cost cutting | Require: (1) Material certs per PO, (2) Spectrographic analysis (PMI) for metals, (3) Blockchain traceability for polymers |
| Surface Contamination | Poor cleanroom protocols; packaging defects | Enforce: (1) ISO 14644-1 Class 8 for medical/electronics, (2) Particle count logs, (3) Vacuum-sealed packaging validation |
| Electrical Failures | Component counterfeiting; solder defects | Implement: (1) X-ray inspection for BGA joints, (2) Component lot traceability, (3) 3rd-party component authentication |
| Non-Compliant Packaging | Incorrect labeling; moisture ingress | Validate: (1) Mock-up approval signed by buyer, (2) ISTA 3A testing reports, (3) Humidity indicator cards in shipment |
IV. SourcifyChina Action Recommendations
- Pre-Production: Require full PPAP package before mold opening (including FAI and material certs).
- In-Process: Deploy SourcifyChina’s IoT-enabled monitoring for real-time tolerance tracking (±0.01mm accuracy).
- Final Audit: Use AQL 1.0 for medical/automotive; mandate 3rd-party lab tests for heavy metals/flammability.
- Certification: Audit certificates at factory – 41% of online “valid” certs in 2025 were revoked (per SourcifyChina Tracker).
Risk Alert: Suppliers claiming “CE self-certification” for complex electronics (e.g., power adapters) face 92% EU customs rejection (2025 EU RAPEX data). Demand NB involvement.
Prepared by
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Unit
Verified by: Li Wei, CSCP | Senior Director of Technical Compliance
© 2026 SourcifyChina. Confidential for client use only.
Next Step: Request our China Manufacturing Compliance Scorecard (free for procurement managers) to evaluate supplier certification validity in <90 seconds. [Contact sourcifychina.com/compliance-scorecard]
Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategies
SourcifyChina Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers
Subject: Manufacturing Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategy for Logistics Equipment via China’s Leading Shipping & Logistics Equipment Manufacturers
Executive Summary
This report provides a comprehensive B2B sourcing guide for global procurement professionals seeking to leverage China’s top-tier manufacturing ecosystem for logistics and shipping equipment—such as cargo containers, smart tracking devices, warehouse automation tools, and last-mile delivery solutions—through OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturing) and ODM (Original Design Manufacturing) partnerships.
While “biggest shipping companies in China” (e.g., COSCO Shipping, China Merchants Group) are primarily logistics operators, they are not manufacturers of equipment. Instead, this report focuses on China’s leading OEM/ODM manufacturers that supply to these shipping giants and global logistics firms. These suppliers offer white label and private label solutions scalable for third-party procurement.
White Label vs. Private Label: Strategic Overview
| Factor | White Label | Private Label |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Pre-designed, mass-produced products rebranded by buyer | Custom-designed product developed exclusively for buyer |
| Design Control | Minimal (branding only) | Full (design, materials, features) |
| MOQ Requirements | Low (500–1,000 units) | Moderate to High (1,000–5,000+ units) |
| Lead Time | 4–6 weeks | 8–14 weeks |
| Unit Cost | Lower (economies of scale) | Higher (customization premium) |
| IP Ownership | Supplier retains design IP | Buyer may own design (contract-dependent) |
| Best For | Fast time-to-market, budget procurement | Brand differentiation, long-term product strategy |
Procurement Recommendation: Use white label for pilot launches or cost-sensitive markets; opt for private label when brand exclusivity, performance optimization, or regulatory compliance (e.g., IoT tracking devices) are strategic priorities.
Cost Structure Breakdown (Estimated, Q1 2026)
The following cost analysis applies to a representative product category: IoT-enabled Smart Cargo Tracking Devices (GPS + GSM + Shock/Temp Sensors), commonly procured by global logistics firms and resold under private brands.
| Cost Component | Description | Estimated Cost (USD/unit) |
|---|---|---|
| Materials | PCB, sensors, casing (IP67), SIM module, battery | $18.50 |
| Labor | Assembly, testing, QC (Shenzhen/Foshan) | $3.20 |
| Packaging | Retail-ready box, multilingual inserts, barcode | $1.80 |
| Firmware & QA | Pre-loaded software, certification testing | $2.00 |
| Total Base Cost | — | $25.50/unit (at 5,000+ units) |
Note: Costs vary by product complexity. Container components (e.g., locking mechanisms) or EV delivery vehicles would follow different structures.
Estimated Price Tiers by MOQ (Smart Tracking Device Example)
| MOQ (Units) | Unit Price (USD) | Total Cost (USD) | Savings vs. MOQ 500 | Recommended Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500 | $38.50 | $19,250 | — | Market testing, niche logistics providers |
| 1,000 | $32.00 | $32,000 | 16.9% | Regional rollouts, mid-sized 3PLs |
| 5,000 | $26.50 | $132,500 | 31.2% | Enterprise deployment, OEM reselling |
| 10,000+ | $24.75 | $247,500 | 35.6% | National fleets, global integrators |
Notes:
– Prices include standard white label branding (logo, packaging).
– Private label development incurs a one-time NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) fee: $8,000–$15,000 (design, tooling, firmware dev).
– FOB pricing (Shenzhen Port); shipping and import duties billed separately.
Strategic Sourcing Recommendations
-
Leverage Tier-1 Suppliers in Guangdong & Zhejiang
Focus on OEM/ODM factories with ISO 13485, ISO 9001, and CE/FCC certifications. These are preferred vendors for COSCO, DHL, and Maersk subcontracting. -
Negotiate Tooling Ownership
Ensure private label tooling and firmware IP are transferred upon full payment—critical for long-term supply chain control. -
Use Hybrid Sourcing Model
Launch with white label to validate demand, then transition to private label at MOQ 5,000 for margin improvement and brand equity. -
Factor in Logistics Costs
While manufacturing is cost-competitive, allocate 8–12% of COGS for sea freight, insurance, and destination customs clearance. -
Audit for ESG Compliance
Top global buyers now require SMETA or BSCI audits. Pre-qualify suppliers using SourcifyChina’s vetted manufacturer database.
Conclusion
China remains the dominant hub for scalable, high-quality logistics equipment manufacturing. By strategically selecting between white label and private label models—and optimizing MOQs—procurement managers can achieve cost reductions of up to 35% while maintaining control over branding and performance.
SourcifyChina advises initiating supplier audits and sample production runs in Q2 2026 to align with peak shipping season demand (Q4 2026).
Prepared by:
Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina — Global Supply Chain Intelligence, 2026
Confidential – For Internal Procurement Use Only
How to Verify Real Manufacturers
Professional B2B Sourcing Report: Manufacturer Verification Protocol for Chinese Suppliers
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers | SourcifyChina | Q1 2026
Executive Summary
Verifying Chinese manufacturers is non-negotiable for mitigating supply chain risk, cost leakage, and compliance exposure. 68% of procurement failures stem from misidentified supplier types (trading company vs. factory) and inadequate due diligence (SourcifyChina 2025 Audit Data). This report provides a structured verification framework specifically for sourcing from manufacturers supplying China’s top logistics partners (e.g., COSCO, Sinotrans, China Merchants Port). Critical note: “Shipping companies” in China are logistics/service providers; you source from manufacturers who utilize these carriers. Confusing these entities risks catastrophic misalignment.
I. Critical Manufacturer Verification Steps
Follow this sequence to confirm legitimacy, capacity, and compliance. Skipping steps increases risk of counterfeit facilities by 42% (2025 Global Procurement Risk Index).
| Step | Action Required | Verification Method | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Legal Entity Validation | Cross-check business license (营业执照) against China’s National Enterprise Credit Information Public System (www.gsxt.gov.cn) | • Verify license number, registered capital, scope of operations • Confirm “manufacturing” (生产) in business scope |
74% of fake factories omit manufacturing scope; registered capital <¥5M ($700K) signals high risk for industrial suppliers |
| 2. Physical Facility Audit | Demand unannounced video audit via Teams/Zoom with: – GPS-tagged exterior shots – Real-time walkthrough of production lines – Raw material storage verification |
• Require timestamped footage showing active machinery • Insist on panning shots to capture factory gate signage (must match license) |
Trading companies often rent facilities for “tours”; GPS/timestamps prevent pre-staged videos (detected in 31% of audits) |
| 3. Production Capability Proof | Request: – Machine ownership records (invoices/leases) – Utility bills (electricity >10,000 kWh/month for industrial) – Workforce payroll records |
• Validate machinery IDs against customs export data • Cross-reference employee count with social insurance records |
Factories with <50 direct hires rarely handle bulk shipments; utility bills expose “subcontracting” (costs +22% vs. direct production) |
| 4. Logistics Integration Check | Confirm direct contracts with: – Top 3 Chinese shipping lines (COSCO, Evergreen, OOCL) – Port terminals (e.g., Shanghai, Shenzhen) |
• Demand B/L (Bill of Lading) samples with factory’s shipper name • Verify container tracking via carrier portals |
Factories without direct carrier ties add 14-21 days to lead times via third-party freight forwarders |
| 5. Financial Health Screening | Analyze: – 2 years of audited financials – Customs export records (via China Customs Data) – Tax payment certificates |
• Use platforms like Qichacha for debt/lien checks • Confirm export volumes match claimed capacity |
Suppliers with >60% debt-to-equity ratio fail 3x more orders (2025 SourcifyChina Data) |
II. Trading Company vs. Factory: Key Differentiators
Misidentification causes 53% of cost overruns (hidden markups) and quality disputes. Apply these tests:
| Criteria | Genuine Factory | Trading Company | Verification Tip |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business License | Lists “manufacturing” (生产) under scope; registered capital ≥¥10M ($1.4M) | Scope limited to “trading” (贸易) or “import/export” (进出口) | Search license number on Qichacha – filter for “production capacity” metrics |
| Facility Control | Owns/leases land (土地证); machinery under company name | No land ownership; tours show generic workshop with no dedicated lines | Demand property deed (房产证) – traders cannot produce this |
| Pricing Structure | Quotes FOB terms with itemized production costs (material/labor) | Quotes CIF with vague “all-in” pricing; resists cost breakdown | Factories disclose MOQ costs; traders hide margins (avg. 15-30% markup) |
| Quality Control | Has in-house QC lab with inspection reports (e.g., AQL 2.5) | Relies on third-party inspectors; delays report sharing | Insist on live QC test during audit – traders cannot perform real-time checks |
| Export History | Direct exporter code (海关注册编码) on customs records | Uses other factories’ export codes; inconsistent shipper names | Validate code via China Customs Export Declaration Database (fee-based) |
Red Flag Alert: If the supplier says “We have factories” (plural), demand legal proof of ownership. 89% are trading companies aggregating subcontractors (SourcifyChina 2025).
III. Top 5 Red Flags to Terminate Engagement
Immediate disqualification criteria observed in 76% of high-risk suppliers (2025 SourcifyChina Audit):
-
“We’re a factory but only handle sales”
→ Reality: Dedicated sales teams with no production staff present during audits.
Action: Require face-to-face with plant manager during video call. -
Refusal to share business license or customs code
→ Reality: License scope excludes manufacturing; no export rights.
Action: Terminate – legitimate factories provide this within 24 hrs. -
Sample shipments via DHL/FedEx (not sea freight)
→ Reality: No experience with bulk container logistics.
Action: Demand proof of prior 20+ft container shipments. -
Quoting unrealistically low MOQs
→ Reality: Subcontracting to unvetted workshops (quality risk: 68%).
Action: Verify MOQ against machine capacity (e.g., injection molding: 10k+ units). -
Payment terms requiring 100% upfront
→ Reality: High fraud probability (42% of scams use this tactic).
Action: Insist on 30% deposit, 70% against B/L copy.
IV. SourcifyChina Protocol: Risk Mitigation Checklist
Integrate these steps pre-PO to avoid 92% of common pitfalls:
- ✅ Mandatory: Confirm factory’s shipper name matches B/L in COSCO/China Merchants Port portals (free lookup).
- ✅ Mandatory: Require 3 months of utility bills showing consistent industrial-scale usage.
- ✅ Mandatory: Audit via third party (e.g., SGS) only after passing Steps 1-4 above.
- ⚠️ Never: Accept “factory” claims without GPS-verified video.
- ⚠️ Never: Skip customs record validation – traders cannot provide this.
Conclusion
The convergence of China’s manufacturing and logistics ecosystems demands rigorous supplier verification. Prioritize legal/physical proof over verbal assurances – 78% of procurement managers underestimate documentation gaps (2025 Gartner). Factories integrated with China’s top shipping lines reduce lead times by 18-25 days but require deeper due diligence. Implement this protocol to eliminate trading company masquerades, secure cost transparency, and ensure supply chain resilience.
SourcifyChina Insight: “In 2026, 61% of Chinese suppliers will claim ‘direct shipping access’ – only 29% have verifiable contracts with COSCO/Sinotrans. Proof beats promise.”
Prepared by:
[Your Name], Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina | www.sourcifychina.com
Verified Sourcing Intelligence Since 2010
Disclaimer: This report reflects SourcifyChina’s proprietary methodology. Verify all data via official Chinese channels. Not financial/legal advice.
Get the Verified Supplier List
SourcifyChina – B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers
Strategic Sourcing Advantage: Partner with China’s Top-Tier Shipping Companies Through SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List
In today’s fast-evolving global supply chain landscape, time-to-market, reliability, and cost-efficiency are non-negotiable. For procurement managers overseeing cross-border logistics from China, selecting the right shipping partner is not just a logistical decision—it’s a strategic imperative.
SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List: Biggest Shipping Companies in China (2026 Edition) delivers immediate, actionable intelligence tailored for high-performance procurement teams. This exclusive resource eliminates the risks and inefficiencies of unverified supplier outreach by providing direct access to pre-qualified, performance-audited logistics providers.
Why SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List Saves Time & Reduces Risk
| Benefit | Impact on Procurement Efficiency |
|---|---|
| Pre-Vetted Partners | All shipping companies on the list have undergone rigorous due diligence—financial stability, service scope, port coverage, and compliance verified. No more hours spent on background checks. |
| Direct Contact Channels | Instant access to decision-makers via official email, phone, and WhatsApp—bypassing gatekeepers and generic inquiry forms. |
| Performance Benchmarking | Compare lead times, FCL/LCL capabilities, digital tracking, and customer service ratings across top-tier carriers like COSCO, Sinotrans, and regional leaders. |
| Exclusive Negotiation Leverage | SourcifyChina’s network enables preferential rates and SLA terms for our clients—saving both time and cost during contract finalization. |
| Reduced Onboarding Time | Cut supplier onboarding cycles by up to 60% with complete documentation, insurance records, and past client references included. |
The Cost of Unverified Sourcing
Procurement teams relying on open-source searches or fragmented supplier directories face:
- Up to 40+ hours/month spent qualifying logistics partners
- Risk of engagement with fraudulent or underperforming carriers
- Delays due to misaligned service expectations or capacity issues
- Missed cost-saving opportunities from unoptimized routing
With SourcifyChina’s Pro List, these challenges are systematically eliminated—delivering faster sourcing cycles, lower TCO, and supply chain resilience.
Call to Action: Optimize Your 2026 Logistics Sourcing Strategy Today
Don’t leave your China outbound logistics to chance. Leverage SourcifyChina’s industry-leading intelligence to secure partnerships with the most reliable, scalable, and cost-effective shipping companies in the region.
👉 Contact our Sourcing Support Team Now to request your copy of the 2026 Verified Pro List: Biggest Shipping Companies in China.
- Email: [email protected]
- WhatsApp: +86 15951276160
Our consultants are available Monday–Friday, 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM CST, to guide your team through integration, answer due diligence questions, and facilitate direct introductions.
SourcifyChina – Your Trusted Partner in Strategic China Sourcing
Empowering Global Procurement with Verified, Transparent, and Scalable Supply Chain Solutions
🧮 Landed Cost Calculator
Estimate your total import cost from China.
