Just five years ago, the top global wireless telecommunications equipment makers were all western. Today, two of the top five are Chinese: Huawei Technologies and ZTE are leading a charge into global markets that scores of other Chinese companies in many industries are following.

What should western (and Japanese) multinationals do in the face of this onslaught? It’s a question that has already a thousand answers, many of them of book length. In its latest contribution to the debate, Boston Consulting Group says 1. take the fight to the Chinese and invest in emerging markets; and 2. develop services, where established multinationals still have a competitive lead.

In a study published on Wednesday, BCG examined seven industrial equipment industries in which Chinese groups are already among the top global producers – solar panels (four Chinese companies in the top five), coal power equipment (three Chinese), rail rolling stock (two), wind and power transmission (one each), and civil aerospace (no Chinese in the top five).

BCG says the Chinese manufacturers in these industries have five key advantages – huge domestic market, low labour costs, state support, useful technology transfer agreements, and state export backing.

For multinationals that intend to fight back, BCG offers the following five-point programme (everything comes with numbers in a management consultants’ report). First, build a winning portfolio, as western medical device makers have done and succeeded in China.

Next, cut costs. The average cost gap between Chinese and western companies is 20 per cent in power transmission, 25 per cent in onshore wind power and 35 per cent in railway rolling stock. If the difference can be cut to 5-10 per cent, western groups can compete in emerging markets. But to do that, they must transfer a lot of their operations to low-cost EMs.

Third, improve access to markets – through ‘smart’ joint ventures with Chinese companies (for the Chinese market); by establishing links with groups in India and other low-cost economies as mechanisms to enter other EMs; by defending home markets by upgrading service packages so Chinese (and other) new entrants find it harder to get in.

Fourth, “create the right business model”, that is adapt to the demands of middle-income clients who may not want top-flight technology if a well-made piece of cheaper kit can do the job.

Finally, refocus the organisation on key EMs, including India and China. For example, at Honeywell, the US hi-tech group, China and India are the only two countries managed separate by an executive who reports directly to the ceo.

In a sense, there is little new in this advice. It can be summarised as adapt or die, a business motto that has applied for decades. But what is striking is that BCG is not talking about the challenges of tomorrow but the realities of today.

In the key industries examined by the report, the top Chinese manufacturers are already global leaders. They are not household names because they operate largely in industrial and not consumer markets. But it won’t be long before even the man in the street knows their brands. Indeed, it is already beginning to happen with Huawei marketing own-brand mobile phones in the west.