加载中…
个人资料
王浩律师
王浩律师
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:344,152
  • 关注人气:156
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

为何西方品牌到中国就变样了?

(2008-06-02 11:15:41)
标签:

麦当劳

汉堡王

赛百味

星巴克

美汁源

汇丰银行

路易威登

文化

环保

杂谈

分类: 商标杂谈

Why is China different for western brands?

作者:Paul French

     

The environment debate is moving up the agenda in China, not least because Chinese people increasingly care about green issues. You can see it in the record numbers of young Chinese looking for internships at green NGOs, for instance, or in the so-called “middle class” protests around issues like the proposed petrochemical plant in Xiamen, Fujian province, or this year’s anti-Maglev demonstrations in Shanghai. 
    环境问题的争论正在提上中国的议事日程,相当重要的原因是中国人越来越关注环保问题。例如,你可以看到,寻求在非政府环保组织见习的中国年轻人,达到了创纪录的人数,围绕着诸如福建厦门拟建化工厂的问题,“中产阶级”联合举行抗议,今年在上海发生了反对磁悬浮列车的示威游行。

 

For western companies, the need for an environmental strategy in China is essential. Yet those companies working at the interface between Chinese consumers and western brands appear to be the most lax. This is perplexing to those of us working in the Chinese retail and consumer market, where doing the right thing ultimately means gaining consumer loyalty and a competitive advantage. Being “eco-friendly” in the consumer sphere can have a far more immediately tangible business benefit than in industry or manufacturing. However, brands seem to have missed this seemingly self-evident point.

    对西方企业而言,在中国制定环境战略是十分必要的。然而,那些联系着中国消费者和西方品牌的企业,显得最为懈怠。正确的选择意味着最终赢得消费者忠诚度和竞争优势,对于奋斗在中国零售和消费市场中的我们来说,那些企业的做法令人困惑不解。相比工业或制造业,在消费领域做到“生态友好”,能马上产生多得多的实际商业利益。然而,这些品牌企业似乎并未觉察到这点看来显而易见之处。

 

Many non-Chinese consumer brands operate in China, but do not implement the same range of “eco-friendly” initiatives that they do in Europe, North America or, indeed, other parts of Asia. Consider, for instance, some examples from the fast-food business, one industry that has not matched the environmental and health-improvement standards it applies in other countries with the same degree of effort in China:

    很多非中国消费品牌在中国经营业务,但是却没有像在欧洲、北美,乃至亚洲其他地方那样,执行那套同样的“生态友好”计划。就拿快餐业的实例来说吧,这个行业还没有像在其他国家那样,在中国付出同样的努力,来达到环保和促进健康的标准:

  

• In Hong Kong, McDonald’s has two “no straw days” every month, but it does not have them on the Chinese mainland. The company does not substitute super-size options for a “Gofit” adult happy meal in China, as it does in the United States. McDonald’s Happy Meals targeted at children in the US come with “better-for-you” substitutes, such as milk and apple dippers, but not in China;

    •在香港,麦当劳每月有两个“无吸管日”,但是在中国大陆却没有。该公司在中国没有像在美国那样,用“走向健康”成人欢乐餐取代特大号套餐。麦当劳的欢乐餐目标针对美国的儿童,提供“更适合你”的替代食品,如牛奶和苹果片,但在中国却没有;

 

Burger King, which has just announced a major expansion of outlets in China, in many countries offers chilled apple slices as an alternative to french fries, with no-fat apple sauce dips. They already offer milk as an alternative to cola in many markets, but they do not offer any of these items in China; 
    •刚刚宣布在中国获得重大市场扩张的汉堡王,在许多国家提供冰镇苹果片,作为炸薯条的替代选择,附带无脂苹果沾酱。他们已在很多市场提供牛奶,作为可乐的替代选择,但是在中国,他们还没有提供其中的任何一样替代选择;

 

• Sandwich-chain Subway is expanding quickly in China. In the US, the chain has launched a “Fresh Fit for Kids” menu, with apples or raisins as a replacement for potato crisps; but not in China; 
    •三明治连锁店赛百味在中国扩张迅速。在美国,该连锁店推出了一份“儿童新鲜健康”菜单,有苹果或葡萄干作为炸土豆片的替代品;但是在中国却没有;

 

Starbucks now offers low-calorie drinks and better food options for kids in the west; but, again, not in China; 
   •在西方国家,星巴克如今为儿童提供低热量饮料和更好的食物选择;但是,同样地,在中国没有;

 

• In Singapore, Minute Maid orange juice comes with a series of “Lifewise” tips from the National Healthcare Group, stressing the importance of exercise and vitamin intake. No such advice is dispensed on Minute Maid’s packaging in China. 
     •在新加坡,美汁源橙汁上有来自国立健保集团的一系列“生活指南”建议,强调锻炼和摄取维生素的重要性。在中国,美汁源的包装上却没有配上此类建议。

 

And it is not just the fast-food giants: 
而且,不仅仅是快餐业巨头:

 

Banking chain HSBC sends its mail in Hong Kong on recyclable paper, in envelopes that note the bank is committed to protecting the environment. None of this is mentioned on envelopes sent to Chinese mainland addresses; 
•汇丰银行在香港用可回收的纸发送信件,在信封上注明,该银行致力于保护环境。在发往中国大陆的信封上却只字未提;

 

Luxury retailer LVMH’s new Catherine Deneuve-led advertising campaign features a tag line that supports the Climate Project. It appears everywhere from London to Hong Kong, but not on their ads in the Chinese mainland; 
    •奢侈品零售商路易威登新推出的凯瑟琳·德纳芙主打广告活动中,有一句支持气候项目的品牌口号。从伦敦到香港,无处不在,但是在中国大陆的广告上却没有;

 

 In the United Kingdom, the supermarket chain Tesco is a classic example of a retailer responding to pressure. The company's carbon footprint is known to be substantial; it pumps out four million tonnes of carbon annually, half in the UK and half from its stores in other countries. So Tesco, which is now opening stores in China, recently launched a community plan, with pledges including a £100 million investment in alternative energy, more local sourcing and a promise to put a “carbon calorie count” on every product – in the UK, but not in China. 
    •在英国,零售商对压力作出反应的典型事例当属连锁超市乐购。人们知道,该公司的碳足迹是巨大的,每年排放四百万吨碳,一半在英国,一半来自乐购在其他国家的分店。乐购现正在中国开店,该公司最近推出了一项公益计划,承诺在替代能源、更多的本地采购上投资一亿英镑,并承诺在每个产品上注明“碳卡路里数”——在英国,而不是中国。

 

Others planning to come into the Chinese market have so far remained uncommitted. Retailers Marks and Spencer aim to open in China later this year, but will not say if their Chinese stores will confirm to their much-hyped corporate social responsibility package, “Plan A” (“because there is no Plan B”, as they put it).

     其他计划进入中国市场的企业目前也没有承诺。零售商玛莎百货打算在今年晚些时候在中国开业,但不说他们的中国商店是否会遵照他们大肆宣传的企业社会责任计划,即“A计划”(他们的说法是,“因为没有B计划”)。

 

What can we conclude from this? Perhaps fast-food companies only do the right thing when public opinion forces them to. Maybe they think where there are few chains offering anything substantially different, there is less chance people will go elsewhere. 
     我们能据此得出什么结论呢?也许快餐企业只有在社会舆论的逼迫下才会做出正确的选择。也许他们认为,在各家连锁店售卖的产品大同小异的地方,人们到别处消费的机会就更小。

 

Western brands, however, do comply where legislation has forced change. Walk into a branch of Burger King or McDonald’s in Taiwan, for example, and the rubbish bins are separated for recycling, as local laws demand. How difficult would it be to introduce separate bins in mainland China? It one example where western brands could take the lead and provide a focus for China’s growing band of environmentally concerned citizens, rather than sit back and do nothing until it is mandated. 
     然而,在立法迫使变革的地方,西方品牌绝对是服从的。例如,走进汉堡王或麦当劳在台湾的分店,垃圾筒按照当地法律的要求分开设置,以便回收利用。在中国大陆引入分开设置的垃圾筒会有多大的困难呢?这是一个西方品牌可以带头的例子,并为中国人数日益壮大的关注环境的公民提供一个关注点,而不是无动于衷,无所作为,直到有强制规定的出台。

 

This year, however, things will change as new rules come in to limit wasteful and non-recyclable packaging. Until now, packaging legislation in China has related more to hygiene issues, but the government is now drafting legislation aimed at reducing waste. The new laws will have far-reaching implications for the entire consumer products supply chain: manufacturers, packagers, distributors, suppliers of raw ingredients and production equipment, as well as advertisers and marketers. They will also affect the requirement to collect and recycle packaging waste. Crucially for product manufacturers, the new legislation will mandate that “the entity that pollutes shall control the pollution, the entity packaging the products shall be responsible for disposal of abandoned packaging materials”. In practice, this means that all packaging produced should be either recyclable or degradable – and must be recoverable. Manufacturers and retailers will have to reduce the amount and weight of packaging they use, and they will be encouraged to improve materials and technology. 
    不过,随着限制多余包装及不可循环利用包装的法规的实施,今年的情况将发生改变。直到现在,中国的包装立法更多地与卫生问题有关,但是政府正在起草法案,旨在减少垃圾废物。对整个消费产品供应链而言,包括生产厂商、包装企业、分销商、原料和生产设备供应商,以及广告商和经销商,新的法律将产生深远的意义。新法还会影响到收集和循环利用包装垃圾的要求。对产品生产商至关重要的是,新的立法将要求“污染单位应控制污染,产品包装单位应对抛弃的包装材料的处理负责”。实际上,这意味着所有的包装应该是可循环利用的或可降解的——而且必须是可回收的。生产商和零售商将必须减少包装的数量和重量,并鼓励改进材料和技术。

 

The government will also demand the introduction of waste recovery and recycling systems. This will affect local governments, but it will also fall back on manufacturers and retailers, under the same premise that “the entity that pollutes…”. This is one area where foreign companies should expect to be targeted and “outed” if they do not comply. 
    政府还将要求引入废品回收和循环利用系统。这将影响到地方政府,但是也将依靠生产厂商和零售商,同样的前提是“污染单位……”。如果不遵守规定,这是外企应当预计到将被锁定和“驱赶出局”的一个方面。

 

Furthermore, the government will regulate the transportation and storage of recyclable and recycled materials; a “recycled materials trading system” is to be established under “market” conditions (this may resemble a carbon trading market). To assist the companies involved, the government has announced that it is preparing a detailed catalogue of materials and production processes that have been categorised into groups according to whether they are to be “encouraged, restricted or become obsolete (banned)”. 
    而且,政府将对可回收和已回收材料的运输和储存进行管理;将根据“市场”条件设立一个“回收材料交易系统”(这可能类似于碳交易市场)。为了协助相关的企业,政府已宣布正在准备一个详细的材料和生产流程目录,根据“鼓励、限制或废弃(禁止)”进行分类。

 

All very well, but – as with most such legislation in China – the proof will be in the enforcement. To police the new packaging legislation, China will set up new inter-agency enforcement teams that span central and local government departments. These may be part of the planned shake-up of the central government’s ministerial structure, expected later in 2008. These agencies will be empowered to inflict penalties on companies for infringements of the new regulations, including bringing criminal proceedings.

   这样好倒是好,可是如同中国大多数此类立法一样,效果将取决于执行。为了执行新的包装法规,中国将设立跨越中央和地方政府部门的跨部门执行小组。这可能是预计在2008年晚些时候中央政府部级结构改组计划的一部分。这些部门将有权对违反新法的企业进行处罚,包括启动刑事诉讼。

 

Understanding that the public itself can be mobilised to act as the eyes and ears of the government, the legislation will include provisions for whistle-blowers to be given the right to report the waste of resources, environmental damage and the excessive use of packaging. The provisions include state protection for whistle-blowers, as well as rewards for bringing legitimate cases – a strong incentive in an increasingly litigious society such as China’s.

认识到公众本身可以动员起来充当政府的耳目,立法将包括举报者有权对浪费资源、危害环境及过度使用包装予以报告的条款。条款包括对举报者的国家保护,以及依法举报的奖励——在一个越来越喜欢打官司的社会中,如中国,这是一个强烈的激励。

 

Similarly indicative of this sea-change in government policy, the Chinese government has announced it will to ban shops from giving away free plastic shopping bags, effective from June 2008. This is a further bid to curb the country’s massive and spiralling pollution problem. The State Council has targeted the ultra-thin plastic bags routinely given out by retailers, but will cover all kinds of plastic bags. This, the government hopes, will encourage consumers to use reusable cloth bags or shopping baskets instead, and to think more about how they use – and waste – packaging. To date, only IKEA actively encourages shoppers to buy their recyclable bags, others still give them away in large volumes. 
 

    同样表明政府政策这种巨变,中国政府已宣布,从2008年6月开始,将禁止商店提供免费的塑料购物袋。这是为控制该国巨大和不断加剧的污染问题而推出的进一步措施。国务院针对的是零售企业一贯提供的超薄塑料袋,而不会把所有种类的塑料袋都包括在内。政府希望籍此鼓励消费者使用可再度使用的布袋或购物篮,并让他们更多地思考如何使用——和浪费——包装。迄今为止,只有宜家积极鼓励购物者购买可循环利用购物袋,其他商家则依然大量散发塑料袋。

 

Hopefully these new regulations will force retailers to rise to the challenge and encourage Chinese consumers to become more aware. It is sad, however, that western brands and retailers could have easily been ahead of the curve, really taken the lead and raised the bar above what the government now requires. But they did not – and it does not reflect well on them.
    这些新规将有望迫使零售企业接受挑战,并鼓励中国消费者更加地注意。然而,令人遗憾的是,西方品牌和零售企业本应很容易地走在这一转变的前面,真正地起到带头作用,并比政府现在的要求更上一层楼。但是,他们没有——这对他们的形象是不利的。

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有