加载中...

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：

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

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。