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.
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.
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:
• 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;
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;
• Sandwich-chain Subway is
Starbucks now offers low-calorie drinks and better food options
for kids in the west; but, again, not in
China;
• 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.
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;
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)”.
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
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.
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.