2021年12月六级第2套长篇阅读匹配原文翻译及答案

A) Last week, Burberry's annual report revealed that £28.6 million worth of stock was burnt last year. The news has left investors and consumers outraged but comes as little surprise to those in the fashion industry.

上周，Burberry的年报显示，去年有价值2860万英镑的库存被焚烧。这一消息让投资者和消费者感到愤怒，但对时尚行业的人来说却并不意外。

B) The practice of destroying unsold stock, and even rolls of unused fabric, is commonplace for luxury labels. Becoming too widely available at a cheaper price through discount stores discourages full-price sales. Sending products for recycling leaves them vulnerable to being stolen and sold on the black market. Jasmine Bina, CEO of brand strategy agency Concept Bureau explains, "Typically, luxury brands rally around exclusivity to protect their business interests, namely intellectual property and preservation of brand equity (资产)." She stated she had heard rumors of stock burning but not specific cases until this week.

销毁未售出库存，甚至未使用的布料卷，对于奢侈品牌来说是司空见惯的做法。通过折扣店以更便宜的价格变得过于普及会阻碍全价销售。将产品送去回收会使它们容易被盗并在黑市上出售。品牌战略机构Concept Bureau的首席执行官Jasmine Bina解释说：“通常，奢侈品牌围绕排他性来保护其商业利益，即知识产权和品牌资产的维护。”她表示，她曾听到过焚烧库存的传言，但直到本周才有具体案例。

C) Another reason for the commonplace practice is a financial incentive for brands exporting goods to America. United States Customs states that if imported merchandise is unused and destroyed under their supervision, 99% of the duties, taxes or fees paid on the merchandise may be recovered. It is incredibly difficult to calculate how much dead stock currently goes to waste. While there are incentives to do it, there's no legal obligation to report it.

这种常见做法的另一个原因是品牌向美国出口商品的财务激励。美国海关规定，如果进口商品未使用且在其监督下销毁，商品上支付的99%的关税、税费或费用可以收回。目前很难计算有多少废弃库存被浪费。虽然有激励这样做，但没有法律义务报告。

D) A source, who chose to remain anonymous, shared her experience working in a Burberry store in New York in October 2016. "My job was to toss items in boxes so they could be sent to be burned. It was killing me inside because all that leather and fur went to waste and animals had died for nothing. I couldn't stay there any longer, their business practices threw me off the roof." In May this year, Burberry announced it was taking fur out of its catwalk shows and reviewing its use elsewhere in the business. "Even though we asked the management, they refused to give us detailed answers as to why they would do this with their collection," continued the source, who left her role within two weeks. She has since worked with another high-profile, luxury label.

一位选择匿名的消息人士分享了她2016年10月在纽约一家Burberry店铺工作的经历。“我的工作是把物品扔进盒子里，以便送去焚烧。这让我内心很痛苦，因为所有那些皮革和毛皮都浪费了，动物们白白死了。我再也待不下去了，他们的商业做法让我崩溃。”今年5月，Burberry宣布将从其时装秀中剔除毛皮，并审查其在其他业务中的使用。“即使我们问了管理层，他们也拒绝给出详细答案，说明他们为什么会对他们的系列这样做，”这位消息人士继续说道，她在两周内离开了职位。此后，她曾为另一家知名奢侈品牌工作。

E) In an online forum post, which asked if it's true that Louis Vuitton burned its bags, Ahmed Bouchfaa, who claimed to work for Louis Vuitton, responded that the brand holds sales of old stock for staff members twice a year. Items which have still not sold after several sales are destroyed. "Louis Vuitton doesn't have public sales. They either sell a product at a given price or discontinue it. This is to make sure that everybody pays the same price for an item," he says. He goes on to disclose the strict guidelines around the employee sales: "You may buy gifts for someone, but they track each item, and if your gift ends up online they know who to ask." One investor commenting on the Burberry figures was reportedly outraged that the unsold goods were not even offered to investors before they were destroyed.

在一个在线论坛帖子中，有人问Louis Vuitton焚烧其手袋是否属实，自称在Louis Vuitton工作的Ahmed Bouchfaa回应说，该品牌每年为员工举办两次旧库存销售。经过多次销售仍未售出的商品会被销毁。“Louis Vuitton没有公开销售。他们要么以给定价格出售产品，要么停产。这是为了确保每个人为一件物品支付相同的价格，”他说。他接着披露了关于员工销售的严格指南：“你可以为别人买礼物，但他们会追踪每件物品，如果你的礼物最终出现在网上，他们知道该问谁。”一位投资者评论Burberry的数据时，据报道对未售出商品在销毁前甚至没有提供给投资者感到愤怒。

F) Richemont, who owns several luxury brands, hit the headlines in May for taking back £437 million of watches for destruction in the last two years to avoid marked-down prices. It's not just luxury brands either. In October last year, a Danish TV show exposed H&M for burning 12 tonnes of unsold clothing since 2013. In a statement, the high street retailer defended itself by saying that the burnt clothing had failed safety tests: "The products to which the media are referring have been tested in external laboratories. The test results show that one of the products is mold infested and the other product contains levels of lead that are too high. Those products have rightly been stopped in accordance with our safety routines." In March, a report revealed that H&M was struggling with $4.3 billion worth of unsold stock. The brand told The New York Times that the plan was to reduce prices to move the stock, arguably encouraging consumers to buy and throw away with little thought.

拥有多个奢侈品牌的Richemont在5月登上头条，因为过去两年收回价值4.37亿英镑的手表进行销毁，以避免降价。不仅仅是奢侈品牌。去年10月，一家丹麦电视节目揭露H&M自2013年以来焚烧了12吨未售出的服装。在一份声明中，这家高街零售商为自己辩护，称焚烧的服装未通过安全测试：“媒体所指的产品已在外部实验室进行了测试。测试结果显示，其中一种产品发霉，另一种产品铅含量过高。这些产品已根据我们的安全程序被正确停止。”3月，一份报告显示，H&M正挣扎于价值43亿美元的未售出库存。该品牌告诉《纽约时报》，计划是降低价格以清理库存，这可以说鼓励消费者不假思索地购买和丢弃。

G) Over-production is perhaps the biggest concern for Burberry. While there has been much outrage at the elitist connotation of burning goods rather than making them affordable, executives at the British fashion house are no doubt struggling to defend how they miscalculated production? The waste has been put down to burning old cosmetic stock to make way for their new beauty range. However, while the value of destroyed stock is up from £26.9 million last year, it's an even more significant increase from 2016's figure of £18.8 million, highlighting that this is an ongoing issue.

生产过剩或许是Burberry最大的担忧。尽管焚烧商品而不是让其变得负担得起引发了关于精英主义内涵的愤怒，这家英国时装公司的高管们无疑在努力为他们的生产误判辩护？这种浪费被归因于焚烧旧的化妆品库存，以为他们的新美容系列让路。然而，尽管销毁库存的价值从去年的2690万英镑上升，但从2016年的1880万英镑数字来看，这是一个更显著的增长，突显这是一个持续存在的问题。

H) In September 2016, Burberry switched to a "see now, buy now" catwalk show format. The move was a switch to leverage on the coverage of their fashion week show to make stock available immediately to consumers. This is opposed to the traditional format of presenting to the industry, taking orders for production and becoming available in six months' time. While Burberry announced "record-breaking" online reach and engagement, there has been little evidence to suggest that the strategy has had a significant effect on sales, particularly as the hype (炒作) slows across the season. In February they made adjustments to the format, dropping some catwalk items immediately and promising that others would launch in the coming months.

2016年9月，Burberry转向“即看即买”的时装秀形式。这一举措是为了利用时装秀的媒体报道，让库存立即向消费者提供。这与向行业展示、接受生产订单并在六个月后上市的传统形式相反。虽然Burberry宣布了“破纪录”的在线覆盖和参与度，但几乎没有证据表明该策略对销售有显著影响，特别是随着季节变化炒作减退。2月，他们调整了形式，立即推出一些时装秀商品，并承诺其他商品将在未来几个月内上市。

I) In a statement, Burberry denied that switching to "see now, buy now" has had an impact on waste. A Burberry spokesperson further said, "On the occasions when disposal of products is necessary, we do so in a responsible manner. We are always seeking ways to reduce and revalue our waste. This is a core part of our strategy and we have forged partnerships and committed support to innovative organizations to help reach this goal."

在一份声明中，Burberry否认转向“即看即买”对浪费产生了影响。Burberry发言人进一步表示：“在需要处理产品的情况下，我们以负责任的方式进行。我们一直在寻找减少和重新评估我们浪费的方法。这是我们战略的核心部分，我们已与创新组织建立伙伴关系并承诺支持，以帮助实现这一目标。”

J) One such partnership is with Elvis & Kresse, an accessories brand working with reclaimed materials. Co-founder Kresse Wesling said, "Late last year we launched an ambitious five-year partnership with the Burberry Foundation. The main aim of this is to scale our leather rescue project, starting with off-cuts from the production of Burberry leather goods. We are working tirelessly to expand our solutions and would love to welcome anyone to our workshop to come and see what we are doing." At the moment, the partnership only addresses waste at the production stage and not unsold goods.

其中一个合作伙伴是与使用回收材料的配饰品牌Elvis & Kresse的合作。联合创始人Kresse Wesling说：“去年年底，我们与Burberry基金会启动了一项雄心勃勃的五年合作。主要目标是扩大我们的皮革拯救项目，从Burberry皮革制品生产中的边角料开始。我们正在不懈努力扩展我们的解决方案，并欢迎任何人到我们的工作室来看看我们正在做什么。”目前，该合作仅解决生产阶段的浪费，而不是未售出商品。

K) While these are honorable schemes, it makes it harder for Burberry to defend these latest figures. Fifteen years ago, Burberry was at crisis point as their signature check pattern was widely imitated by cheap, imitation brands. It deterred luxury consumers who found their expensive clothing more closely associated with working-class youth culture than a prestigious heritage fashion house. In the year 2004, at the height of over-exposure of the Burberry check, the brand's turnover was £715.5 million. Under Christopher Bailey as creative director they turned the brand around and this past year revenue hit £2.73 billion.

虽然这些都是值得称赞的计划，但这使得Burberry更难为这些最新数据辩护。十五年前，Burberry处于危机时刻，因为他们标志性的格子图案被廉价、仿冒品牌广泛模仿。这阻止了奢侈消费者，他们发现昂贵的服装更接近工人阶级青年文化，而不是一个享有盛誉的传承时装公司。2004年，在Burberry格子过度曝光的高峰时期，该品牌的营业额为7.155亿英镑。在Christopher Bailey担任创意总监期间，他们扭转了品牌局面，去年收入达到27.3亿英镑。

L) Bina believes that brands need to readdress their exclusivity tactic. "Exclusivity is starting to be challenged," she says. "I think that goes hand in hand with how luxury itself is being challenged. Access to fashion, and the brands who police it, are becoming less and less relevant. Things like health, enlightenment, and social and environmental responsibility are the new luxuries. These all come from within, not without. That's the challenge that traditional luxury brands will have to contend with in the mid- to long-term future."

Bina认为品牌需要重新审视他们的排他性策略。“排他性开始受到挑战，”她说。“我认为这与奢侈本身如何受到挑战是相辅相成的。时尚的可及性，以及监管它的品牌，正变得越来越不相关。健康、启蒙、社会和环境责任等事物是新的奢侈。这些都来自内部，而不是外部。这是传统奢侈品牌在中长期未来必须应对的挑战。