Search
Arts and Culture
Green Glam in China
(Editor’s note: Please welcome our first post by contributing blogger Sophia Mendelsohn about some of the benefits of luxury consumption and “lifestyle” publications in China!)
China’s public is receiving a mixed message from mainstream media. On the one hand, they are told development is destroying the environment. On the other hand, the messages equate luxury and consumption in China with the ever sought after higher living standard.
This means that an effective media campaign promoting environmental protection is going to have to embrace the inevitable consumption by offering the consumer a green option that is sexy and fashionable. This also serves to counter the idea that environmental problems are too large for the average person to minimize.
Despite the common conception that state-controlled media doesn’t report bad news, a large part of the environmental news in China covers major disasters in country. Much of the rest goes to playing the blame game with the U.S. and other developed nations.
In December 2005, chemical pollution in the Song Hua River near Harbin, endangered the water supply for millions, making for some very telling pictures. In 2007, Taihu Lake near Shanghai turned blue and green from human and industrial pollution. That same year, over 15,000 kilograms of dead fish floated en masse to the surface of Wuhan’s East Lake. The bad news was that this was not the first time.
(Photo of Taihu Lake via PacificEnvironment)
These events, and others, were covered heavily by state-run media, discussed on personal blogs and in chat rooms. With this kind of coverage, it is easy to understand the belief that environmental problems in China are beyond the control of the average person.
The other environmental news that filters down to mainstream press in China is often focused on blaming the U.S. and other Western nations for climate change and global warming. Part of that argument is that the West has an excessively lavish a lifestyle and consumes too much, thereby emitting greenhouse gases.
Of course, you don’t have to look farther than Shanghai’s Nanjing Xi Road or Beijing’s Wangfujing to see the”luxurious” Western nations are in good company. And it seems the more the merrier. Gucci plans to open another five stores in China within the next year.
As luxury brands barge their way into the market, they are accompanied by their close cousin, the lifestyle magazine. Though in a twist away from the stereotype, many of these magazines are talking about more than just clothing and movie stars. Recently a number of lifestyle magazines have featured “green stories,” covering everything from eco-trends to socialite environmental heroes.
Although it would be fair to grumble about a certain amount of “greenwashing,” lifestyle publications serve an important role in educating the Chinese public about environmental issues. “Green glam” brings an element of sexiness to the change and effort that is involved in improving a new consumer’s lifestyle.
They also offer a softer, more approachable angle than newspapers running stories about whole eco-systems being taken down by heavy industry. Without these publications, the public’s main access to eco-issues would be all doom and gloom.
Trends Magazine’s Chinese-language publications let loose a frenzy of green stories in ’07 and look to be keeping it up in ’08. Trends publishes about every glossy magazine you see on the corner kiosk—think Cosmo, Bazaar, Esquire, National Geographic Traveler, and Men’s Health, to name a few.
Trends established a website focused on their eco-travel for their readers. The site opens to words like “trendy environmental protection” and panoramic views of snow-topped mountains in Tibet and other western provinces in China.
You could fairly argue that the very snow photo-shopped onto the site will melt away with the carbon emissions produced by traveling to them. However, with the Chinese domestic tourist industry moving around one billion people a year, we can safely argue that those emissions are going to be emitted regardless.
But sites like this still serve an important purpose. They reach out to tourists with plane ticket already in hand and alert them to the drastic increase in tourism, and how it is affecting the local eco-system. While promoting travel, these sites declare environmental protection must be taken into account. In addition, Trends directs readers to non-profit environmental organizations like Greenpeace and WWF China. It’s true that they are not promoting tents over five-star hotels, but awareness like this on an attractive platform is a step in the right direction.
Just like China’s consumption, “green glam” coverage does not stop at travel. The upscale fashion magazine, Bazaar (November 2007) suggests easy steps you can take in your own home to reduce your environmental impact, like shutting off lights and successfully making LEDs seem as precious as Chanel. It also promotes the “I am not a plastic bag” bag as more than an extra purse but to actually cut down on use of plastic.
Like travel and fashion, glamorous eco-friendly weddings are not to be left behind as China revs up.
Cosmo (July 2007) covered green weddings particularly well, making a direct connection between the extravagance of a wedding and the extra greenhouse gases produced as a result. Similar to the American way of measuring everything in football fields, the Chinese-language site notes “the carbon emissions from your wedding could not even fit in six swimming pools.”
This month Esquire magazine has green billboard advertisements up with banners declaring the publication to be a fighter for the environment. You can find them in Shanghai’s main shopping street, right next to the permanent Tiffany & Co. billboard.
While organizations that promote the restraint and reduction of consumption deserve great credit, we need to look at alternative strategies as both shopping and pollution spread out from Beijing and Shanghai to every corner of China.
Lifestyle media’s trendy promotion of small environmental changes in an answer to two problems.
- One, it empowers a public easily left feeling helpless by the scale of the problem, or vindicated by heavy industry’s role in causing it.
- Two, it acknowledges the inevitable path of progress and works with consumer’s cravings, rather than against them.
While they can be easily dismissed as “greenwashing,” glossy covers do more good than we give them credit for. They contribute to popular awareness of the issues and suggest realistic small solutions that your average Zhou have a chance at. These possibilities are well worth the trees they are printed on.
=====
For more information about luxury consumption in China, browse these links:
- China Luxury Summit: “An annual gathering of luxury executives for the hottest issues concerning China’s luxury market.”
- WorldWatch: “Luxury Spending: China’s Affluent Entering ‘Enjoy Now’ Phase of Consumption”
- Amazon.com: “Elite China: Luxury Consumer Behaviour in China,” by Pierre Xiao Lu
- TNS Consumer Survey: “Luxury Brands in China” video
- McKinsey Quarterly: “The new Chinese consumer” and “The value of China’s emerging middle class”
Tags: China, consumer behavior, green glam, greenwashing, lifestyle publications, luxury consumption, responsiblechina
Discussion
11 comments for “Green Glam in China”
Post a comment
Support
Responsible Events
Erica
Doesn’t “green glam” as you put it, simply misinform the public about these issues, rather than raising awareness?
A strong coming out with this post.
Greenwashing is something that happens when external relation professionals are in charge of the CSR initiatives, and I recently completed several video interviews on the topic that will be up on Crossroads that lookss that the topic.
when reading there were two questions I had
(1) how many trees do these magazines consume each year – questions of their own industry
(2) how many of these magazines will come out against the fashion industry for their environmentally damaging chemicals, animal testing, etc? – questions of their clients industry
for sure, the role of these magazines is to discriminate information to readers about being greener, however without addressing some of their own tough issues (2 are above), their message will not carry the same credibility long term as they will simply be seen as throwing stones at others
Welcome to the neighborhood!
r
http://www.china-crossroads.com
I think what’s interesting about Sophia’s post is that it acknowledges there is an opportunity in every industry to “do what you can” when it comes to spreading environmental awareness. Fashion magazines are not necessarily going to start saving whales, so to speak, so instead, the editors choose to publish stories about eco-weddings, fashionable reusable shopping bags and environmentally friendly make-up. As long as the information is accurate, I don’t think it misinforms the public. Like Sophia says, “awareness like this on an attractive platform is a step in the right direction.”
In reaction to the first question Richard poses:
1) Hmm…number of trees consumed? Check out this post:
http://www.muckraked.com/wordpress/2006/03/30/vanity-un-fair-mag-dropsplan-to-use-recycled-content/
Or use Environmental Defense’s Paper Calculator: http://www.edf.org/papercalculator/
This reminds me of a conversation I had with editors and publishers of National Geographic, you know, the world-renowned, yellow-bordered glossy magazine that distributes millions of copies per year, under the mission, “Inspiring people to care about the planet.” To display its breathtaking photographs, the magazine must print on high-quality virgin paper, so it can’t actually use recycled materials. (However, the magazine’s cover is used with 10% postconsumer content.)
Publishers say this is because they cannot compromise the quality of the mag’s editorial content, especially since the content itself is used as a vehicle to spread awareness about society, science and the environment. Instead of printing on recycled paper, then, National Geographic focuses its efforts on other eco-friendly endeavors: it publishes its “Green Guide” magazine on post-consumer recycled paper, sponsors eco-tours through its Center for Sustainable Destinations, and its headquarters in D.C. has been LEED-EB certified for minimizing its environmental impact.
So while wasting paper is an issue, it’s not the only concern. But yes, I agree, that a lot more can be done — among everyone! — to practice what we preach.
Dear R,
Thanks for the welcome.
To pick-up where Erica left off:
1. If we all had to be absolute to be good, few of us would have the right to write about green. More over, who gets to establish the matrix by which to judge absolute? How do you decide the criteria to be absolute enough not be accused of throwing stones?
2. Can we agree that they are doing the right thing for the wrong reason? They are encouraging readers to buy responsible products, because they encourage readers to buy products. That is what they do.
3. I appreciate your comment about the animal-testing and chemicals. Though I am going to argue that their average reader, if buying the magazine to begin with, probably is not as concerned with those things as you may be. Since their reader does not see products that include animal-testing in contradiction to fixing leaky pluming and carrying around reusable chopsticks, the value of the advice about the latter two stays intact. Since the credibility stays intact for the target audience, they still have a chance of changing their actions based on the magazine’s advice. Mission accomplished, all be it with a few less trees around.
Thoughts?
Thanks again for the welcome to the neighborhood, looking forward to hanging out in it!
Dear Mark,
Two reasons that I think it does more informing than miss. One, it raises issues to readers who might not ever pick up anything but a fashion magazine. If you missed the news about the oil spill the first time around, seeing an article about the movie star who volunteered for cleanup might be the only way you were aware of it at all. And being aware is the first step towards action. Two, it helps to decouple the idea that green has to be ugly or hard. These magazines gave the same tips about reusing bags, shutting off lights, fixing leaks, that WWF and Greenpeace do. But they reach an audience who would never bother to click on those sites.
@ Erica – your point is well taken on the quality issue, but again, if they are taking on the role of turning their readers into green citizens shouldn’t they also educate their readers about the benefits of recycled paper? What about using recycled paper, but providing access online to pictures that are of such quality that you think you are swimming with the fishes!
Would consumers go for it? Would they go for it if they were educated?
@ Sophia –
1)Sure sure. I am contributing to the problems as well (I am feeling guilty about the collection of SBUX throwaway cups I have).. but where I was testing the water was that shouldn’t they use their forum to address issues that are within their industry? It is not about getting it right.. it is about steps (for the purposes of this post)
2) Can we agree that they are doing the right thing for wrong reason? As in, can we agree that they are using the green issue to sell more magazines
I will agree that they are creating awareness, and that is a good thing. I would also agree that I think they can do more.
3) I would counter argue that they have an opportunity to educate their readers about various problems in the fashion industry (the core of their content) and work to build consumer awareness. They have begun printing these to create awareness, so to say that their readers may not care about animal testing or chemicals also could be carried out to eco-weddings and energy conservation right?
Thoughts?
R
Hey, R,
1. Two points under number (1). One, they are working within their industry. Their industry is magazines, but it is also sales. And they are definitely selling green. Sales of trendy green fits the forum, just as well as recycled paper.
Two, they are making steps. The first step for them is the easiest, which is running an article. A much harder, even if more relevant step, would be changing the paper. So even though it may not be the step we would take (to protect from hypocrisy), it is still logical in a way.
Going off of what Erica said, we can assume that they need the same glossy paper to get those beautiful pictures. So I imagine if we contacted them and asked them why they don’t use recycled paper, they would tell us that they will. As soon as someone invents the magical combo that can satisfy both worlds. Would be interesting to find out for real. Interesting and time consuming.
I know I sound like GE here, but is this a case where the right technology could go along way towards solving the problem?
2. Agreed, and agreed. Either way you word it, half of the sentence is still right.
3. Again, two different points here. One, they have an opportunity, but not an obligation. They don’t want to anger their advertisers, so free of obligation, guess which opportunity they are going to choose? The one that everyone can agree on because it sells things, rather than boycotts. Two, I, as their reader, care more about eco-weddings than animal testing, because the former is a positive, creative step. The latter is a negative restriction.
If these magazines want to keep publishing, they have to be careful where they go pointing fingers. If they point in the wrong direction, they could end-up with no business, and then there would be even fewer green stories.
One last tid-bit that I actually have gotten from my friends. Women read these magazines to relax, so they need to keep it in a relaxed tone. It’s good business.
Ya? Nay?
Sophia.
I totally agree with you on all counts, and you present the business case as I am. I am just bring cynical
Actually, take a look at this magazine. It is one that I have been working with for a while, and I just took a look at their new site, and it is awesome. http://www.pagegangster.com/shop/publications/view/18615/
In the end, I understand the business side of this as you present it, and I think I address that in my previous comments.
Where I am pushing the limits a bit is that these mediums do have an opportunity – no obligation – and if you look at how the market is moving, those that take the opportunity will actually open themselves up to a solid following of educated and conscientious readers… which will attract advertising
of course, by talking about all this they may turn off those looking for a light read, but maybe just having Zhang Ziyi talk about how she only wears organic cotton clothing would be the approach?
Or… perhaps that is why Treehugger has become the medium that it has.
R
I see where you are pushing, and agree that if one is to push, that is where they should be shoved.
Think we are being a bit idealistic that educated, conscious readers attract more advertising in the publications in question. The trend is in that direction, but not before next month’s deadline.
Of course, all this leads us to the ultimate question. How do you or I create an environment where opportunity leans into obligation? How do we push these medians to create a demand for fundamental, sustainable change? How do reach consumers that can demand that change? (Other than through the above mentioned medians). How do we stop talking to each other and start facing out? Treehugger is one, how do we make it two, and three, and….
Will check out pagegangster.com. If that is where the answer is after asking all those questions, I am going to be really embarrassed
[...] Green Glam in China : ResponsibleChina.com: Environmental sustainability, corporate social responsib… China’s public is receiving a mixed message from mainstream media. On the one hand, they are told development is destroying the environment. On the other hand, the messages equate luxury and consumption in China with the ever sought after higher living standard. [...]
Hey guys,
This has been a very interesting discussion, and I will try to re-visit again in a blog post (Sophia, thanks for bringing this issue to the table!)
I wanted to add something about the use of recycled paper:
Just because paper is printed on virgin trees, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s terrible for the environment. Some trees/forests are grown specifically for paper harvesting. So I feel like, as long as you’re balancing the negative impact of the printing process with positive solutions, then that’s a good start (not the best, but better than nothing.) Also, what’s equally important as recycled paper (which is just one part of the puzzle) is also having healthy print manufacturing processes and a “green” workplace, in general, not to mention a comprehensive CSR program. The paper is not the only thing that matters in this equation. But yes, bottom line, I agree that the printing industry needs to take leadership on this issue and revolutionize the way we consume print media.
You guys should check out the Institute for Sustainable Communication to learn more about “economic, social and environmentally sound business practices in the design, sourcing, production, use and disposal of enterprise communication.”
And The Magazine Paper Project:
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/woodwise/publishers/
Also, look at the Print CEO Blog:
http://printceoblog.com/
Anyway, this is all very interesting. Let’s write about it again in the future, once we learn more =)