2021年12月英语六级真题 第1套

Section B
Directions: In this section, you are going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it. Each statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the information is derived. You may choose a paragraph more than once. Each paragraph is marked with a letter. Answer the questions by marking the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2.

No one in fashion is surprised that Burberry burnt £28 million of stock
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.
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.
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.
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.
E) In an online forum post, which asked if it's true that Louis Vuitton burns 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.
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 were 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”

时尚界没有人对巴宝莉烧掉价值2800万英镑的库存感到惊讶
A）上周，巴宝莉的年度报告显示，他们去年烧毁了价值2860万英镑的库存。［44］这一消息让投资者和消费者愤怒不已，但对时尚界人士来说并不意外。
B）销毁未售出的存货，甚至是一卷卷根本没用过的布料，这对奢侈品牌来说是司空见惯的。［37］通过折扣店以更便宜的价格太过广泛出售会不利于商品的正价销售。把产品送去回收会让它们很容易被盗并在黑市上出售。品牌策略机构Concept Bureau的首席执行官贾丝明·比娜解释道：“通常来说，奢侈品牌会围绕着排他性来保护其商业利益，也就是保护知识产权和品牌资产。”她表示，她听到过烧毁存货的传言，但直到本周才知道具体案例。
C）采取这种司空见惯的做法的另一个原因是对各品牌向美国出口商品的经济激励。美国海关规定，如果进口商品在其监管下未被使用或被销毁，则可以退还该商品因进口而产生的99%的关税或税费等费用。要计算目前有多少闲置存货被浪费掉是非常困难的。虽然有激励措施鼓励这样做，但没有法律规定有义务报告相关情况。
D）［41］一位不愿透露姓名的消息人士分享了她2016年10月在纽约一家巴宝莉门店工作的经历。“我的工作是把东西扔进箱子里，以便把它们送去烧掉。我心里难受极了，因为所有的皮革和毛皮都被浪费了，动物们都白白牺牲了。我不能在那里再待下去了，他们的商业行为让我离开了巴宝莉。”今年5月，巴宝莉宣布将在其时装秀中停止使用皮草，并重新评估皮草在该品牌其他业务领域的使用。“尽管我们询问了管理层，但对于他们为什么要这样处理库存，他们拒绝给我们详细的解释，”这位在两周内离职的消息人士继续说道。此后，她一直就职于另一家知名的奢侈品牌。
E）［39］在一个在线论坛帖子中，有人问路易威登是否真的会把他们（未售出）的包烧掉，自称在路易威登工作的艾哈迈德·布希法亚回答说，该品牌每年为员工举行两次旧库存特价销售活动。几经特价销售后仍未售出的物品会被销毁。“路易威登没有公开的特价促销活动。他们要么以指定价格出售一种产品，要么停止销售它。这是为了确保每个人为一件物品支付的价格都一样，”他表示。他还披露了有关针对员工的特价销售的严格准则：“你可以买给某人作为礼物，但他们会跟踪每件商品，如果你购买的礼物最终在网上销售，他们知道该对谁进行问责。”据报道，一名投资者在评论巴宝莉的数据时非常愤怒，因为这些未售出的商品在被销毁之前甚至都没有提供给投资者。
F）旗下拥有多个奢侈品牌的历峰集团今年5月上了头条，该集团在过去两年收回了价值4.37亿英镑的手表，为的是销毁这些手表，以避免价格下跌。［42］不仅仅是奢侈品牌会这么做。去年10月，一家丹麦电视节目曝光了H＆M自2013年以来焚烧了12公吨未售出的服装。在一份声明中，这家高街零售商为自己辩解称，被烧毁的衣服没有通过安全测试：“媒体所报道的产品已在外部实验室进行过测试。检测结果显示，其中一种产品受霉菌感染，而另一种产品则含铅量过高。停售那些产品正是根据我们的安全程序而采取的恰当措施。”今年3月，一份报告显示，H＆M正为价值43亿美元的未售出库存而苦苦挣扎。该品牌在接受《纽约时报》采访时表示，他们计划通过降价来使库存动销起来，可以说是在鼓励消费者毫不犹豫地购买和扔掉。
G）生产过剩可能是巴宝莉最大的担忧。［36］在人们对其烧毁商品而不是让商品的价格变得更加亲民的精英主义内涵感到极其愤怒的同时，这家英国时装公司的高管们无疑是在竭力辩称他们如何误判了产量。这一浪费行为一直被认为是为了给新的美容产品系列让路而烧毁了旧的化妆品库存。然而，尽管被销毁的存货的价值在去年的2690万英镑基础上有所增加，但与2016年的1880万英镑相比，这一增幅更为显著，突显出这是一个持续存在的问题。
H）2016年9月，巴宝莉转向了“即看即买”的时装秀营销策略。此举是一种策略转变，旨在利用时装周的报道，让消费者可以立即购买到库存现货。这与传统的向行业展示、接受生产订单并在6个月内上市的方式截然不同。［45］尽管巴宝莉宣布了“破纪录”的在线覆盖率和参与度，但几乎没有证据表明这一策略对销量产生了显著影响，尤其是在整个季度炒作活动放缓的情况下。今年2月，他们对这一销售模式进行了调整，立即放弃了一些走秀时装，并承诺其他时装将在未来几个月内推出。
I）在一份声明中，巴宝莉否认转向“即看即买”策略对造成浪费有影响。巴宝莉的一位发言人进一步表示：“在需要处理产品的情况下，我们会以负责任的态度去进行处理。我们一直在寻找减少浪费和对废弃商品进行重新评估的方法。这是我们战略的核心部分，我们已经建立了伙伴关系，并承诺支持创新组织来帮助实现这一目标。”
J）与“埃尔维斯与克莱斯”之间的合作就是这类合作之一，埃尔维斯与克莱斯是一个使用再生材料的配饰品牌。联合创始人克莱斯·韦斯林说：“去年年底，我们与巴宝莉基金会启动了一项雄心勃勃的五年合作计划。［43］这样做的主要目的是扩大我们的皮革救援项目，计划从巴宝莉皮革制品生产的边角料开始。我们正在孜孜不倦地扩展我们的解决方案，欢迎大家来我们的车间，看看我们在做什么。”目前，这一合作伙伴关系只处理生产阶段的浪费，而不涉及未售出的商品。
K）虽然这些都是可敬的计划，但这让巴宝莉更难为这些最新数据进行辩解。［38］15年前，巴宝莉处于危机关头，因为其标志性的格子图案被廉价仿冒品牌广泛模仿。这抑制了奢侈品消费者的消费，他们发现自己花大价钱购买的服饰与工人阶级青年文化的联系更紧密，而不是让人联想到著名的传统时装品牌。2004年，在巴宝莉的格子图案过度曝光的高峰期，该品牌的营业额为7.155亿英镑。在克里斯托弗·贝利担任创意总监期间，他们扭转了品牌形象，去年的营收达到27.3亿英镑。
L）［40］比娜认为，各大品牌需要重新调整他们的排他性策略。“排他性开始受到挑战，”她表示。“我认为，这与奢侈品本身受到的挑战密切相关。接触时尚以及管理时尚的品牌正变得越来越无关紧要。健康、启迪以及社会和环境责任等都是新的奢侈品。这些都是内在的，而不是外在的。这是传统奢侈品牌在中期到长期的未来必须应对的挑战。”