图为某酸奶饮品因可使用购物卡结账所剩无几。 中新财经记者 谢艺观 摄
和这位消费者一样,当天,不少顾客都在超市货架中穿梭,寻找能使用购物卡的商品,一旦发现,就把商品放进购物车里……
记者注意到,虽然该超市只有少数货架出现空置或货量紧张的情况,但很多商品都贴上了写有“购物卡系统升级中,暂不支持购物卡结算,其他结算方式正常购买”的标签,这让不少消费者苦恼。
“我这(购物)卡里还有6000多块钱,该咋花出去?”一位消费者无奈感慨。
在该家乐福超市里,很多商品都贴上了不支持购物卡结算的标签。 中新财经记者 谢艺观 摄而当记者询问该超市工作人员时,得到的回复是“从5日开始就已经出现这种情况,北京其他家乐福超市也是这样,不知道什么时候能够恢复。”
如果不能把卡内余额花完,能不能把购物卡退了?
记者就此咨询家乐福购物卡服务人员,对方表示,“现在不能退卡,如果超市关门估计可以退。”
图为家乐福超市结账区,不少人在排队。中新财经记者 谢艺观 摄不只是北京,据媒体报道,近日,沈阳、昆明、无锡等地家乐福门店也出现购物卡消费受限现象,比如规定订单满100元可用购物卡结算15元。有些地区门店货品也空了很多,商品还出现涨价情况。面对这些现象,多地相关部门也开始介入调查或约谈家乐福相关负责人。
家乐福回应
对于部分门店货架空置,家乐福方面9日回应中新财经记者,公司正通过积极协调,多举措优化商品供应链效率,给消费者更丰富的商品选择。
对于“关门”传言,家乐福方面也回应称,公司会持续深耕中国市场。请广大消费者不信谣、不传谣,理性消费。
另外,北京家乐福相关负责人也向媒体表示,不会退出北京市场。此前,昆明、沈阳、无锡等地家乐福均表态称,不会退出当地市场。
在家乐福超市,有顾客在寻找能使用购物卡的商品。 中新财经记者 谢艺观 摄家乐福的回应虽给人们服下一颗“定心丸”,但近年来家乐福门店数量减少,却是不争的事实。
2019年,苏宁以48亿元收购了家乐福中国80%股份。苏宁易购财报显示,2022年前三季度,家乐福无新开门店,门店数量从2021年底的205家减少到9月末的151家,闭店数量达到54家。2021年,家乐福也仅新开3家门店,却关闭了26家门店。
苏宁易购在2022年三季报中也提到,当前公司仍处于净利润亏损状态,其中非常重要的影响因素是家乐福业务受到多重因素影响,带来规模下降较快,较高的固定租金成本难以分摊。公司在三季度已全面开展家乐福业务调整,包括关闭部分区域门店,聚焦优势城市经营,提升规模效益。
业务不佳、频繁关店的同时,外界亦怀疑家乐福供应链出现问题。
据北京商报报道,2022年以来,家乐福被供应商追收货款的事件频繁被曝光。此前,西南地区供应商透露,2022年下半年起,家乐福超市频繁拖欠货款。据悉,在这位供应商暂时中止与家乐福合作时,家乐福欠该供应商的未结货款金额约240多万元。
曾经的零售界“黄埔军校”为何遭遇窘境?
如今身陷窘境的家乐福,当年可谓无限风光。
2006年,家乐福中国门店数就已突破100家,成外资零售超市中门店数量最多的一家。其以“合资”形式将“大卖场”业态引入中国,实现农超对接等模式,也让家乐福成为行业的标杆,还曾被誉为零售界的“黄埔军校”。
但在激烈的商业竞争中,家乐福渐渐失去强势地位。2009年,家乐福在国内市场的销售额被大润发超过;2010年,家乐福在华门店数被沃尔玛反超。2012年至2017年,家乐福中国大陆地区的销售额从55.83亿欧元下降至46.19亿欧元,降幅17.27%。
2018年,家乐福中国账面净资产为负。对此家乐福中国解释为,近年来线下零售业态受到互联网的冲击,虽然积极应对,但仍带来了阶段性的经营亏损。
资料图:市民在武汉市汉阳区家乐福超市购物。王方 摄若放眼整个行业,家乐福的境遇并非个例。近年来,麦德龙中国、乐购等主打大卖场的连锁超市接连“卖身”。与此同时,各地大卖场也屡屡传出关店消息。
“受社区团购冲击,超市业态到了生死存亡的至暗时刻。”步步高董事长王填2021年4月份在某行业会议上的一番话,让人担忧起超市的未来。
在零售专家胡春才看来,随着国民人均收入和生活水平的提高,消费需求出现新的变化,线下超市也需要变革,从原来的“卖商品”到现在的“卖生活”,给中国人提供新的生活解决方案。
据苏宁易购透露,在对家乐福进行业务调整时,会加大家乐福门店的电器3C业务融入,借助大卖场人流优势,提升盈利较强家电业务收入,分摊固定成本;此外,家乐福自身也加快商品结构调整,本地电商与社群电商运营,加快适应市场变化,实现规模环比改善。
现在家乐福这个老牌零售巨头正努力做出改变。面对“购物卡使用受限”风波,家乐福的消费者们也希望,超市能尽快恢复正常。(完)
中新网评:处理核污水绝不是日本自家私事****** 中新网北京1月19日电(蒋鲤)日本政府近日称,将于2023年春夏期间开始向海洋排放经过处理的福岛第一核电站核污水。日本罔顾国内民众及周边国家的屡屡反对,企图将核污水“一倒了之”,把一件关乎全球海洋生态环境和公众健康的事当成了自家私事。 资料图:日本福岛第一核电站。2011年,福岛核电站事故发生后,大量放射性物质泄漏到大气层和太平洋,对周围环境造成了难以逆转的伤害,数十万人被迫撤离该地区。时至今日,作为日本邻国之一的韩国仍未解除福岛海鲜禁令。 日本以核污水存储能力即将达到上限为由,在2021年4月13日,正式决定将福岛第一核电站核污水排入太平洋。过去一年多,日本政府和东京电力公司一直在持续推进核污水排海计划。 日本政府辩称,这些核污水经多核素处理系统(ALPS)处理后很安全,甚至“可以喝”,这样的表态无疑在愚弄大众。 事实上,经过处理的核污水仍含有多种放射性物质,核污水一旦排放入海就无法回收,长期来看,将会给海洋生态带来难以估量的潜在威胁,最终危害人类健康。 因此,核污水排海计划推出后,遭到日本民众强烈反对。日本《朝日新闻》2022年3月公布的问卷调查显示,福岛县、宫城县和岩手县受访的42个市町村长中,约六成反对东京电力公司福岛第一核电站核污水排放入海。日本全国渔业协会联合会也多次申明立场,反对该计划。 日本政府认为,核污水排海是最便宜、最省事的解决方案,但此举却将周边国家乃至全世界置于核污染风险中。太平洋非日本一家之海,核污水会随着洋流流动,其影响势必会跨越国界,危害周边国家乃至整个国际社会的公共福祉和利益。 《韩国经济新闻》发文称,相关研究认为,福岛核污水如果排放入海,约7个月后将到达济州等韩国海域,该国水产业和旅游业将遭受相当大的损失。 德国南极海洋机构也曾发出警告,若日本将所有核污水排入海中,不到半年,整个太平洋都将面临高度辐射威胁,包括远在大洋另一端的美国。太平洋地区人民更是对日本该计划持反对意见。 日本作为《联合国海洋法公约》缔约国,有义务保护海洋环境。然而,在核污水排海方案的正当性、核污水数据的可靠性、净化装置的有效性、环境影响的不确定性等问题上,日本未能作出科学、可信的说明。 国际原子能机构技术工作组虽已三次赴日实地考察评估,但尚未就日排海方案的安全性给出结论,并且对日本提出诸多澄清要求和整改意见。在此情况下,日本仍执意推进核污水排海工程建设,这是极不负责任的行为。 太平洋不是日本的下水道,日本必须正视各方合理关切,在与周边国家等相关利益方和国际原子能机构充分协商后,制定合理的核污水处理方案。日本也要着眼长远,若只顾眼前,执意将核污水排放入海,不仅其自身,周边国家乃至全世界都将为之买单,其后果必将会危害数代人。 Fukushima water disposal by no means Japan’s own business By John Lee (ECNS) -- Japan has announced it will release treated wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean this year. Although Fukushima wastewater disposal affects global marine ecological environment protection and public health, Japan has turned a deaf ear to domestic and international opposition to dumping the contaminated water into the sea, treating the "global" matter as its own business. The Fukushima accident in 2011 had sent large quantities of radiation into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean, causing irreversible damage to the surrounding environment, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced to evacuate the area. South Korea still maintains its import ban on Japanese seafood from areas affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster. On April 13, 2021, Japan announced it had decided to discharge contaminated radioactive wastewater in Fukushima Prefecture into the sea due to dwindling storage space, with the Japanese government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. promoting the release plan over the past year. The Japanese government argues that the water treated by an advanced liquid processing system, or ALPS, is safe and drinkable, which is undoubtedly fooling the public. In fact, the treated wastewater still includes a variety of radioactive substances and can’t be recycled once discharged into the sea, which will pose a great threat to marine ecology and ultimately endanger human health in the long run. Therefore, the discharge plan has been strongly opposed in Japan. According to a questionnaire conducted by The Asahi Shimbun, nearly 60 percent of mayors of 42 municipalities in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures oppose the discharge plan. The National Fisheries Cooperative Federation of Japan has also repeatedly stated its opposition in public. The Japanese government believes that dumping Fukushima wastewater into the sea is the cheapest and most convenient solution, but neighboring countries and even the whole world will be at risk of nuclear pollution. The Pacific Ocean doesn’t belong to Japan and the wastewater flow along oceanic currents will surely break boundaries and endanger public welfare and the interests of neighboring countries and even the international community. The Korea Economic Daily reported that related research concluded that if contaminated water from Fukushima is released into the ocean, it would only take seven months for the contaminated water to reach the shores of Jeju Island, with the country's aquaculture and tourism suffering considerable losses. According to the calculation of a German marine scientific research institute, radioactive materials will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean within half a year from the date of discharge, and the U.S. and Canada will be affected by nuclear pollution. People in the Pacific region also oppose the discharge plan. As a participant of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation of protecting the marine environment. However, it hasn’t offered a full and convincing explanation on issues like the legitimacy of the discharge plan, the reliability of data on the nuclear-contaminated water, the efficacy of the treatment system or the uncertainty of environmental impact. Though the IAEA has yet to complete a comprehensive review after three investigations in Japan, the Japanese side has been pushing through the approval process for its discharge plan and even started building facilities for the discharge. It is rather irresponsible for Japan to act against public opinion at home and concerns abroad. The Pacific Ocean is not a private Japanese sewer. The country must seriously heed the voices of the international community and make a reasonable plan for the Fukushima wastewater disposal after full consultation with stakeholders and international agencies. If it only seeks instant interest and insists on discharging the contaminated water into the sea, not only itself, but also its neighboring countries and the entire world will pay for the decision and several generations will be forced to bear the consequence.
|