Purpose: How Chinese people behave toward French Luxury Brands? Method: This paper is built on a deductive approach following three main hypotheses. Secondary datawere retrieved from books, studies and articles found in Halmstad library and several databases.Moreover, primary data were also collected through a questionnaire; which shapes the major lines ofour conclusions. Theoretical Framework: The frame of references follows our three hypotheses. First, the culturaldifferences between France and China are highlighted through concepts such as: Hofestede culturaldimensions, Mezirow’s theory and Guanxi. Then, the Mianzi philosophy and the flying geeseparadigm are used to support the hypothesis that brands could be used as social markers. Finally,several theories about the country-of-origin effect are used to analyse the image of French products in China. Conclusion: The authors conclude that French luxury brands are considered on the Chinese south-eastcoast as a mark of high quality, prestige and fashion. These features partly motivate their purchasingdecision, whereas the country-of-origin itself is not a convincing argument. These brands, usuallyexpensive, are nowadays perceived by Chinese as a way to emphasis their wealth and thus socialstatus. This behaviour shows a growing individualism toward French luxury brands ownership in acountry historically ruled by collectivism. The contributions and further studies possible are finallyestablished at the end of this paper.

Le décret impérial du 15 octobre 1810 a fondé la première réglementation nationale sur lesétablissements classés. Il a jeté les bases de notre droit de l’environnement industriel et a créé lapremière nomenclature. L’analyse de plus de 140 textes de nomenclature parus depuis l’origine apermis de comprendre certaines évolutions de la société, tant la nomenclature constitue, depuisplus de deux siècles, un puissant marqueur sociétal. De plus, la nomenclature conditionnefortement l’effectivité de la loi. Si le décret a initialement visé à privilégier la liberté d’entreprise, ila progressivement évolué vers un droit plus protecteur des tiers, notamment en faveur du droit depropriété. La loi du 19 décembre 1917 sur les établissements classés a renforcé ce dispositif dansun sens globalement plus favorable aux tiers, puis à l’environnement. Mais aussi, au profit del’hygiène et de la sécurité des travailleurs qui avaient été délaissées. En contrepartie, la loi a rompuavec le principe de l’autorisation préalable en introduisant le régime de la déclaration, au bénéficedes exploitants. La loi du 19 juillet 1976 relative aux installations classées pour la protection del’environnement (ICPE) a repris ces dispositions, en les modernisant mais en innovant peu. Lanomenclature a vite connu de multiples transformations, qui se sont traduites par de nombreuxdéclassements d’établissements. Ainsi, le régime déclaratif n’a pas cessé de croître, tandis que lacréation en 2009 de l’enregistrement, intermédiaire entre la déclaration et l’autorisation, a conduità une réduction drastique de ce dernier régime. La transposition de directives européennesrécentes a encore renforcé ce processus, avec l’entrée d’une nouvelle nomenclature. Rarement unetelle régression du droit de l’environnement a été atteinte, d’autant qu’elle est amplifiée par unedissociation marquée entre les installations classées et le milieu récepteur. / The imperial decree of October 15th 1810 established the first national regulation on classifiedfacilities. It laid the ground for French law on the industrial environment by creating the firstnomenclature. An analysis of over 140 nomenclature texts published since then has providedinsight into a certain number of societal developments. Indeed, the nomenclature system has beena powerful social marker for more than two centuries. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the lawhas depended greatly on the nomenclature system. While its original objective was to fosterfreedom of enterprise, it gradually evolved towards a law protecting third parties, in particularregarding property rights. The Act of December 19th 1917 on classified facilities furtherstrengthened this purpose, generally placing the focus first on third parties and then on theenvironment. The act also favored workers’ health and safety, which had been ignored until then.On the other hand, the act abolished the principle of preliminary authorization by introducing adeclaration scheme for the benefit of operators. The Act of July 19th 1976 on classified facilities forenvironmental protection took over and modernized all of these provisions but without reallyintroducing any innovation. The nomenclature system rapidly underwent a series oftransformations that generally resulted in the decommissioning of numerous facilities. Thedeclaration scheme continued to expand. However, the creation of the registration scheme in 2009,which is somewhere between the declaration and authorization schemes, has led to a dramaticreduction in the reach of the latter. The transposition of recent European directives has spurredthis process by introducing a new nomenclature. Never before has such a regression onenvironmental law been reached, especially since it is combined with a marked separation betweenclassified facilities and the receiving environment.