If you pay any attention to business or outdoor industry news, you’ve probably heard about Nau (if you haven’t, check out this feature on them in Outside Magazine).
The Portland-based company has high hopes with their new line of sustainable clothing (some of which is made from recycled soda bottles and corn) and their new way of doing business.
A few months ago I got a phone call from their VP of Marketing, Ian Yolles. He said they wanted to launch their new retail store (in Durham, south of Portland) with a series of three opening nights. The idea was to feature a different speaker (or “storyteller” according to Ian) each night that would share perspectives on positive change and community activism.
Knowing that Portland has a rich and diverse bike scene, and because much of the Nau staff rides, Ian decided to devote one of those nights to a discussion about bicycles.
I was honored when he asked if I would share the story of BikePortland.org.
So last night, at their new store in Bridgeport Village, I shared a bit of my experiences in starting and maintaining this site over the past two years. I am definitely not a professional speaker, but I tried to relay how this site fits into Portland’s bike scene.
That Nau chose someone from the bike community to speak at one of their openings — the other speakers are environmental advocate Dee Williams and Oregonian architecture critic Randy Gragg — speaks highly of our position in this city and I was grateful for the opportunity.
Thank you to John, Clint and the rest of Team Beer for keeping it fun; Austin and Natalie from Sweetpea for making the connection; and thank to all the other familiar bikey faces that showed up. Your presence meant a lot to me.
More info:
- Check out Nau’s Thought Kitchen blog.
- Read about Nau in the Portland Mercury.
I wish they had a closer retail store in Portland.
I’m with Dat on that one….
Isn’t Nau the company that has retail stores where you can try stuff on, but has no stock? You still have to mail order it?
Good luck to them, but that business model makes no sense. I’m sure that they will either close the retail locations or have them stocking merchandise within a year.
You can try on and purchase in the store but they give you the option of 10% off if you have it shipped (from Portland location with no shipping charge) instead.
They do stock merchandise, but give you 10% off if you order it from a kiosk a have it shipped.
its not sustainable to ship products, is it?
I look forward to checking out their flagship store when it arrives in Portland.
Hopefully it’ll have a central location, be green, low-rise, and a happy place. Increasingly the indoor air at REI is a bit soupy from the off-gassing of tire rubber and PVC related products.
You’re very right Ange, the shipping inefficiencies (a big UPS truck detours to my house and stops and idles all for a pair of socks) and waste (cardboard and all the ancillary crud) of shipping are hardly sustainable.
But then again, if someone is driving a car, the shopping experience is pretty awful too unless someone is buying lots of stuff in one trip.
I’d be interested in how Nau figures their shipping incentive into a sustainable business model.
A business that sells close-in and makes their stuff locally is really the ideal in so many ways. But given that our “free trade” government makes it nearly impossible to manufacture items locally, it seems that selling close-in would be be the least a company could do.
Hey Randy, while low-rise may be nice aesthetically, it isn’t necessarily a green quality. Hi-rise can enable more jobs within a city, lessening commutes. Hi-rise living spaces reduce the demand for the ridicuous McMansions out in the yonder former farmland.
Never heard of these guys, but I would bet there’s a lot to be said for the lean production associated with the lower inventory that this practice encourages.
Instead of speculating demand and manufacturing and then sending a bunch of widgets to every retail location and then having to reship and dispose of unsold inventory, they can direct ship from a central warehouse to the customer and keep a tight rein on overhead.
While it may seem that there are more shipping “trips” made, the actual tonnage and miles each ton has to be transported is probably quite a bit lower and the efficincies would scale proprotionally with each retail outlet opened.
I’ll be curious how this this plays out in the eyes of the consumer and would love to hear an overview of the model from the retailer.
I left a comment at Nau’s blog a while back, busting them for choosing Bridgeport Village as their first location in PDX. Ian actually replied back, but his explanation was less than convincing. Fact is, there’s no way a spread out mall like BV can ever be sustainable. Once the oil runs out, it’s over for the burbs.
Now, a company’s gotta make money until then, so if they feel that’s where their business is, with people who might be feeling a little guilty for living in Tigard in a 2800 square foot house on a 3/4 acre lot, with a Lexus, so their second car is a Prius, and they buy expensive stuff at stores that espouse their environmental beliefs.
One question for Nau: how do your employees get to their jobs at the Bridgeport Village store every day? Do any of them walk or ride their bikes? Just asking.
And perhaps Nau’s retailing will help novice bicyclists shop by bike and return us to the days when merchants delivered to homes with bikes or low speed/ high mpg trucks (there once were electric milk trucks).
And UPS trucks circle most of our homes already..unless you live at the end of a very long cul-de-sac in Battle Ground, etc.
Like the UPS truck that cut me off tonight on my homeward commute?
Sorry for being so prickly.
what about the fact that many of Nau’s prducts are actually manufactured in the SAME factories that pay the same abhorrently low wages?
Be careful not to let their facade of “sustainability” fool you. The company is still using the same exploitative global production processes.
and no, shipping is not sustainable. it is done with diesel trucks that cut off bikers like peejay and myself
with respect to “the burbs are dead”… I don’t shop in Portland. I live just outside of Beaverton. I work here. I shop here. Work, many grocery stores, bike shop, bookstore, etc, all within a 3 mile radius of home. Lots of folks just like me out here, too.
Lynne, we know there are some folks like you out there. I don’t think peejay meant to stereotype or create any city-suburb angst.
But have you seen 26 in the morning? A sizeable portion of folks who live further out drive into the city center each day for work and are dependent on their cars for the remainder of their lifestyle as well (e.g., grocery shopping, doctors visits, etc). Oil will one day relatively soon be so expensive that that lifestyle will be unaffordable for all but the super-wealthy. Communities like Beaverton and those around BV will shrink considerably. I hope your job will still be there, but I fear that most of the economic activity will disappear.
On NAU, I had a chance to read their Rules of Corporate Responsibility last week. It contains such slippery lawyer-isms as “[NAU] shall … compensate its non-US based employees in a fair and just manner as determined by the officers and directors in their business judgment consistent with their fiduciary duties to the stockholders…” Legally, this means very little; the shareholders’ interests still come first. And find me a company who would not say they pay fair wages in the third world. It’s obviously green-washing, purely for PR purposes.
Even Ford Motor Co is now making commercials claiming to be “green.” We now have to be more vigilant than ever about holding these corporations’ feet to the fire, as they have *finally* figured out that people want a change in corporate business-as-usual and are attempting to address that primarily with marketing efforts and changes that are “sustainable” but also just happen to benefit the bottom line.
Don’t be fooled by this green-washing. Look behind the curtain.
More green washing. Get used to it kids. We will be seeing more and more of this crap each coming year.
Curious why we are getting in a wad over this, when the same sorts of issues were pointed out about a local bicycle retailer and the cycling industry in general, most people were scoffing at the criticisms.
Double standard?
TonyT, #8: I think, when Randy said lo-rise, he meant not hi-rise, but still rising. I.e. 4-6 story buildings as opposed to 12-40 story buildings. Not necessarily 1-story buildings. Or did I mis-understand?
In this same thread, AO, #15: I actually think a much different thing will happen specifically to the Tualatin Valley once fuel prises really go through the roof. I think it will urbanize further. I don’t think it will shrink; I think it will grow and become ever more urban and self-dependent. It’s too important to just vanish — all of that investment by Intel and others out there will cause densification of services, housing and employment, especially around the most-efficient transportation backbone, the westside Light Rail system. Tri-Met’s going to need to run 3-minute headways with 2-car trains all day long, all the way to Hillsboro, once this happens… and that probably still won’t be enough.
Look at Orenco Station. I think we’re going to see a *lot* more along those lines out in the Tualatin Valley, replacing the original sprawl-type development as it wears out. A lot of tilt-up construction was built with an intended life span of about 20 years, and might make it to 50 years if well-maintained. You do the math — if it was built in 1970, at most it makes it to 2020. Then what? Then 4-6 stories of lo-rise/mid-rise mixed-use will come it and replace it. And demand for transit will increase. And more folks will get on bikes and demand better bicycling infrastructure.
Just my $.02.
cheers,
~Garlynn
Lynne:
What A_O said is exactly what I meant. The fact is, without artifically low petroleum prices, most communities with density levels of Beaverton will not do well at all. Lynne, I commend your efforts to leave a small transportation footprint, but the services you use locally are only possible because most of their business consists of people who are not as conscious as you.
I don’t have a crystal ball as to what will happen in the next 30 years, but going by past human history, society will be dragged kicking and screaming into a new way of life, instead of a painless and gradual transition to more appropriate population clusters.
better to wear corn on your back then to wear it in your teeth.
Garlynn:
Good point. The better planned suburban areas may well survive, by gaining density. But, with a near-stable population, that density has to come from somewhere. That means not all suburbs will survive. And since they’ll all be competing against each other for the residents needed to achieve viable density, it could get crazy out there until it all shakes out. People who wish to avoid risk are well advised to move to areas that are already built up, as long as they’re above low lying areas to accomodate whatever new sea level we’ll have by then.
I’m a long time Portland cyclist, and a regular reader of this blog. I also work for Nau, so I can’t be seen as objective. Do with that what you will. I can’t do justice to everyone’s concerns in this forum, and I’m hesitant to get flamed for speaking up, but I believe in what we’re doing and I do want to respond to two points. As I say below, we’re not perfect, but we’re trying to change some things, and to offer some new approaches.
Benny p (#13) & A_O (#15):
We expect, and hope for, a certain amount of skepticism. However, our clothing is not “manufactured in the SAME factories that pay the same abhorrently low wages” (Same as which? Not sure, but point taken.) nor do we have any desire to be part of an exploitive factory relationship. Our code of conduct for our partner factories, which is audited by a third party, http://www.verite.org (a non-profit), is quite detailed and strict. And efforts to raise the bar overseas factories can only be successful if companies are willing to work with them to change the status quo, not just abandon them altogether—there will always be low-wage factories and those willing to use them, but there are plenty of workplaces that value their employees and show it. Our factories are among the best in the industry, in large part because of companies that are willing to pay a premium for quality work, performed in a healthy, child-labor-free workplace for fair pay.
As to concerns about green washing, it’s a real issue, but I’m curious what efforts you would praise? A company trying to spin their existing efforts to appear green or humane is quite a different thing than incorporating, at a root level, procedures and practices that stem from a genuine desire to create change. Ultimately, businesses must be profitable to continue, but not at the expense of the planet, something we are working hard at raising the bar for. As individuals, and as a company, we are far from perfect, and don’t claim to be. But we do feel that our efforts to create a better way to do business stem from a genuine concern about the environment, and about our own practices. That we are calling attention to them invites scrutiny, hopefully not just for us but also for all businesses.
Donald (#9) gets right to the heart of the thinking behind our shipping model. It’s new, so it’s not proven, but we believe it can offer a better way to reduce overall impact. Again, the jury is out, but believe me when I say we’ve done a lot of research about this very topic.
Thanks for reading, and for caring so much about the same issues we do.
Some ‘burbs will be fine. In fact, I think it better to be in some than in the city. What most well planned ‘burbs have going for them is centralized shopping and services near major employers. Look at Hillsboro, within a five mile radius of the Intel facilities, you have a lot of housing, shopping, groceries, libraries, restaurants, and such – all easily bikeable by the average person on wide roads with clearly marked bike lanes. The feeder streets are mostly lower speed residential avenues. Beaverton enjoys a similar set-up with regards to Nike and several larger office parks. Both have excellent Tri-Met access to Portland.
In a strange way, hooray for strip-malls and their one-stop shopping. These much bemoaned (by city folk) staples of suburbia could make a single family car viable even with expensive gasoline simply because one ten mile round trip per week is worth the expense since you can load the car up in one fell swoop. Factor in something like a Costco or Fred Meyer with varied merchandise, I could drive ten miles a week to a single location get things, use Tri-Met or the bike to commute to work or entertainment, and a tank of gasoline lasts about six months. Live in one of these ‘burbs with a car? You won’t have to adapt as radically as others if you are smart about it.
Places like Gresham, Oregon City, Lake Oswego and West Linn will feel the brunt as they are primarily decentralized bedroom communities.
Portland? Great if you don’t need to gather much. Bikes and Tri-Met are good for those trips but a weekend trip requiring groceries, hardware, home office supplies, dog grooming, etc. may require you to zig-zag to different parts of town to get everything you need at a great cost of time or gasoline thanks to congested, narrow streets and a lack of centralized retail in parts of the city.
Change is coming to be sure but bikes and crowding everyone into Portland proper are not complete answers to that change. The disturbing trend I see in Portland is more high density condo neighborhoods like The Pearl and South Waterfront being built without schools, real parks (rather than glorified art displays), grocery stores, etc. Pack ’em in but make them travel to find open space or food.
I don’t think I know what the post-peak oil and post-carbon regulation economy will look like. The key think I do think I know about that economy is that the transportation system will be crippled. If it happens quickly, their will be an economic shock that would have unpredictable repercussions. Witness the psychological impact of 9/11 independent of its damage to the economic infrastructure. The risk is in the rapidity of the price increases. And the risk can be mitigated substantially if we *PLAN* for the certainty that continued use of fossil fuels in transportation is not sustainable economically.
Otis (#21) I’m sorry you felt reluctant to express your opinion — pretty hard to have a discussion without people’s opinions and the sine qua non of this awesome public forum.
You asked what efforts would I praise, and I should say that I didn’t mean to single out NAU. Although the ‘fair wages for non-US employees’ clause is entirely for marketing purposes, NAU has other clauses in its Rules of Corporate Responsibility that I think are praiseworthy.
One example is the 12:1 rule, which states that the top-paid executive at NAU can only be paid 12 times as much as the lowest compensated US employee at NAU, not including stock options, benefits, and some other form of non-cash compensation that I can’t recall exactly off-hand. Although this provision aptly demonstrates the extent of corporate excess over the past 30-40 years, such excess did enable your founders to form NAU and provide you with employment. And it also, at the very least, draws a line somewhere. The vast majority of corporations do no such thing.
My point in responding to peejay’s remarks on post-peak oil economics was I think NAU’s business model — one that is shared with virtually all American retailers — is socially irresponsible to the point of being immoral and psychotic. Yes, psychotic.
The model succeeds in producing profit for shareholders by manufacturing clothing in Asia, or anywhere that offers substantially lower production costs due to poor environmental and labor laws. But more importantly, the cost savings achieved by manufacturing in the third world provides a much larger margin due to socially subsidized transportation costs. These corporations use massive amounts of energy to move products around the planet. In doing so, they pollute a finite resource — the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb carbon. But they do not pay the cost; they push it onto everyone else to bear the myriad effects of global climate change. This pollution, according to the Stern Report, has the capacity to destroy 20% of global GDP in this century. This model is unsustainable and could destroy our entire society if it is allowed to continue. It’s murder-suicide. Slowly.
The only sustainable option is more localized manufacturing. You know, the economy we *used to* have, before the corporate hooligans discovered that they could profit by using up our atmosphere. The Jeffersonian ideal.
I think Oregon will be just fine in the post peak-oil, post-carbon regulation economy. The beautiful Willamette — and Tualatin — Valley will give us our sustenance. But our great asset is us. We will dust off our pioneer instincts and be more free than ever. We’ll take out those dams and celebrate our salmon, build windmills and geothermal and wave energy plants to fuel our creativity, renounce the idea of profits before people, open the roads to the bikes, and throw off the warmongering yoke.
A_O:
Again I agree. I’ll buy you that next beer at the Lab – a locally brewed beer, of course.
I work at a company over the West Hills, where they make complicated electronic equipment. We’re introducing a new model now, and gearing up for production. However, nobody’s being hired for this new production, because the plan is to outsource it to Singapore, even if it costs more to do so. That’s right, offshore production is so built into the mindset of corporate America that they’ve forgotten the reason that they did it in the first place: to save money.
When I those yellow ribbons on the cars in the parking lot, I tell my coworkers that every time an American company sends a job overseas, Osama wins. Osama wins because our economy is weaker, because our workforce is less secure, because we have to rely on more foreign oil to transport this overseas production, because we, as a country, have forgotten what it means to be self-sufficient.
So I say to the people who run Nau: what’s it worth? What is your product worth? If it’s not worth enough to make it here, then is it worth me buying it?
Hey peejay, I’ll take you up on that beer. My rant above was fueled by a few Lucky Lab IPAs, so I hope the stridency didn’t drive Otis and others away. I have a thick skin about such things, but hope my passion for the topic is not mistaken for closed-mindedness and a desire for dialogue.
That didn\’t last long.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/sustainable_clothier_nau_pulls.html