My last post was about knowing when to pull the plug - sometimes the plug is pulled for you. This seems to the case for the valiant outdoor apparel company, Nau, who according to a heartfelt post on Treehugger is forced to close their doors due to a lack of venture capital. This company tried to do it all in the sustainability space:
• Apparel that adhered to the credo of ‘Beauty, Performance and Sustainability’
• Multipurpose apparel equally suited to weekend in the hills or a night on the town
• No external logos or branding on apparel
• Impressive tailored designs and construction detailing
• No paper catalogues
• LEED Gold standard offices and retail shops
• Purchase of Forest Stewardship Council certified timber for fittings
• Third Party verification of workers rights and conditions through Verite
• Restricted Substance List of materials not to be used in products
• Over 30 custom designed fabrics, using only recycled polyester, certified organic cotton, PLA corn, lambswool or merino wool
• Purchase of equivalent yield conventional corn to offset any GMO corn that might be in their PLA
• Use of high grade componentry like RiRi zips and Prym fasteners
• 5% of purchase price donated to customer-directed not-for-profit organisations
• Webfront retail stores promoting direct-from-warehouse-to-customer shipping
• Recycled content flat pack shipping bags, instead of space wasting boxes
• Carbon offsets for shipping and corporate travel
• Renewable energy certificates (wind and solar) for office and shops
• Acting as an agent for change through their blog
• Sponorship of environmentally and socially oriented online videos.
• Customer prizes and Flickr postings for photos of the clothing in action.
They didn't compromise their values and as a result they engendered some great customer loyalty. They also ended up with pretty high prices for products that are "non-essential" in a market that is teetering on a recession. Does this mean they should have compromised? Maybe but then maybe they would have been like everyone else and their lack of differentiation would have taken them down. It's tough to know. Either way, retail is risky. "Sustainable" retail is really risky. Without high volume prices become prohibitive for most people and with the VC crowd being much more cautious with their pool of cash these days there was just no way to keep operations afloat. I have no doubt that the team involved go on to try something equally interesting, but it may be some time before another Nau gets off the ground. In the meantime, let's hope established players like Patagoina continue to have both financial and social & environmental successes.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
