In the long run, this sneaker isn’t so ‘green’

Shoe firm says product is green, but that doesn’t necessarily mean smaller carbon footprint

By Chris Lydgate

Pamplin Media Group, Jul 17, 2008, Updated Oct 30, 2009 (4 Reader comments)

ADVERTISEMENTS

At first glance, Environmentally Neutral Design, an upstart Portland sneaker company, seems the perfect match for the sustainably minded consumer. Everything about the brand trumpets its green ethic, from its earth-tone colors to its sleek, minimalist styling.

“Born green, by design,” is the company’s motto. Press materials describe how the company “will question every seam, every stitch, every material and every step in the manufacturing process. … We will question everything in our quest to minimize the footprint of our products prior to manufacturing.”

“Everything they do, they’re doing with the filter of sustainability,” spokeswoman Melanie Adamson says.

But while END has mastered the lingo of green, its shoes aren’t exactly environmentally neutral – if that term is defined literally. Made in China by low-wage workers, the shoes consist mostly of synthetic components, plus a few recycled materials.

In part, this reflects marketplace realities – few consumers are willing to pay an exorbitant premium for a green sneaker – but it also reflects the fact that terms like “sustainable” and “green” have become powerful marketing buzzwords whose meaning remains fluid.

“Sustainability is a totally fungible term,” says Cincinnati-based author and sustainability consultant Jon Entine. “There’s no real way to measure it.”

In the absence of industry standards or government regulations, no one knows exactly what a green shoe should look like. Which means that, in practice, almost anyone can tout a shoe as green with little fear of contradiction.

Shoes travel by ship

END’s flagship product, the Stumptown sneaker, scheduled to appear in footwear stores Aug. 1, should wow its target demographic of active, environmentally conscious 20-somethings.

The shoe comes in a cardboard box made of 100 percent post-consumer waste. The box label is printed with soy ink and affixed with a rice-based glue.

The company’s Web site, Endoutdoor.com, plans to utilize a black background in order to reduce energy consumption on browsers’ computer monitors.

In the era of global warming and $4 a gallon gasoline, the concept of “environmentally neutral design” naturally holds appeal to a lot of consumers – or as END calls them, athletes.

But open the box, strip away the packaging, and the shoe’s green claims begin to sound hollow.

END’s Web site boasts about how its materials are sourced close to its factory. What it doesn’t mention is that the shoes are manufactured in Guangzhou, China, and then transported 5,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean via container ship.

The awkwardness of an overseas factory hasn’t dissuaded END from playing up its local identity, or from adopting the idioms of the farmers market. For example, a spokeswoman initially said that all of the shoes’ materials are sourced within “one hour from the factory.”

But on closer inspection, that statement turns out to be misleading. While many of the vendors that supply components have offices within 100 miles of the factory, the materials themselves may come from farther afield. For example, END co-founder and Creative Director Andrew Estey admits he is not certain where its rubber comes from.

Estey says he doesn’t know how much workers earn at END’s Guangzhou factory, which also makes shoes for Vans, Keen and other companies.

Art Carver, president of the Sourcing Resource Group in Boston, which oversees END’s manufacturing, says END’s shoes are made at two factories in Guangzhou and that the workers earn the minimum wage, 900 renminbi, or $131 a month. The standard shift is 40 hours a week, but employees are allowed to put in up to 20 hours of overtime, for which they are paid time and a half.

Impact hard to measure

END says its Stumptown shoe is 35 percent to 59 percent lighter than its competitors, which means, the company claims, fewer materials, less waste, less energy.

But when pressed, END had no estimate of how much material goes into the Stumptown, how much energy is consumed in manufacturing and transporting it, or the size of its “carbon footprint” (the total carbon emissions generated by the shoe).

1 | 2 Next Page >>