Interview with Timberland: Revolution, Innovation and Product Quality

Timberland, a well-known U.S. company belonging to the VF corporation group, also says that integrating a sustainability strategy into its business has now become a necessity.

Timberland is one of the large companies in the outdoor clothing industry that stands out for making sustainability its philosophy, setting an example for many companies.

We had the pleasure of interviewing Elisabetta Baronio, CSR Manager for the EMEA Region, or Europe, Middle East and Africa.

If you would like to listen to the interview, click here:

LISTEN PODCAST

Serena: Hi Elisabetta, it's a pleasure to have you with us! What does sustainability mean for Timberland and what values does the brand carry forward?

Elisabetta: Hi Serena! As a brand, we have been engaged in what is the theme of corporate social responsibility for about 30 years. Gradually, this issue has evolved and taken a shape, a well-defined strategy, a strategy that, as of today, is no longer just a sustainability strategy but is really the brand strategy.

Our philosophy is mainly based on three pillars: the first one we call better product, that is, products created to be more sustainable precisely because we are a company that makes footwear and apparel, consequently this is our most material and most important issue to address. Then there are two other themes that are essential for us: the first is the idea of a green future. Ours is a brand that was born in the outdoors, and that is why we have a commitment to plant 50 million trees by 2025.

Finally, the last pillar is related to the communities and the communities in which we live and work with the idea of stronger communities: we want to create a bond and a connection with the community around us because we are convinced that only in this way can we create a better society. For this reason, each of our employees has 40 volunteer hours per year that they can spend to support the causes that are closest to them.

S: I would like to address the first sentence you said, which is that the sustainability strategy has become the brand strategy, of Timberland. So sustainability is seen, then, as an integral part of the company, no longer just a part of the business plan?

E: Absolutely. I can also give you an example on this: last September we launched what is the product innovation vision for 2030, which outlines how we think our products should be in the future. Specifically, the vision says that by 2030 we will create products that have a positive impact on the environment. So you see how the two actually go hand in hand: the sustainability strategy is no longer just a separate strategy but becomes the way we go about building our product and, then, putting it on the market.
 

S: I agree with that. When we work with companies, what we aim for is really to make sustainability an integral part of their own journey. Then again, that's the trajectory: you have to integrate sotenibility within your business strategy in order to survive not only as a "human race" but also as a company because the market trend requires that. I think that testimony is important. You also said another interesting point: that of the connection with your sustainability pillars and your product and positioning. You are an outdoor company and you talked about the "greener future" pillar: how much is sustainability connected to your company positioning? Can an outdoor company now not talk about sustainability?

E: Timberland was really born in the outdoor industry. The brand was born for people who were out in the woods, outside, in even very difficult weather conditions. As a result, out of this love for the outdoors and for nature came a sense of responsibility that, over time, led us to build products that were increasingly sustainable and, realizing the current state of crisis that our planet is experiencing, led us to take an extra step.

Earlier I mentioned our idea of creating products that have a positive impact on the environment. This willingness stems precisely from the fact that we know that going forward to support a situation that is itself degraded is actually not enough, we have to do more: we have to push ourselves, as a brand, to the next step, which is to change the way our industry and our business work (meaning the fashion business) and try to make sure that products are no longer a problem but become part of the solution.

To come back to your question: an outdoor brand, right now, if it is really connected to the outdoors, it can only do so much to preserve nature and preserve the environment in which we live.

S: Do you have any projects you can tell us about regarding positive impact?

E: When we talk about positive impact, we talk about products that are able, in their production cycle, to sequester more CO₂ from the atmosphere rather than what is produced during the production cycle. In order to be able to achieve this net positive goal, which we have set for 2030 (obviously it is a very very long way), we are going to work on two main pillars: on the one hand, circularity, where all our products will be designed according to circular design. As a result, they will be designed to be made and to be used and reused several times, but especially to be disassembled at the end of their life, so that they can become new raw material and minimize the impact on the planet.

Then, there is a new element that we are working on, which is regenerative agriculture. Like Timberland, we are a brand that significantly uses natural materials, and all of our natural materials come from an agricultural source.

Regenerative agriculture is a system that repurposes what is naturalness, the way things happen naturally in the environment, and manages, through various processes and protocols, to sequester more Co2 than is emitted during the production cycle.

We have, already to this day, products on the market that have leather derived from farms that have been carried out according to the dictates of regenerative agriculture, and we were the first brand in the world to be able to create a supply chain that could allow us to use this leather.

S: Speaking of leather, which is one of the materials you mainly use (leather, rubber, etc.), besides regenerative agriculture, what are the other sustainability elements you are working on for these two materials?

E: Our leathers (which are our, let's say, lowest common denominator) have to come from tanneries that have an audit or Silver or Gold from the Leather Working Group, which is a certifying body that allows us to know what environmental practices are used within the tanneries. For us, that's the entry point-if those characteristics are not there, the leather is not used.

Regenerative agriculture is the next step because if we can really shift all leather sourcing to regenerative agriculture, that will allow us to have a significant positive impact on the environment.

Same thing is happening with rubber, with rubber. We basically, we use different types of rubber and we use natural rubber but also recycled rubber. We will soon be launching the first regenerative agriculture project for rubber, to make sure that this material also comes from practices that allow us to have a positive impact.

So, the work that we are doing on all natural materials is really to make a transition to these new types of agriculture that give us data and information on what is the level of regeneration of the soil and the absorption of CO₂.

S: Speaking of minimum requirements for leather, I can think of your supply chain as well. We often get to work with companies that have to meet the standards of their customers or buyers. How do you work with suppliers to make sure that they can meet your standards?

E: As you mentioned earlier Serena, we are part of a much larger group called VF corporation, with which we share what is the function we call responsible sourcing. This allows us to practice much more capillary action on the supply chain and allows us to have good traceability throughout the supply chain.

Like Timberland, we have always had a supplier base that is quite limited. This allows us to have long-term relationships and to go very specific about what the various supply steps are.

Take the example of the Leather Working Group: in 2005 we had participated in the creation of this system and we were one of the few brands that had set this very ambitious goal of having 100 percent of the leather coming from certified tanneries. At the time, this seemed absurd because it was already a deepening of one's supply chain anyway, which was quite challenging at the time. We were able to do that and now, with regenerative agriculture, we are also going to the next step. Through regenerative agriculture we have a strong relationship with the farmer and as a result this allows us to have a supply chain that is absolutely transparent and traceable.

If I take the example of the hides that come from regenerative agriculture, the hides are segregated from the moment they leave the farmer, and we follow the whole path that the hide takes to then become a shoe or, at any rate, an object in our collections.

This definitely allows us to have much more visibility into all the steps on all the paperwork and, consequently, to be able to intervene more quickly if there is something wrong.

S: You have managed to achieve very ambitious goals. Do you have any advice for companies that are starting now on the path in the field of sustainability? What do you think are the key elements to be able to achieve concrete sustainability goals?

E: Sometimes it can seem a little scary, in the face of such complicated supply chains, to be able to figure out how to have traceability. My advice is to rely on certifications. A certification like Leather Working Group or certifications like GOTS for organic cotton and so on for other materials, allow you to have visibility into the supply chain and have that reassurance that things are being done a certain way.

In my opinion, the starting point of certification is so important, especially for a small/medium company.

In a company like VF or Timberland, which have very high numbers, this path has been internalized most of the time. We have teams working on traceability, audits, and working within the supply chain to make sure that the materials and also the way they are handled are meeting all of VF's policies.
 

S: We know, however, that certifications have their limitations: we shared a short while ago, a report by Greenpeace that argues that certifications alone fail to meet all the goals on biodiversity protection. They are certainly, however, a good starting point. Regarding certifications as a communication tool, how important is communication for Timberland? Sustainability is also one of your communication pillars right?

E: Sustainability is part of our purpose as a brand so, consequently, our narrative is linked to sustainability (you can also see it if you go through our Social channels) .

At the product level, what becomes important is explaining why that product is sustainable and explaining what is different about that product compared to others.

In our case, our products have a tab that tells, on our website, all the sustainability elements that the product has.

We try to make the description a little less technical than how it might be described by a sustainability expert (who would definitely have much more technical language).
 

S: This is another key theme: finding the right balance between technicality and making communication accessible. You reminded me of a study that was done on large/small brand communication on sustainability: paradoxically, the companies that are most active on sustainability are the ones that use this word the least within communication because they go concrete!

E: Unfortunately, sustainability has the big problem of greenwashing, which is one of the big problems in the fashion industry.

It is very important that there are clear messages, real programs behind the product and supply chain to make sure that they are not just words but actors of change

S: I would like to come back to the topic of certifications because in my opinion it is a very important topic for those who read/listen to us. In your opinion, how far can certifications go and how much, instead, should there be a brand presence in terms of verification, collaboration, etc.?

In my opinion, certifications are a good starting point for a brand that needs to start moving within the world of sustainability and for those "smaller" brands that do not yet have all the strength that a multinational company can have to put in, for example, energies and synergies and activities to cover those areas that remain uncovered by certifications.

Certifications unfortunately are not perfect and cannot, at the moment, cover the spectrum of issues that are related to sustainability. So, certainly in addition to certification there has to be proactive brand work to make sure that we assess what are the uncovered areas and can identify actions to be able to take action.

As you said, there are some certifications that still don't cover the issue of biodiversity, which is an exploding issue in the fashion world right now that hasn't been so considered for years. Most likely a brand has to ask itself what is our impact and how can we make sure that we fill this gap that still exists.

S: This requires an analysis of what is the impact of the company, then going to understand what are the criticalities of their supply chain, their products by taking a tailor-made approach on the company--every company has different supply chains and criticalities, right?

E: Absolutely. Speaking of that, we as a Timberland brand (but also as a VF company) went through a very interesting process a few years ago to be able to publish our science based targets, which are quantitative targets that tell us how much of a reduction in our emissions as a company needs to be in order to stay within the Paris agreements.

To do this work, we mapped our entire supply chain, including the end of life of products. The interesting thing that came out of this work is that about 60 percent of all our emissions are related to raw material sourcing and the manufacturing part.

So, we know that one of the most important issues we have to deal with is really the choice of material. Hence, the choice to move to regenerative agriculture precisely because it is the only way we have to reduce emissions in a quantitative and measured way.
 

S: A question about science-based targets: how do you think the fashion industry is doing at the macro level?

E: At the macro level, there is a very strong movement toward sustainability and specifically the circular economy. The circular economy has been kind of the base word for the last three to four years: by now, all companies have realized that this is the direction even though everyone is probably wondering how, in a concrete way, business models will have to be revised to move toward the circular economy.

The other element that is beginning to emerge (of which we have been pioneers) is precisely that of regenerative agriculture. This will most likely be one of the biggest topics in the next few years because the fashion industry is primarily based on materials from petroleum, which in time will shift to bio-based (hence agricultural) or natural materials that come from agriculture.

So the fashion industry, which has been in the spotlight much more than other industries in the last few decades (precisely because of what it means as an industry to the consumer), has had a big take on what the impacts are.

I see a lot of foment, a lot of initiatives, and certainly a willingness to do better.

We still have to, most likely, learn how to communicate well with the consumer to make it clear what the value added is of all this work on products. I still see room for improvement on that because the various messages that have come out over the various years have most likely confused the consumer. I don't know how much a consumer who is not really educated on these issues can understand the diversity related to sustainability in the fashion world.

The good thing is that things are moving and there is serious awareness.

S: At the communication level, in your opinion, what are the steps that should be taken? On the one hand, even at the legislative level, there may perhaps need to be restrictions on when the term "sustainability" can be used, but beyond the legislative issue, which is very long and complex, what are the steps to give transparency and clarity to the consumer?

E: Definitely trying to help the consumer understand specifically how that product is more sustainable, what kind of material it uses and why that material has been defined as sustainable. A lot of times there are some claims left "up in the air."

So you would need to help the consumer in becoming aware of why certain materials, when treated in a certain way, are more sustainable than others.

Of course, this communication is quite complicated because everyone's attention span is getting shorter and shorter. Plus, sustainability can sometimes be a bit overwhelming, that is, it can make us feel small and powerless.

Actually, what we have seen is that when you tell a story and when you can tell something that emotionally touches the consumer (of course always saying things that are timely and factual) then, at that point, the consumer is immersed in that narrative and understands very well why a particular product is better than another.

Conclusions

We can say that for Timberland, the sustainability strategy plays a predominant role within the business strategy.

In fact, thanks to the size of the business, the brand is not simply aiming to reduce CO₂ emissions; rather, it has set a "net positive" goal: instead of causing damage to the environment, it wants to be able to restore it.

As Elizabeth said, progress is made bit by bit: you don't have to have the corporate size of a brand like Timberland to actually do something.

Certifications can be a starting point; but then each business is its own thing, and can contribute to sustainability in a different way.