Terrapax Bags: Ahead of Their Time?
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 05.13.08
With the demise of Nau, many commentators have been suggesting the trouble was that the company was ahead of its time. We respectfully disagree. Firstly, if ever there was a time for businesses to flourish, who are environmentally and socially responsible, surely that time has to be right now. Secondly, others paved the way for Nau. A path that has been beaten for well over a decade.
Let’s look back at a few of those pioneers. In future posts we’ll also visit the likes of Deja Shoe and Esprit Ecollection, but we begin with Terrapax.
In 1992, James Cox, who’d been a design director at the North Face, struck out on his own to produce a line of planet and people friendly packs and bags. James questioned the outdoor industry’s heavy reliance on petroleum-based nylons, polyesters and vinyls to make packs and luggage.
In contrast to such materials, which deplete finite fossil fuel reserves and subsequently take 400-500 years to degrade into plastic dust, the idea with Terrapax was to use renewable materials that could be later fully composted.
To this end their daypacks, briefcases, messenger bags, totes, etc were crafted with robust outers of Hungarian hemp, french linen (flax) webbing and linings with vegetable tanned leather reinforcing. Shoulder strap padding was wool felt. The closures, rather being plastic buckles, were brass rings, through which slipped a toggle carved from elk stag horns (they naturally shed them each year). Stiffening frames were of timber salvaged from the bench seats of a University.
Terrapax’s guidelines for their materials selection read:
“1. Does the material have any historical significance?
2. Is the origin of the material close to the earth (e.g., minimum processing?)
3. Can the material be returned to the earth (does it produce usable biomes) or continually reused without requiring re-manufacturing?
4. Does the processing of the material encourage a sustainable ecology and economy in the communities where it is developed? Is there educational value in the material production?
5. Does the material meet or exceed performance standards for its application?
6. Is the material beautiful?”
(sounds kinda like Nau’s credo of beauty, performance, sustainability)
Their line of gorgeous luggage pieces was impeccable constructed. It also had a lovely tactile quality that made you want to touch it. And it was designed to last for many years of faithful service. Yet end-of-life was factored into its design also. The plan was that when a bag truly did need retiring it could be placed into a compost bin, and six month later would become soil. But you could send back the hardware, so Terrapax could clean it and reuse it on future product. (A process known in the trade as EPR - Extended Producer Responsibility, or more simply ‘Take-back.’) Customers who returned the brass fittings and stag horns were then entitled to a 20% discount on a new Terrapax product.
This was not solely a marketing strategy -- it was a deep felt practical philosophy espoused by Terrapax. “... we talk a lot about industrial ecology. It isn't a particularly beautiful term, but it has a poetry all its own. It means crafting industry to work like an ecological system - completely in balance, with no waste and total accountability.”
Hence the fabric scraps from their bags production was send off to Green Field Paper Company, so they could use it to make sketch books, greeting cards, and paper from the hemp fiber. Terrapax's own swing tags used such paper. Those aforementioned brass fitting were solid brass, uncoated and non-electroplated, not brass dipped zinc. Their leather was bark and vegetable tanned, instead of relying on the usually toxic chrome and heavy metals.
But Terrapax weren’t saying they’d found the holy grail. “Technically speaking nothing is sustainable. Entropy is at work in our environment and eventually takes its toll on every system.” Or put another way, “These issues are complex, and we at TerraPax do not think that we have solved the world's problems by using hemp and linen. [...] There must be a balance with respect to the demands on resources and the appropriate use of those resources.”
Their mission statement read in part: “design and build functional and durable packs and bags, using a minimum of 90% natural materials. Foster compassion in business. ... establishing TerraPax as a trusted, service oriented company dedicated to sustainable economic enterprise.”
At one point the Terrapax bags, made in California, were on sale at over 160 stores in the USA, and also available in four countries. But now Terrapax is no longer in the US. After slogging it out for nearly a decade in a marketplace which paid only lip service to corporate ethics, James sold the business before ended up in real estate, of all places. (The product does seems to be available through one, or more stores in Japan)
Were Terrapax more widely available today, with the current deep level of interest in all things green, it would, we expect, be experiencing some of the limelight afforded to the likes of Keen and Timbuk2. But it was certainly one of the lead companies, with an outdoor bent, to engage in the practicalities of running a responsible business. Fifteen years before Nau sold a single t-shirt.
ah, leather! very forward-thinking!
You can apparently also purchase the bags here: http://terrapax.com/
I found this other really cool site called Google, and I just typed in terrapax and it came right up!
Nice looking bags.
Rob Womack
CurrentMarketing
Louisville's Leading Interactive Agency
_____________
Writers Response
Safari can’t find the server. Safari can’t open the page “http://terrapax.com/” because it can’t find the server “terrapax.com”.
Thanks Treehugger for yet another article on something awesome I can't buy in the US.
NAU wasnt ahead of their time, they were too expensive. There are "green" alternatives to clothing that don't cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars. That's why they went out of business.
So you can't buy it in the states, so what? You think the rest of us can't potentially benefit from this information? Wow, some US'ians really think they are the world.
So you refute the comments about NAU with a company no longer operating in the US? I understand that it is a good example of a previous company trailblazing for NAU's business, but I don't see it as a success story.
Also while you do a good job of highlighting the product relationship to NAU, Terrapax (at least according to the article) did not operate store fronts. That makes them significantly different then NAU as the supplychain side of retail was another area they were innovating.
I look forward to the continuing examples and although I disagree with this article I still think it is interesting and well written.
_____________
Writer's Response:
I was not suggesting Nau was a mirror image of Terrapax, rather that there were similarities: Founder comes from outdoor industry, starts eco company from ground up, rigourous corporate ethics, functional yet aesthetic product line, innovation materials selection, end-of-life consideration, etc.
Success? The product is still available 15 years later, largely unchanged in design and materials. I'd have thought that could be considered success.
Ron, Thanks for your enlightening and engaging comment.
Here is Terrapax's response (written more than dozen years ago.)
Many customers wonder why we use leather on our natural products. It seems that the leather carries some taboo and doesn't qualify as a natural material. Leather has been around for over 190 million years and has evolved into a material with some fantastic properties. After careful inspection we have determined that the most detrimental aspect of the leather industry is the tanning process. By using ecological tanning methods, we have eliminated the biggest problem and are encouraging the leather trade and consumers to recognize this subtle difference. After all, the leather industry isn't going away as long as carnivores walk on two legs, and when comparing the ecosystem of land grazing animals with that of a nylon or rubber factory (or other synthetic leather substitutes), we believe the former is a better alternative.
The leather we use is processed with vegetables and bark, not chrome and heavy metals as found in commercial tanning. Commercial leathers employ chemicals to clean the leather, using chrome and metal to soften it and keep it color fast. TerraPax leather is processed by traditional methods that encourage local commerce, and do not pollute rivers and the ecosystems with heavy metals. We are confident these materials are the best alternatives to synthetics available.
Many alternative product companies are using rain forest rubber and recycled tire rubber as a leather substitute. We have not found these materials to be effective, beautiful, or solve any long term environmental problems. Many of the synthetic leather substitutes require adhesives for their use - something we prefer our staff and customers not be exposed to.
thanks for attacking me, warren.
that drivel about the worst part of leather being the tanning process is bs.
it's raising the cows in the first place, which has been mentioned on treehugger dozens of times.
thanks for your quoting, warren.
Response to writer's response:
The last two paragraphs of the article are what lead me to qualify Terrapax as a lack of sustaining success. Maybe it's just the retail/budget analyst in me, but how does going from being in 160 stores in the US to a couple of stores in Japan equal success?
Maybe I missed something, but the last 2 paragraphs lead me to believe that the company's ethical guidelines were ignored by the mainstream, the founder left the company and the company eventually faded out of the US marketplace.
I am reading this covertly while at work, so if I missed something please let me know.
Yes, but cows are being raised. Whether or not they should be is another question. But surely, utilising an existing byproduct in an ecology sound manner is better for the environment than not? Failure to use such materials, or to use them inappropriately is waste, whether or not it caters to your "cows are evil" stance.
I wonder if people have ever considered the impact byproduct have on the overall "friendliness" of a product? The previous comments have made me think. Soy is of relatively use once its oil and protein have been extracted. It's a one use product. Cows can make, glue, leather, bone as well meat, not only that they can be used with biogas digesters. Some parts of the animal can have a useful life decades beyond the dinner plate and reduce reliance on other fossil fuel derived material. Wonder how much oil goes into a rucksack? How much water? Not saying that they are "green" option in any way, just that people need to consider and exploit all the possible uses something can have.
Wow, I need to proof read!
george,
i never said cows were evil. i said that raising them is environmentally destructive.
you are completely right about using by-products. but leather is not a by-product. around half of the money you get for raising a cow comes from its skin. leather is a product, not a by-product. buying leather promotes the destructive raising of cows just like meat does. of course, i am bracketing any moral ramifications of raising cows, either for or against, aside from the environment impact, which is certainly relevant on treehugger.
we can certainly get more out of cows, like you say. but the environmental damage would be less if we used alternatives like soy, veggies, natural fibers which can last as long as leather.
i only bring this up because i think these bags have leather in them to make them more attractive to people who like more conventional products. it's there for style, not because it's "green."
Emily, you can apparently purchase these through the Terra Pax website:
http://terrapax.com/
Whether or not leather is a product or by-product is irrelevant: there are tons of people who buy it regardless. I think the fact that this company tried to find a greener way to go about getting a product made is a step towards progress. Thinking that domesticated animals are going to stop being made use of in this culture is naive. Though it's nice to argue a particular view, it's also nice to look at the big picture instead of pick things apart. Don't fight against each other if you're both fighting the same battles in the long run!
Besides all of that, the company's focus on the beauty of the product was key, and they managed to make a beautiful, healthier alternative to some other options you might be given. Aesthetics is always first in this society, and they took into account that people wouldn't want to jump on something that looked like a potato sack. They gave reliability and style to the green movement, and that is a great stickiness factor.
we were not fighting. i think a lot of what we said was productive.
i never said that there was no progress with this company, just that leather is not green and was not used for green purposes. certainly all progress toward a greener tomorrow is good. but being truthful and consistent is a good way to help the movement. bs-ing about leather is neither.
but you're largely repeating what i said: that use of leather was for style, not "green-ness." which means that the whole claim that leather was used for its [imaginary] green-ness still stands.
thank you for calling me "naive" for hoping for no more cows being domesticated. i suppose it's naive also to hope for no cars? i realize that domesticated animals have been around more than cars. how about violence? been around a while. deeper than even cows in our culture, even. it's naive to hope for a society without violence? maybe instead of focusing on MY naivety, you could have focused on YOUR pessimism :)
I would indeed suggest that the leather was primarily selected, not for style, but rather for function.
It was used, predominately, in high wear areas, and is superior, in this application of durability, to hemp itself.
The green purpose that vegetable tanned leather served here was as a material of excellent longevity that would biodegrade, given the right conditions. Is it the perfect green material? No? Terrapax never suggested it was, just that it, topped petroleum based alternatives.
"I would indeed suggest that the leather was primarily selected, not for style, but rather for function. "
i'm not one to not admit when you make a good point, warren. still not selected because it is actually "green," but i think you're closer than i was blaming it on style. i would think that leather buckles would be used for function usually. but still, well-made hemp can be as durable as leather, and it's much lighter. not as pretty though, and definitely more expensive. i've had hemp wallets hold up much better than leather.
treehugger, please stop promoting leather. it's not green.
Maybe they didn't make it because they're ugly? They're not hideous, but they're not exactly fashion-forward. I wouldn't carry one. It's not too difficult to find bags I much prefer at second-hand stores, and when buying second-hand, I don't have to worry too much about how it was made.