Marketplace

Hello,
You raise some valid questions and it's great to see people questioning the "green" movement. I can say that as a two decade veteran of non-profit world I would not have come to Trek if their intent with 1world2wheels had not been purely mission based and not profit driven. 1world2wheels is a Trek commitment to make the world a more bike friendly place. There's plenty of info showing that riding a bike is good for the rider and the planet but all that doesn't matter if people are afraid to ride. Trek, led personally by its President is providing millions of dollars and lending its voice to advocates nation and world wide. The feedback we get from advocate groups--the ones on the ground doing the day to day work--has been amazing. Trek has long been a leader in bike advocacy and is working hard to get our peers to do the same and we're suceeding in that area.

And, like other companies Trek has for years now been examining its internal workings to find ways to leave a smaller footprint. From ride-to-work incentives, to paperless billing to materials sourcing, Trek is ALWAYS looking at how it can improve. Like a lot of companies we'll never stop looking for ways to improve; it's part of our culture. I'm proud to say I work for this company. Kind regards, Rebecca, Advo Director, Trek Bicycles

Rebecca - Thanks for your comment. I value Trek's bicycle advocacy highly (my friends sigh when I start in on sharing the road).

I'm intrigued about the sustainable activities you mention, not because I disbelieve it, but because I found nothing during a 5-minute search of the Trek website looking for them.

I personally thank Trek for your great bike advocacy work - us cyclists are the little guys on the road, and we need some muscle behind us. I also hope Trek decides to go all the way and aim for sustainability in every aspect of its business.

As Rebecca notes, bicycle transportation is good for the environment and a huge step toward a more sustainable planet. The problem, however, is that Trek's commitment to said goals---like that of other bicycle corporations---is paltry at best. For example, Trek's recent commitment to national bike advocacy groups is $1.6 million over the next three years....roughly $530,000 a year. Not exactly chump change, but less than 1/10 of 1% of their annual sales figures, which I've seen reported between $600-700 million. It is especially meager when contrasted with the $16 million dollar marketing/advertising budget Trek has for 2008 (according to SOAR's article on the 2008 Bicycle Leadership Conference).

Moreover, while Trek still employs a number of people in Waterloo, they get most of their bicycles from factories in Asia that directly and indirectly support poor labor conditions and environmentally sketchy practices via a network of supply chains and outsourced labor that is incredibly difficult to accurately map out. For example, Giant Bicycles' president Tony Lo says there are actually "two ‘Taiwan’ bicycle industries: one in Taiwan and one in China." In other words, despite the assurance that bikes are ostensibly produced under the watchful eye of Taiwanese labor regulators, there is an admittedly blurry line between 'good' labor practices (i.e. exploitative) vs. 'bad' labor practices (extremely exploitative).

Finally, Trek is hardly committed to genuinely improving transportation policy when Todd McKean, the head of Trek's Chinese operations, has the following to say about whether the massive influx of drivers in China is hurting bicycling:

"Cars help our business…..Those buying little QQs and sub-compact Buicks are our target market. They feel they can use the bike on the weekend, so they're starting to buy bike racks. So the car and bike go together." (Eurobiz, January 2008).

At risk of sounding like a total crank, or someone who simply likes to point out the hypocrisies of the bicycle industry, I think it is important to recognize the profound role that bicycles can and must play as transportation vehicles in the future. However, we are never going to get there by outsourcing bicycle production across the world and having the entire future of the bike industry dependent on cheap oil: the only thing currently (and ironically) ensuring the delivery of bicycles and parts through an exploitative network of globalized capitalism.

It will only come from localizing bicycle production and dismantling the stranglehold that a handful of corporations have on the industry worldwide. Trek is hardly unique in this regard and they are not an awful corporation.....but they certainly are not part of the solution. Unless, of course, 'the solution' is vaguely advocating more bike riding instead of envisioning a more just, humane and environmentally sustainable bicycle industry, in addition to promoting a society in which cities are designed around the needs of people instead of their gas-guzzling cars.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Rebecca or anyone else at Trek, but actions speak a lot louder than words. Consequently, kicking down less than 1% of one's annual sales to bike advocacy is the equivalent of buying a homeless guy coffee and proclaiming one's participation in ending homelessness.

I will believe Trek's commitment to a 'better world' if and when they decide to do any of the following things:

1) Support more US bicycle production and employment for US bicycle workers (a gesture that should not be done to appease jingoistic, racist American patriots, but one that should attempt to seek better conditions for skilled workers and improve local economies in the US).

2) Support equitable and locally-owned bicycle production in African countries as opposed to encouraging bicycling via the (sic) 'free market' trade policies and the elimination of tariffs in African countries (a la the World Bank and IMF).

3)Take a public stance against the auto and/or oil industries, even if it means stepping on a few toes of their $5000-$10,000 bike-buying yuppie supporters.

Sorry for the extended post.....but this whole faux-'green' discourse permeating the US right now is hardly the solution to anything, much less the problems of global warming, 42,000 killed each year from cars (in the US alone), the continual pollution of Black and Latino/a neighborhoods, and the perpetuation of a market economy built on the unrelenting exploitation of the world's poorest peoples.

Biking will not fix these problems, but it can play a profound role in a more egalitarian society. That is, of course, once we open our eyes and begin to sift through all the 'green' haze.

In other words:

Bicycling, committed cycle commuters = green

Bike companies = not necessarily?

Interesting discussion!

This is Green washing clear as day. Supporting initiatives is for sure part of being a good neighbor and a instrument of change for the better, but it doesn't make the bicycle Green.

I am working on my last week at a bicycle retailer that functions in essence as a "Trek Shop". I mean this in the sense that independent bicycle dealers generally have to pick a brand and show loyal devotion to that corporation in order to get better profit margins and move up dealer levels and hopefully get to go to he shrimp night instead of chicken wing night at the annual "TREK World" gala.

Trek as a corporation is involved in the production of bicycles. Bicycles are a product that has extraordinary value for humanity.

Trek as a corporation is not "green" beyond this fact. Trek engages in the wasteful and tacky capitalist scheme of planned obsolescence. Every year a new model so gently different yet devaluing the last years model if only because of the new color paint.

The fact that this "american" bicycle company now only actually produces 3000 dollar plus bikes in house shows that they aren't green. Green isn't producing bicycles in china for sale in north america because labor is more easily exploitable.

These bicycles we are buying are shipped across the world ... why? How does that save energy, or our planet.

The race to the bottom of labor costs is the outcome of milton friedman's capitalism. The capitalists in this country used to import slaves to do the work of building wealth for them. Now because of the gains we have made as american workers, abolishing slavery, gaining the eight hour day, gaining the right to organize labor unions, minimum wage laws, the weekend, child labor prohibitions it is cheaper for the corporations to export factories to far away lands to where their slaves now reside.

Trek could build a coal-to-liquid plant to get gas for transporting their bikes, use whale oil to light and power their factories and whatever else and it would be nothing compared to the enormous change that a five-fold increase in biking would bring.

But that's not the point here, it's greenwashing. They're not green. Then again, if the Democrats can have 50,000 blowhards fly into a cowtown in the middle of nowhere to play politics and claim to be green, I think we can give Trek some slack here. After all, if they could actually play a meaningful role in quintupling cycling that would actually lead to some meaningful changes in actual peoples every day lives.

I agree that Trek could be doing more, but very few individuals or corporations can say honestly they're doing as much as possible to further the cause of sustainability.

That being said, the situation is far from simple. Even if Trek did move more of their frame production back to the U.S, most of the parts that get hung on that frame to make a bike come from somewhere besides the U.S. It's a situation very similar to that in the auto industry. There's no longer such a thing as foreign or domestic cars; they're a mix. So are bikes, and a lot has to happen to change that.

Second, Trek hung on to American production as long as the market supported it. They didn't move production until their sales figures showed that it wasn't worth the extra 20 or 30 bucks to consumers to buy American labor. We can watch the same thing happening with Cannondale as we speak. We vote with our dollars.