When Victoria's Secret senior executive Tom Katzenmeyer saw the full page ad that eco-group ForestEthics ran in the New York Times two years ago assailing the catalogue retailer as a destroyer of ancient forests, he knew it was no contest.
The ad depicted a lingerie-clad model in angel wings, perfectly capturing the brand image that Victoria's Secret had carefully cultivated. Only this model was wielding a chainsaw.
The company was using non-recycled paper for its catalogues from supplier International Paper. International Paper sourced some of its product from Western Canada forests that provide habitat for mountain caribou. The absence of any concern over paper sourcing or content for its 365 million catalogues made Victoria's Secret a target.
Victoria's Secret had been approached by ForestEthics about its procurement policies but had ignored them. It renewed a supply contract and now it was on the losing end of a eco-marketing campaign that was giving the company's image a very black eye.
"It was very shrewd on their part. It was an image that, under other circumstances, we would like to hold out for Victoria's Secret," Katzenmeyer said Wednesday. He was speaking on a forestry conference panel where he provided an insider's view of what it's like to be targeted by environmentalists bent on forcing corporations to green up their policies.
Katzenmeyer is a senior vice-president with Limited Brands, a U.S. company with $10 billion in sales. Victoria's Secret is the most lucrative holding in Limited Brands' fashion stable, contributing $1 billion US in profits, 80 per cent of Limited Brands' income.
The eco-campaign did not affect Victoria's Secret revenues but it did harm the company's reputation. That, in the end, is what mattered, Katzenmeyer said.
"Suppliers knew where we were headed on this. It was unacceptable to Limited Brands and to Victoria's Secret that we had been put in this position with paper coming from endangered places."
Wednesday he stood before 200 people at the ForestLeadership conference and said Limited Brands not only supports ForestEthics but is actively working to promote the use of paper from more sustainably harvested forests. It is no longer using any paper for its catalogues that comes from mountain caribou habitat, he said.
And later, at a luncheon sponsored by the company and the eco-activists, he sat with former foe Tzeporah Berman.
"We have gone from being in a defensive role to real advocacy," he said of the transformation.
To seal the new partnership between the corporation and the eco-warriors, he announced Limited Brands has committed $1 million US for research and advocacy to protect endangered forests. The company has also funded a study in the Alberta foothills that he said details a "rapid decline" in old-growth forests.
"Our relationship with ForestEthics is a true partnership, a true collaboration," he said. "We want to contribute to forest sustainability and we are not turning back from that."
Before adopting a green approach, Victoria's Secret was subjected to a campaign that included protests at events, postcards delivered to the company CEO's neighbours, thousands of e-mails, protesters at annual general meetings and representatives of socially-responsible investment firms attempting to put the issue to a vote of shareholders.
Katzenmeyer would not reveal the source of catalogue paper now but he said it takes time to make the complete shift. For 2007, the company has committed to using paper that is either 10-per-cent post-consumer waste or 10 per cent from Forest Stewardship Council-certified forests.
The transformation of Victoria's Secret to advocate is perplexing to the Canadian forest industry. Jean Pierre Martel, vice-president of sustainability for the Forest Products Association of Canada, said in an interview that it sounds like Katzenmeyer is getting all his information from one source. "We think it is important that they play with all the stakeholders and not become advocates for one," he said.
Martel said the industry is working with stakeholders and non-profit associations such as the World Wildlife Fund in efforts to develop policies and actions on the boreal forest that make sense. He questioned whether the U.S. company understood that Canadian forestlands are owned by the public and land-use decisions are arrived quite differently than in the U.S., where most forestlands are private.Vancouver Sun
