Behind the Music: Gibson Guitars’ Timber Sourcing Debacle

Gibson Guitar
By Nick Kordesch

As the legendary guitar riff of “Sweet Child of Mine” blared through Cowboys Stadium at this year’s Super Bowl halftime show, did Slash’s guitar secretly have an appetite for destruction? In 2009, iconic guitar maker Gibson Guitars’ Nashville headquarters was raided by federal agents who seized guitar parts that may have been harvested illegally in Madagascar. Welcome to the jungle of illegal timber.

The raid instantly made Gibson into one of the most visible examples of enforcement of the U.S. Lacey Act amendments, which outlaws illegal timber sales. One of Gibson’s suppliers was threatened with jail time and the company faces fines if the United States Department of Agriculture finds that the wood was illegally harvested. Though the company has not been formally charged with any wrongdoing, damage to the company’s brand has already been done.

The Lacey Act, which has been around since 1900, combats trafficking of illegal wildlife, fish and plants. The US Congress expanded the act in 2008 to include most plants and plant products, making the United States the first in the world to make it a legal offense to import illegally harvested wood. Companies that import timber products are required to demonstrate “due care” in taking appropriate measures to verify that their wood was harvested in compliance with local laws.

Did Gibson get singled out unfairly?  The company’s CEO certainly feels that they did. As a longtime buyer of wood certified to the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council (a respected nonprofit dedicated to responsible forestry), Gibson is known as one of the “good guys” in responsible forest practices. The investigation came as a shock to the industry—but illegal timber can trip up even the most environmentally-focused companies because of hazy, cross-border supply chains.

The musical instrument industry has an especially high risk of sourcing endangered or poached wood because of its reliance on traditional exotic tonewoods for instruments parts, such as guitar backs, sides and fret boards. Because timber supply chains pass through developing countries, it can be difficult to track the exact origins of the wood.  Gibson was accused of importing ebony and rosewood for its fingerboards, which have been illegal to harvest in Madagascar since 1996.

For companies with valuable brands to protect, it pays to reduce the risk of unknowingly running afoul of the law.  There are a number of organizations that offer legality verifications, like SCS LegalHarvest and Smart Wood, which are aimed at giving timber companies a way to assure buyers that their products are legal, thereby minimizing risk for the manufacturer.

While all importers of timber products need to comply with Lacey Act enforcement, lower profile companies that get caught typically only face fines.  High profile, consumer-facing brands have the most to lose from public relations debacles like the embarrassing raid of Gibson’s facility.  Businesses can reduce the risk of brand damage by verifying that the wood they purchase was harvested legally.

Sadly, the harvest of wood from national parks or endangered species is widespread and the workers harvesting the timber tend to be paid far less than what these exotic woods fetch on the open market. Sourcing legally harvested timber is just the first step in supporting responsible forestry practices.  More comprehensive certification programs like FSC and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) go beyond legality and look at sustainability of the resource, ecosystem and dependent communities.  The European Union and Australia have followed suit and are in the process of implementing illegal timber bans as well which will close off some of the world’s largest timber markets to poachers.

Nick Kordesch is a Communications Associate at Scientific Certification Systems, which is a leading environmental certification company and a founding member of the Forest Stewardship Council.

3p Contributor

TriplePundit has published articles from over 1000 contributors. If you'd like to be a guest author, please get in touch!

4 responses

  1. You correctly note that for years, Gibson has worked diligently with environmental groups to develop programs to foster sustainable sources of wood in a manner that protects the environment. Regarding the wood that was seized from Gibson in 2009, Madagascar law specifically authorized the exportation of ebony and rosewood in “finished” form. Madagascar law specifically describes “finished” products to include guitar fingerboards, which are what Gibson purchased. Consistent with this law, Madagascar customs officials approved export of ebony fingerboards to a German company from which Gibson has purchased fingerboards for many years. The German company’s importer declared the wood to U.S. customs as ebony from Madagascar; U.S. customs officials allowed the wood into the United States; and Gibson eventually purchased the wood. Given these circumstances, Gibson believes the wood was legal under both Madagascar law and the Lacey Act.

    1. Legal? Perhaps… but sloppy and possibly still unethical? Maybe.

      Given Gibson’s past commitments, I’d like to see more than just a legal argument. If they did wrong – even by accident – they still need to own up to it and help deal with the problem!

  2. ED Edison: The Department of Justice deals with illegality and not morality. I don’t want to live in a world where the gov’t imposes moral standards on the governed. Gibson was chosen by the DOJ for one and only one reason. It operates in a right to work state and this administration has declared war on companies that operate in right to work states. Witness the attack on Boeing in S. Carolina. Gibson is an iconic company that has hired more than 500 workers in the past year. It has a long and storied history of responsible manufacture. It has worked hard to comply with forest sustainability measures. Having the DOJ conduct a hostile raid on a responsible company which results in economic damage to the company, damage to the workers who lost pay while the company was shut down, and where the objective is not law enforcement but rather intimidation, is not what a society of laws is all about. I am sorry, but this was purely a political ploy. If the DOJ had reasonable cause to believe a law had been broken, they could have gone before a Federal Judge, obtained a warrant and proceeded. Instead, they just attacked. That is not what this country ought to be about.


Leave a Reply