If Gucci makes trainers in China, the problem isn’t Italian technology

This is not a matter of technological expertise. Nor is the issue whether economic or diplomatic considerations played a part in the choice of industrial partner. Gucci’s decision to manufacture the Drip trainer in China, after a production history deeply rooted in its country of origin, presents Italian manufacturing with a more profound question: if the brand claims to have selected a Chinese supplier for the technological know-how and production capabilities best suited to meeting the performance and quality standards it sought, what can ‘Made in Italy’ offer today, given that China is establishing itself as a manufacturer of premium trainers?

For Agostino Apolito, general manager of Assomac – the national association representing Italian manufacturers of technology for footwear, leather goods and tanning – this is the real lesson to be learnt from the affair. ‘There is no general technological gap between us and China.’ Italy, he explains, possesses ‘world-class’ expertise in injection moulding and stamping, in the processing of polyurethane and thermoplastics, in mould design, in automation and robotics, as well as in materials chemistry. Why, then, did Gucci look to China? ‘Evidently, it identified a technological partner particularly well-suited to that product.’ The difference, according to Apolito, does not necessarily lie in the individual technology, but in the way in which the various areas of expertise are applied and integrated. “The model for applying know-how is completely different.” The issue, therefore, is not merely a matter of possessing individual areas of expertise, but of being able to bring them together and make them work in unison on the same product. “This is probably the crux of the matter,” emphasises Apolito. ‘China has developed a very strong capacity to integrate materials, technology, research, design and production within the same industrial system.’ This is an advantage that primarily concerns the speed with which an idea can become a product. The trainer is the most obvious example of this transformation. It is not merely a sports shoe, but a technological product in which materials, design, sole structure, moulding, automation and digital control must all be developed together. “These are processes that we, too, are familiar with and know how to manage.” The difference, however, lies in the ability to ensure these areas of expertise interact effectively within the same development process. In China, Apolito emphasises, research, materials, machinery and production are much more closely integrated, and this integration has been consolidated thanks to the presence of major manufacturers, sports brands and a huge domestic market. There are companies capable of producing 15, 18 or 20 million pairs a year. “We do not have that kind of production capacity, and that is not necessarily the model we should be pursuing,” Apolito points out. But that scale has made it possible to experiment with materials and processes on a large scale and to build highly integrated supply chains. “We have all the pieces of the jigsaw. The challenge is to put them back together, creating a complete picture.” This means building the ecosystem: connecting those who manufacture machinery, those who develop materials, those who build moulds, those working on automation and robotics, and those who understand the production process. And ensuring they engage with the brand right from the design stage. Today, Apolito admits, if Gucci were to ask us to bring production of the same trainer back to Italy whilst maintaining the technical specifications, volumes and lead times, “I’d say no – at least not with the speed at which it would probably need to be done. We’d have to work on it.” But it is precisely on speed that action can be taken: “The facilities exist, the companies exist and, above all, the technologies exist.” The aim is not to turn our production system into a ‘mini-China’. ‘We mustn’t produce like China. We must produce better.’ The competitive arena lies elsewhere: flexibility, small batches, customisation, new materials, traceability and energy efficiency. This is what Apolito calls ‘technological tailor-made’: machines and processes adapted to the needs of the designer and the brand. A platform is also needed. This is where Assomac comes in with its Simac Tanning Tech trade fair, where the next step will be to showcase not just individual machines, but integrated solutions. “We must present more and more integrated solutions, in which technology, materials and the production process are designed together.” The project, which is already underway, also includes trainers, but it is applicable to the wider footwear sector. ‘As a national association of technology manufacturers, we must first and foremost ensure that this know-how comes together.’ The Gucci case could serve as a catalyst. ‘We must, once and for all, succeed in bringing all this expertise round the same table and be able to tell the brands: you don’t necessarily have to look far afield, because what you’re looking for is already right here.’ The question raised by the Gucci sneaker is not merely why the Kering brand produced that model in China. It is, above all: «When a designer – whether Italian or international – envisions the next technologically advanced sneaker, where will they go to develop it?»