Patagonia is pushing polyester with its associated micro-plastics, instead of the renewable natural fibers that they were using before like wool. Good, evil, depends on who is counting.
Patagonia is clear about that decision though [1]. Microplastics are bad but not the whole story. They still offer natural fibers which have their own problems. I don't think this is Patagonia chasing short term profits, I think they are trying to remain true to their corporate goals.
Their statement sounds and looks good at first, but the actions amount to: you should keep buying our products, you should buy a new washing machine, you should buy a filter and we will keep thinking about it.
Patagonia do make high performance plastic products for activities where performance matters and in a better way than most, but have not been a performance focused company for decades. The original breakthrough of using plastic fleece in the wilderness due to it's non water absorbing properties doesn't really justify the size of their production with those materials today. They make most of their money selling plastic fleeces for people to wear to coffee shops. This segment of the market didn't realy exist before brands like Patagonia so they while they may offer a better alternative today, they are helped to create this particular problem.
And if you've ever seen their clearance lists, they're as bad as other fashion companies for overproduction - new colours every season which need to make way the following season.
Replacing plastics in their casual ranges and extending the lifecycles of the colours alone would make a bigger difference than a couple of research grants, but is risky for sales and less sexy. So take those statements with a pinch of salt.
I'm confused on what you think Patagonia should do differently. Should I boycott them for some reason? Should I feel bad about wearing their products? How bad are they environmentally on the scale of all apparel manufacturers from worst to best? Is Cotopaxi ok?
It seems to me the point is that they could do many things that would be better for the earth, but would impact short term or medium term numbers. And this is in contrast to the claim that Patagonia is somehow unlike other corporations.
They’re not. They’re also “evil” in this way. Perhaps less so. But it’s a property of money making endeavors to prioritize making money.
I have one of their “iconic” puffy jackets. I bought it cheap at a gear swap because it has a tiny rip. That has never worsened, which I believe is a property of the material. The polyester is quite durable.
I wear it about a third of the year here in Seattle. In the five years I have owned it I have washed it maybe once and possibly never. I don’t even wear it in the rain often because I have a rain shell which is also plastic and also doesn’t get washed.
I do also have some hemp pants from Patagonia. I wear those often. They made it about three years before they needed to go in to have pockets repaired from cell phone damage. Those fibers require farm land and water to grow. Repairs help mitigate that damage but it still exists.
I’m honestly not sure which garment has the most negative effect on the environment.
Chouinard is probably marginally better than your average billionaire, but it was almost certainly not done in a way that didn't also very clearly benefit him, and, more importantly, his family.
That NYT piece is, more or less, a fluff piece; and, it's also worth noting, this same maneuver is frequently used in ways that are probably seen less "charitably," given the political influence 501(c)(4)s' potentially wield.
Reading that interview, it just sounds like a tax-optimized donation. It still causes him to give up wealth that he could have kept, but he's minimizing the loss. Is this not the case? If it is for pure personal financial gain, should we expect Jim Simons to pull a similar maneuver with Ren Tech at some point?
You do realize that I'm responding to someone that made the assertion, also implied in the NYT article, that this "donation" was "done in a way that intentionally incurred a large tax bill." Right? What you're saying directly contradicts that, which was my point...
This was very obviously not done "for pure personal financial gain..." But should billionaires be able to donate billions, tax-free, to exert political influence, which, generally (though, with rare exceptions, like perhaps Chouinard), they will use to directly benefit themselves and their family? And, should they be able to do so in a way that maintains that political influence for their family for generations to come?
Maybe Chouinard and his family have good intentions, but, like the article said, "one doesn’t want a constructed tax system predicated upon everyone being like the Chouinards."
nothing wrong with benefiting yourself and your family - the problem is doing that unfairly at the expense of someone else, which it appears he has tried hard not to do here.
It's healthy to have a skepticism of "rich" people, but I think it's really uncharitable to view Chouinard's career as mere wealth accrual for wealth's sake. To not view him as a role model for how business can be ethical is, IMO, a missed opportunity.
Chouinard's goal was for his mission (the raison d'etre for Patagonia – to make high quality goods for outdoor activities, and to use the profits from this venture to protect outdoor spaces) to outlive his personal stewardship of Patagonia's control.
When that's your goal, the set of options available is rather narrow. You have to pass on control to people you trust, whom you've developed strong relationships with, and whom you trust to evolve and pass that mission down to the next generation. Most importantly, you want to avoid the kind of grifters that Patagonia has been allergic to in its history.
Plus, Patagonia already has a rich synergistic history of funding activism. It's not at all comparable to Gates, Carnegie, or Rockefeller who made their money and decided what "good" to spend it on in two discrete steps. For Patagonia, the most important thing is effective stewardship over an already-sailing ship
Chouinard has written a lot of material that you can read for yourself and form your own opinion on. He's remarkably direct and transparent, there aren't really smoke and mirrors to navigate.
That being said, anything he does with his "wealth" (itself an absurd idea, as he would never liquidate Patagonia shares and still never has) is going to rhyme with what other powerful people do with their wealth. You have to judge the people, not just the structures they're working within.
If you are an REI member, they often have stuff in the used (Garage) site that is in excellent quality and also less expensive. Patagonia also has worn wear that does the same thing. Win-win - awesome stuff, no need to make a new one for you, and less expensive!
- The guy who now has too many nanopuff jackets, but I will die on this hill.
Kinda ironic that the good deeds of Patagonia were written about on a website that we cannot even read because there is a paywall to access the information. Talk about seeing two sides of a spectrum haha.
That's the thing. A privately owned company can keep its morals if it has them, because the owners don't answer to anyone else. But as soon as a company accepts Venture Capital funding, or goes public, morals go out the window. The original owners no longer have control, and can't decide what the goal of the company is anymore. The goal is now to make money in whatever method is possible.
Remember this whenever you see founders say that they didn't betray their original agreements. They betrayed those agreements as soon as they accepted VC funding or public trading, because that's when they agreed to lose control of the direction of the company.
You are right, but as others have noted, I should have put a caveat on my assertion that the incentive mismatch is really there for companies with "outside owners", either in the form of a publicly traded company or large VC/PE investors.
If you keep a company private, and you don't take sizable outside funding, you can pretty much do whatever you want with your company.
> and reddit wouldn't have even survived this long if they hadn't
The parts of Reddit that people actually like – a single lightweight web app (old.reddit.com) minus all the fluff (constant redesigns, broken video player, live streaming service, overengineered mobile apps, avatars, NFTs, coins/gifts, social networking, chat, clubhouse competitor, expensive acquisitions) – would have survived perfectly well without VC money.
How so? It costs money to store & retrieve this content, at reddit scale (100m active monthly?). Ads clearly weren't paying enough of the bills, so what's the next best option?
Reddit made $500M in revenue last year, yet is unprofitable. The reason isn't its AWS bill, but the "must 5x every year no matter what" mentality of their VCs who are looking for their exit. This pushes companies to overhire, add useless features and waste money on user acquisition just to chase that growth chart and have a successful IPO roadshow.
Fashion companies like Patagonia and online social platforms like Reddit are radically different with how they interact with network effects.
Fashion benefits from exclusivity and brand identity. It behooves Patagonia to brand itself as "not evil" or "not capitalist" or whatever, it's ultimately a fashion statement.
Social networks suffer from exclusivity, and brand identity is an afterthought. I'd wager that most Reddit users have a neutral/negative view of the Reddit brand, but they use Reddit anyways because of network effects (everyone is there) and the brand doesn't really impact their favorite subreddits. There have been many attempts at "exclusive" social networks with carefully crafted brand identity, and they always fail.
There's a theory that social media also has fashion phases, but I don't think we have enough data to back that up. MySpace lasted about 6 years. Facebook is 19 and Twitter is 17 and both are going strong.
I see Patagonia as the antithesis of this broadly accepted assertion.
It's possible, it just takes having a goal for your company that's more than greed.