7-1 Student Blog: Green for Profit or Green for the Environment?

By Jarrett Bregler

Patagonia’s Strong Stance on Social Responsibility and Ethical Practices 

Hi everyone,

One of my favorite retail brands is Patagonia. I am an outdoorsy person and consumer, and their products are warm and cozy in winter and light and breathable in the warmer months. As a company, they are also an excellent example of social and ethical responsibility. They have a long history of adherence to upholding the value and business framework of corporate social responsibility. It largely pertains to their engagement with the natural world for their product development needs. Their stance of corporate social responsibility is incorporated into their ethical practices and their marketing strategies are linked to their corporate social responsibility objectives. Corporate social responsibility “…is about running a business in a responsible, professional, and sustainable way” (Business Wales/Busnes Cymru, 2015, 0:53). It also encompasses an emphasis on the significance of relationships in executing their business and its operational objectives. “It’s about developing and maintaining good relationships with everyone that the company deals with – employees, customers, suppliers, investors, funders, and the community in which the company operates” (Business Wales/Busnes Cymru, 2015, 0:59). Patagonia recognizes the interconnectedness of these people as priorities in their business. Essentially, they uphold “…a business model that helps the company be socially accountable to itself, its stakeholders, and the public” (Fernando, 2024). Concurrently, this extends to their marketing strategies that revolve around its inherent commitment to environmental activism. “Its brand campaigns focus on sustainability” (Jain, 2023). Concurrently, they elucidate authenticity in their marketing communications and engage their current and potential consumers with their dedication to seeking alternative solutions to their product production needs. Moreover, they are a Certified B Corporation which means that “the company meets rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency” (Jain, 2023). Environmental activism is the consistent theme of their marketing efforts, and it is correlated with social good linked with sustainable communities. The company goes beyond “…just selling outdoor clothing and gear; it actively advocates for environmental causes and improving the human condition through meaningful transformations with environmental protections” (Jain, 2023). Essentially, it uses its brand platform to raise awareness about climate change, deforestation, and pollution, and to educate its consumers and global citizens regarding the adverse impacts these have on the human condition and that of the planet. Furthermore, through their marketing campaigns, Patagonia encourages consumers to take action. They strive to elicit participation in environmental causes and initiatives. They additionally support organizations that share a common goal of working towards sustainability.

Patagonia’s Socially Responsible Business Practices

Regarding ethical practices, the company conducts itself in a socially responsible capacity in several ways. Their strategy encompasses an environmental and social footprint. They have “…built robust environmental and animal welfare responsibility programs to guide how they make their materials and products” (Morden, 2024). Their product provision to consumers is largely correlated with their materials. “99% of their styles are made from preferred materials such as regenerative organic certified cotton” (Stanley, 2024). They have upgraded their dying processes. “Their solution dying involves adding pigment directly to the fiber before it’s made into a material, instead of using conventional methods that require more water and energy” (Morden, 2024). They institute several programs to protect the environment. A pertinent example involves the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Their “…catalogs are printed on FSC-certified paper and they’re sourcing FSC certified materials for much of their gear” (Stanley, 2024). This means that both are made from virgin tree fibers instead of pre-or-post-consumer recycled materials. For efforts relative to animal welfare, they have “…adopted a formal animal welfare policy and largely reject using materials such as leather and exotic animal hair” (Wolfe, 2024). Moreover, they recycle existing materials garnered from animals such as wool. Concurrently, they have taken responsibility for their role in microfiber pollution. This pollution was hindering fish species and water quality. In 2015, they began partnering with others in the retail industry and with climate change specialists and commenced “…halting the spread of synthetic fiber waste in the air and water” (Stanley, 2024). This not only restored fish species, it reduced the damage it was causing to marine birds and wildlife that were consuming these fish. Microfibers are also released from clothes. Hence, “they’ve improved product engineering and fabric construction to reduce shedding” (Stanley, 2024). Fundamentally, in imparting responsible practices, they look at external and internal factors that are impeding their organizational objectives. They continuously adapt by rejecting former practices that are hindering the environment and its citizens, and they strive to educate themselves and the public in how all can work together for a more sustainable planet and accompanying communities. 

In addition, Patagonia has progressed its business practices in relation to corporate social responsibility. “Over 85% of their products are made in a Fair Trade certified factory” Chouinard, 2023). Further, employees are an integral aspect of their corporate social responsibility strategies. “75,000 workers benefit from Patagonia’s participation in the Fair Trade Program” (Morden, 2024). Their involvement with fair trade is aligned with ensuring livable wages in their supply chain. Thus, this is connected to their adherence to social responsibility. The reason this is a priority is that apparel employees are some of the lowest paid employees globally. Although Patagonia doesn’t own its own factories, this issue is paramount to them and by being part of the Fair Trade Program, they are striving to ensure that these workers will receive tangible benefits for improving the quality of their lives. Finally, Patagonia contributes financially to protecting the planet. As the “…clothing industry contributes up to 10% of the pollution driving the climate crisis, the company believes it should invest its revenue generation into a solution” (Morden, 2024). In fact, Patagonia considers earth the company’s only shareholder. They “…give away 1% of their sales each year” (Chouinard, 2023). Their strategy is to influence their consumers and other businesses to adopt this practice in whatever way they can afford. The company even considered selling itself to mitigate all of the damage that has been caused to the planet. However, they were concerned that the buyers would not share their sense of corporate social responsibility and would cause irreparable damage to the brand’s identity.

Ethical and Legal Incident That Contradicted Its Corporate Social Responsibility

The company has been involved in an incident in which they were accused of an ethical and legal matter. In 2023, Patagonia was accused of exploiting textile workers in Sri Lankan’s Fast Fashion factories. These workers “…reported working up to seventeen hours a day producing Patagonia’s clothing” (Lijbaart, 2023). Although the employees were making clothing for Patagonia, their employee contracts were with the Fast Fashion factories and the determination was that they were liable to the employees, not Patagonia. However, given Patagonia’s commitment to its corporate social responsibility, “…they did not want their brand’s identity to be associated with unscrupulous behavior” (Lijbaart, 2023). While they wanted to continue to promote employment opportunities for workers in this region, they determined that it would be best to vacate their contracts with Fast Fashion. This incident caused them to reinforce their efforts relative to social responsibility and to impart more ethical assessments into their partnerships with other companies.

The Company is Green for Profit and for the Environment

Patagonia is a company that is significantly invested in its commitment to being green for the environment. In addition to the aforementioned commitment to these efforts, Patagonia has also been invested in eradicating plastic waste. It has taken “1,419 tons of plastic that would have ended up in the oceans and made gear from it” (Stanley, 2024). It doesn’t just strive to prevent adverse environmental impacts; it assumes responsibility for its role in the damage that has occurred. They live by their mission. They work hard to “…make the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, and use their business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis” (Wolfe, 2024). Its business model additionally rejects fast fashion. It does this “…by creating high-quality, long-lasting products, and offering a repair and reuse program” (Wolfe, 2024). While its corporate strategic goal is to make a profit for company sustainability, its marketing communication methods in relation to consumer behavior are opposite of how many companies engage with their consumers. They actually encourage their consumers to not buy too many of their products. In recent decades, they have repeated a “Don’t Buy This Jacket” campaign. It is “…designed to tackle the issue of consumerism and to cultivate more conscious consumerism as part of the consumer’s lifestyle” (Stanley, 2024). Buying less reduces the eco-footprint. This campaign is also intended to reduce corporate hypocrisy. They believe it would “…be hypocritical of them to work for environmental change without encouraging consumers to think before they buy” (Wolfe, 2024). It is important to note that as they do this to benefit the environment, it does allow them to increase their prices. This is due to the provision of quality of their products. It is also aligned with their notion of buying less in relation to consumerism. In order to sustain and progress their profitability, they have to charge more for their products as they are encouraging less purchases in their relationship with their consumers.

Hope you enjoyed learning more about what it takes for a company to be “green” and to not focus solely on getting the “green.” Please check back as another blog will be coming your way soon.