Is this a criticism of Patagonia in particular? They've done a lot to be environmentally aware. They've been using recycled polyester in their clothing for years. I also doubt that Patagonia-produced polyester clothing contributes even 0.01% of the polyester refuse in the ocean.
If you have specific criticisms of Patagonia, I would be very interested to learn more about them. Please share.
It's a paradox that the companies that care attract activist consumers who can never be satisfied and so get criticized more than companies that don't even try.
This is rather disingenuously worded. It's NET sales aka profit, which is rather a bit different from the gross sales you would assume from reading the giant headline.
It's worded as clear as a bell, and you are 100% wrong. It states unambiguously that they are donating, "100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com"
Page 8 of their 2014 annual report defines "net revenue" thusly:
"For purposes of this specific public benefit purpose, “net revenue” means Patagonia’s total sales of goods and services and revenues from other operations, less returns, discounts
and allowances: [...]"
Also, their announcement says:
"100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com"
My read is that "net sales" means pretty much "whatever was bought, less returns".
I'm surprised by the discussion on this. In the absence of clearer information I will choose the interpretation that does not entail them taking an enormous, ruinous loss to their financial bottom line.
Giving up NET profit for a single day is still huge.
That being said, the hyperbole doesn't bother me. Voting with your wallet is the single most important thing an individual can do (akin to reverse Citizens United). Giving consumers this clear cut prospective is an important function of that model (rather than crossing my fingers and hoping they don't invest those net profits in a sweatshop). My hope is that more business will follow suit.
Yvon is a rich dirtbag(in the good sense of the word as a climber) that made Patagonia into an ethical company. The clothes are expensive but quality. He openly states that he'd rather you repair the clothes vs buying the latest fashion every year. Iirc he was either one of the first adopters as an ethical company or possibly the one that created the legal distinction.
180 degrees south is a pretty fun movie if you are into adventure. He was a prolific rock climber and entrepreneur. Black diamond and Patagonia were his two main companies... Both quite successful though he did have some lawsuits with his chouinard equipment brand that he spun into bd.
Voting with your wallet is something, but it's certainly not fair, so not necessarily the "single most important thing an individual can do". Why? The votes (money) aren't evenly distributed.
Fairness and importance are orthogonal. The fact that money is unevenly distributed says nothing about whether spending money in ways that influence certain social changes is the "most important thing".
It's not fair that the I was born into a wealthy nation while some are born into impoverished war zones. Nonetheless it seems important that my money be put to good use.
Their website states the following: "100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com". If you have different information, please share your source.
