Patagonia climbs a new peak

Patagonia has been saving the Earth one climbing jacket at a time with their various environmental initiatives. (Photo: Boardsport Source)

Outdoor fashion brand Patagonia has announced massive plans for the brand’s fight against climate change. In a letter by founder Yvon Chouinard, it was announced that 100% of Patagonia’s non-voting stock would go to Holdfast Collective, a non-profit organization dedicated to fighting the climate crisis.

A novel decision, Chouinard said that the company chose to “create their own” option as selling Patagonia and donating what they gain from the sale, or taking the company public were not ideal options for them.

“We needed to find a way to put more money into fighting the crisis while keeping the company’s values intact,” said Chouinard, an American climber-turned-businessman.

Back in 2018, Patagonia’s brand purpose became “We’re in business to save our home planet,” and to demonstrate this, Chouinard announced that 100% of the voting stock of the company would be going to the Patagonia Purpose Trust. The brand has always been a long-time champion for climate action and sustainability. 

The recent turn of events has been described as game-changing. Many have applauded the move, saying if Patagonia can make the change, other brands should too. It has also amplified the conversation surrounding greenwashing and sustainability in fast fashion.

Another case of greenwashing?

Greenwashing is a marketing issue that many brands are guilty of. Volkswagen admitted to using software to reduce detected emissions during testing, all while running a campaign on low-emission vehicles. Despite promises to shift towards plastic-free packaging, Nestle remains one of the highest culprits of plastic waste burning.

In the fashion world, look no further than fast fashion. H&M was hit with a lawsuit for false advertising their H&M Conscious line as sustainable. Shein’s hiring of a head of environmental, social, and governance has been criticized as “hollow” as the brand’s business model of ultra-fast production banks on possible exploitation.

Textiles make up 85% of waste each year and can also be the source of microplastics in the environment. Production requires high levels of water and power usage, which impact resource availability. With a lot of fast fashion brands, the mediocre quality of clothes means that they don’t last as long as more expensive products might. So customers are compelled to buy more in quantity and frequency.

It’s a vicious cycle of production and consumption. Thus the rise in demand for more people to shift to ethically-made, sustainable fashion. But that also comes with its own set of issues.

Counting costs

The best approach to dressing sustainably would, of course, be conscious consuming. Resist the endless production cycle of fast fashion that tells you to crack open your wallet every time there’s a sale. Reuse what you have, and when the time comes to replace what’s already in your closet, choose alternatives like thrifting, buying second hand, or patronizing slow fashion brands.

But the thing about fast fashion is that it’s easily available and it’s cheap.

Patagonia isn’t exactly an accessible option with a jacket setting you back at least $150. While it might be seen as an investment for high-quality products that last years, for some people, there are simply more important things to worry about. Like putting food on the table or keeping the lights on. Clothing isn’t something most people want to pour a lot of money into.

There’s also the concern about size availability. A lot of retail fashion brands—especially in sustainable fashion—don’t cater to bigger bodies. If they do, they might charge more or they’re just ugly. With sites like Shein that have curated selections for plus-size, it’s simply more convenient to shop from brands that have your size in their stock than to gamble on sustainable ones that don’t always carry larger sizes.

Patagonia’s big move puts further pressure on the fashion industry to make concrete moves toward climate action. It’s also a great show of how these decisions have to come from brand leaders and not just their customers. But it also sheds some light on the disparity between who can afford to be sustainable and who can’t.