.. just about horfed when reading Patagonia as ethical. Cognitive dissonance at an all time high. scour any legit investigative journalism team and you'll get it.
Thank you! This part of their operations isn't talked about enough, IMO -- they are better than average on the environmental front, but their labor practices aren't much better than anyone else's. They care enough to at least use Fair Trade and provide some basic footprint reporting (https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/working-with-factori...), but like Apple's attempts to improve their supply chains, these rarely result in actual on-the-ground improvements for the workers involved.
The real story is, are they greenwashing or simply struggling in their push to make things better? The “expose” doesn’t touch on that at all, which makes me skeptical. No effort investigating how Patagonia responded internally to the allegations, for example.
I mean your eyes can tell you that the most ethical clothing company is still pretty darn unethical. There’s no need to throw a ticker tape parade because they use a different kind of down and don’t build sweatshops (or whatever they claim they do). They’re still shipping tons of unneeded clothes around the world because wealthy people want to feel like they too are ethical. When the reality is that the ethical thing to do would be to buy less and buy used.
I don't think this is a binary situation though... Patagonia isn't perfect, but they do a lot that no other clothing manufacturer I know does (I'm happy to be corrected here). For example:
- They have free repairs for their clothing, both in-store (for simpler repairs) or they'll ship it to their Reno facility for more extensive repairs
- For clothes people no longer want, they have a trade-in program where they'll resell your clothes on their Worn Wear website (https://wornwear.patagonia.com/) , or in some locations, they have a rack of used clothes right inside their storefront. I've gotten many of my clothes used this way, which is amazing in outdoorsy towns without a dedicated outdoor thrift store.
- They have recycling bins for clothes in all their shops for the things that can't be resold. These get sent back to corporate and some portion of it ends up as post-consumer fill in sleeping bags, etc. (I'm not sure what they do with the fibers that are too degraded).
- They provide discounted/free products to environmental groups. In the past I've worked for a few orgs that were part of this program, and I'm personally super grateful for that (outdoor gear is expensive, and as a student or nonprofit worker, their donations helped a ton)
- The founder recently changed the company into a nonprofit trust fund, whose profits are donated to climate efforts. The family gets a small share of the company (2%), but the remaining 98% gets donated to the trust. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62906853
- They do annual reporting on their materials and labor sourcing: https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/ This doesn't mean they've fixed all the issues, just that they at least try to report on them and identify areas for gradual improvement (which they have been doing, incorporating more and more recycled fibers, better down sourcing, etc. over the years that I've seen). For example, their use of recycled plastics, hemp, and organic cotton have gone from 43% in 2016 to 91% in 2023 (by weight): https://www.patagonia.com/our-responsibility-programs.html. In particular, 95% of their polyester fabrics are now recycled: https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/recycled-polyester.h...
--------
I don't know any other clothing company that does as much, do you? Of course you should go to thrift stores whenever you can, but sometimes you need specialized gear that thrift stores don't always carry. A lot of men, especially, hold on to our gear for a long time (most of these companies have lifetime guarantees) and not many make it into thrift stores in good condition to begin with. Somebody still has to make new clothes, and at least they're trying (and also sell their own used clothes).
Insomuch as new clothes have to be made at all, isn't it better that the company behind them at least tries...?
My point is that it’s more ethical to not make clothes than it is to be the most ethical clothes company. Don’t laud them for doing something that’s unethical by default. There’s plenty of clothes in the world.
It’s like praising the serial killer who’s killed the fewest people of all the serial killers. It’s better to just not be a serial killer.
> My point is that it’s more ethical to not make clothes than it is to be the most ethical clothes company
What do you mean? Clothes don't last forever. Doesn't someone have to make new ones...?
I can't tell if you're advocating for global nudism, or if you believe we can just reuse the existing clothes supply forever? Granted, probably they'll last a few decades at least.
It sounds pretty extreme. I do wish there was a way to make nonplastic outdoor wear though. What did people do in the old days? It's not like hiking in the rain/snow was invented recently...
There’s no danger of a clothes shortage if Patagonia doesn’t exist.
Believing otherwise is like somebody thinking they should have kids to ensure there’s no population collapse. Plenty of people are having plenty of kids! They can sit out and it’ll be fine.
> I do wish there was a way to make nonplastic outdoor wear though. What did people do in the old days? It's not like hiking in the rain/snow was invented recently...
You’re taking a romantic view of something decidedly unromantic. It wasn’t fun! Sure wool has some great properties but wear a Barbour waxed canvas jacket as rain gear on a multi day hike before pining for the days of yore.
.. I look forward to a future visit when corporations have been relegated to the wrong side of history "that embarrassing cancerous thing we let happen long ago."
.. instantly uninstalled on all 125 of our lab workstations and to the CEO: in this current browsing environment, you are afforded ZERO chances to alter our trust and then out for good.
Absolutely. I don't understand why people think there is something grand in their neurotic reflexive attachment to the species they just happen to belong to. Supporting the human attack on the ecosphere (now near-terminal) is as crudely chauvanistic as pub fights over football games. But it's dressed up as belief in 'destiny' (which, like so many views professed by people who misunderstand theirselves as inheritors of scientific beliefs, is purely religious in origin).
