Patagonia, the outdoor clothing retailer that gained wide admiration for its sustainability ambitions and philanthropy, has released a scathing first impact report of its own environmental and sustainability efforts, or lack thereof, which has gone viral on social media for its “radical transparency”.
The report included notes from chief executive Ryan Gellert and founder Yvon Chouinard, who both noted the existential threat of the climate and nature crisis, and advocated for collaboration and more action to “save the planet.”
Gellert wrote: “Patagonia is a paradox. Our charter mandates we follow social and environmentally responsible practices, yet every product we make takes irreplaceable resources from the planet. Our existence seems counter to our purpose. That tension is not lost on us.”
He describes corporate responsibility as being “doubly urgent” as governments are walking back on their social and environmental commitments, and to have a liveable planet in 100 years, businesses must “advocate for things beyond our bottom lines”.
“This is not to say Patagonia has impact figured out, far from it.
“It took us 52 years to get to where we are today, and the path has not been linear. Sometimes it is messy. Sometimes it is painful. But in the end, it is progress.”
Gellert said the report is the company’s way of staying accountable, showing they remain committed and sharing inspirations, clarity and best practices with other businesses.
Chouinard wrote, “After giving Patagonia away in 2022, I’ve been working harder than an 87-year-old should. Threats to planetary health are increasing. The climate and nature crisis is worsening, and the truth is being lost in a sea of lies and misinformation. It has never felt more difficult.”
He adds he had never imagined the company would face trade wars and an assault on nature and the environment at the same time. And while profit has never been his company’s goal, it was the “most effective tool we have to protect nature”.
While the company is dedicated to saving the planet, Chouinard said government policy now openly benefits those who exploit it. “We are seeing what happens when extractive capitalism becomes government doctrine.”
“The next 50 years will not be easy. The planet is in bad shape, and many leaders have given in to cynicism or profiteering. But that does not have to be the way we go. Businesses and society can reject hopelessness and apathy and instead shape a future that can support all of us.”
“We can change this fatal form of extractive capitalism that has brought us here. But we have to take the first step.”
In the foreword, the report starts with: “Nothing we do is sustainable.”
“No company we’re aware of, including our own, truly gives back as much or more than it takes. What we can do is be fully accountable for our impact: We recognise the damage we cause, and we do what we can to reduce and repair that damage. We also aim to be transparent about our progress and what we’re still figuring out. That’s what this report is for.”
The fast facts on failures so far:
- The company ditched its carbon neutral targets, which encouraged offsets for true net zero emissions by 2040, which requires it to reduce emissions by around 10 per cent every year
- Near term ambitions include reducing absolute scopes 1 and 2 emissions by 80 per cent by fiscal year 2030 and reducing scope 3 emissions by 55 per cent from the FY17 base year.
- Long term targets include reducing absolute scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 90 per cent by FY2040 and committing to net zero greenhouse gas emissions across the value chain
- Due to the product assortment being made from more carbon-intensive materials, greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by 2 per cent in the last year, but this is expected to decrease in the next financial year due to funding engineering work and supporting suppliers to do large-scale emission reduction.
- 84 per cent of fabric and trims are now “preferred materials” which have reduced impact and increased benefits for climate, nature and people
- 100 per cent of all new products are intentionally made without PFAS
- While 80 per cent of synthetic materials are recycled from plastic bottles, the company hopes that 50 per cent of synthetics will use secondary waste, such as textile waste or ocean-bound nets. However, the company currently only sits at 6 per cent in 2025.
- The company’s worn wear program, allowing customers to buy used and trade in old gear, has made the company $13 million in revenue, with 212,000 products resold
- 85 to 90 per cent of products produced do not have an end of life solution due to the recycling system not being able to separate materials
- Total emissions in FY 2025 were 182,646 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which the report likened to around 21 million gallons (79 million litres) of gasoline burned
- While scopes 1 and 2 make up less than 1 per cent of total emissions, 86 per cent of scope 3 emissions come from the manufacturing of textiles
What they said
The report went viral on social media, with hundreds sharing the report, most of which praised the company for its “honesty”, “transparency” and Chouinard for his “bold experiment” of putting profit towards improving climate change.
One user said, “What struck me wasn’t just the transparency (though that alone is commendable). It’s that Patagonia has encouraged a space for the rest of us to admit we don’t have it figured out either. This report felt like an invitation to have open conversations about progress being messy.”
Another said, “Patagonia’s honesty is a reminder that accountability is not about having perfect numbers today. It is about being truthful about where emissions actually come from, sharing the hard parts, and choosing progress over optics. When companies admit what is not working, they create space for real change to happen.”
However, few people point out that the document, despite being a “100-page-long form narrative in tiny print”, was lacking in evidence. One pointed out that it never describes the full list of KPIs, targets versus achievements, methods used to measure each one, assumptions and exclusions shaping the findings and data boundaries.
The writer of this comment points out that the current report requires a “determined reader” to navigate a “dense narrative” to piece together how the company produced its findings.
Another ESG professional pointed out the report shouldn’t really be called a “progress report” when “progress feels like a stretch”, not because they aren’t doing real work, but because the report itself shows “how deeply fashion’s core problem remains: every form of production is extractive”.
“Transparency isn’t the issue. But if we’re calling it progress, we also need to ask: progress toward what?
“But maybe the most radical thing Patagonia could do next is question the one thing they never touch: Why keep producing so much in the first place?”