Production in any form outside a local ecosystem is contrary to natural law. Our economic paradigm favors consumerism because value is derived from production. You could argue that in nature, value is derived from production, yet scarcity prohibits the generation of waste and mankind's intelligence fails myopically when it comes to systems as complex nature. A surplus of advantages bought us time to use that intelligence to break natural law, equilibrium. As our surplus of crops grew, we had time to migrate and trade, and produce outside of nature in cities. Our changing climate and the Anthropocene, with all its ecological disasters, are products of this broken law. We can call it a footprint, but in its truest sense, it is a violation of equilibrium. Despite all our scientific breakthroughs, our technological innovations, nothing will reconcile us to our grieving Mother besides obeying equilibrium. Returning to that miserable existence will not be easy.
Just got my jacket repaired by Patagonia for free. Meaning I won't have to throw it away or buy a new one. I don't think we can eliminate our effect on the environment. But if companies that make things we need are more like them, we will be in a far better place.
I've done that as well. It's an interesting read each year when Patagonia publishes an accounting on how their profits are spent on donations to literally hundreds of environmental groups. It's not hypocrisy.
That's great, and I don't want to take anything away from that. However, here is another thought: you probably had to ship it off, right? I recently moved to Uzbekistan (nicer than you'd think), and I was surprised that I could find a cobbler/tailor/seamstress in every neighbourhood. And most things cost 1-2 USD to repair. Granted, these are post-soviet labour costs, but this seems like a lower carbon scenario.
If Patagonia disappeared, another company (that is probably way less environmentally and ethically responsible) would come along and take the sales that Patagonia is getting now, so I have absolutely no problem with Patagonia because they're making a bigger difference than literally any other clothing brand while trying to change the culture of a very unsustainable industry.
I disagree - you are assuming that everything we buy is something we need and therefore would have otherwise bought, which is nowhere close to true in the western world. Most people who buy a Patagonia t-shirt have plenty of other tees at home - they just like the brand or design. If Patagonia didn't exist, they would not necessarily have bought a t-shirt on that day.
@@user-tx5vr2lu6e However, if Patagonia didn't exist, shirts still would've been bought on that day because shirts were available. If the desire for a shirt is present, a company will sell one. It's supply and demand. As long as the demand for a shirt exists, you can be sure there will be supply. I'd agree that having an green-minded company leading sales isn't a bad thing at all, especially if they're better than other companies that would take its place
@@justingabriele3881 I 'm not sure of the distribution of buyers in terms of would-have-bought-one-anyway people and buying-for-the-brand people. Sure, some shirts would have been bought that day because the people wanted a shirt, but some were bought because Patagonia's brand appealed to them in a way that the 'replacement' brand didn't. A better example might be Fiji water. As a teen girl, I can guarantee you that a large amount of Fiji sales were not because people actually needed bottled water - there wasn't demand. They simply bought it because the bottle was pretty. If Fiji didn't exist, less plastic bottles would have been bought on any given day. Maybe eventually another company would have come up with an an aesthetic bottle, but maybe not - so far I haven't seen a company do so to anywhere close to the same success.
Very cool video, I still highly respect Patagonia though because their profit could be way higherr. Compare them with fast fashion brand like h&m or asos - patagonia is high quality, sells less, and is still concerned about their impact. People that buy stuff to explore nature harm nature by buying this very equipment - this is true, yet millions of people do not explore nature and harm it 100 time more. the world is a sad place
And I wonder if more people endeavoured to explore the outdoors, might a more environmentally friendly conscience begin to be built? Perhaps the next step Patagonia needs to take in their eco friendly mantra is to set up schemes to encourage more expeditions out into nature for people who either can’t afford it normally or people who generally choose not to.
actually h&m is one of the companies (atleast the big ones) investing most in sustainable production processes and creating coalitions with zara and co. to motivate other companies to jump on the train too
@@clb4947 I am not sure about that, just look at product quality, nowadays h&m creates new collection every few months and it is hard to get anything from them that will last longer than this period of time without significant signs of wear and tear. I still own one of the popular brand t-shirt which is ~10 years old or even more, used and washed a lot and it is still in good condition. In past few years every single item that I bought from any of the brands like h&m is a lot worse in stands of quality and durability. For most of the companies it is not profitable to create product that lasts and this is so disappointing. To get anything that will last a longer period of time and use you need to spent 10x more than it used to be because of the market. Not to mention the production process of big companies which are forcing people from underdeveloped or without proper human rights restrictions countries like Bangladesh, China, India to work for a salary that barely is enough to provide food for themselves working for 10-12+ hours a day just to give us a new shiny t-shirt for the few dollars less than the other company. You can buy a t-shirt for less than 5$, but think that someone was working 14 hour shift being paid 1 or 2 $ for that shift just so it can be sold on a lower price... That is sick man, and yet I understand that there are people who are struggling on getting some sort of decent life and won't think about why the t-shirt they just bought was so cheap. Big companies are constantly destroying products they didn't sold for the sake of not lowering their exclusiveness? I am not sure how to explain it but basically if they started giving it for free to homeless people, they are afraid people would stop buying their products as they would feel that anyone can buy this... And for h&m products at least in my country their products are REALLY poor quality, when I walk in the store some of the products can break just when you put them on :/ Imagine using it longer than few times.
I think it's incorrect to call this a paradox. Patagonia is a private company. It's not traded on any stock exchanges, which means it's not bound to the needs of investors. I think a lot of the people who work at Patagonia would rather it cease to exist than betray its culture and purpose, and its possible for it to cease to exist without any investor conflict. It's impossible to live without taking from the environment. Maybe Patagonia could do more to protect and replenish the Earth but its already doing a lot more than average companies do. As far as I know, the ad is genuine and aimed to inform consumers rather than generate sales. However, especially today, they'll always be criticized. The very idea of environmentalism is seen as moot by some. So, "to avoid criticism, do nothing, saying nothing, be nothing."
To preface: I think most of us agree Patagonia is leagues ahead of most other for-profit companies in terms of its ethics and operating model combination. I don't see how this can't be a paradox. Every sale that Patagonia makes brings great gear and merchandise to a customer: an original goal of the company. Every sale that Patagonia makes affects the environment adversely in some way: another key tenet of the company. Similarly, repairing old clothes, using money toward non-profit purposes, or creating nature reserves, is money that helps the environment, but that also gets in the way of creating better products, and bringing Patagonia to more outdoor enthusiasts. Of course the beauty here is that humans are incredibly capable at handling internal paradoxes in our own lives with few qualms. It could also be argued that if Patagonia didn't exist, the demand would simply move to less environmentally friendly companies, so therefore it is more environmentally friendly for Patagonia to exist. However, if Patagonia exists "too much", as in selling too much product, this would also be less environmentally friendly. Now this is my interpretation of the video and reading between the lines, but just that it is paradoxical does not mean they should not exist or are simply bad, for lack of a better term. I take the paradox to mean that the for-profit model and consumerism is difficult to reconcile with environmentalism, but this is precisely what Patagonia attempts to do by balancing on a thin high wire. In our capitalist world, they are bringing the highest level of ethics that consumers are unable or unwilling to do in their purchases and kudos to them for that, but this approach is always going to create cognitive dissonance. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this as well.
I have a second hand Patagonia sweater that the previous owner threw out because they got makeup on the sleeve that wouldn’t come out. I’ve had it for over 6 years and its still like new
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that everything you do as a consumer is going to have an impact. I became accustomed to consumerism before I realized its flaws, but that doesn't mean I can suddenly pull out and refuse to participate. However, learning about this stuff makes me think twice before buying that brand new jacket when there's a perfectly good one somewhere that nobody wants anymore. Great video!
Exactly! We still have have to purchase and consume, but as of right now I think we (I know I'm definitely guilty of this) tend to buy stuff without really putting a lot of thought into how much we're really going to need it or use it.
A company at the end of the day is there to make money. Patagonia is just making steps to be a little better and that's enough for me. Yeah, everything comes at a price and if you analyze anything you could find something bad in it but I think it's Patagonia's effort that counts.
That’s not what every company’s primary goal is. It’s quite common for older european companies to have goals like promoting culture or education. Many of them operate as subsidiaries of foundations.
Not necessarily. There is plenty of room for businesses to desire a positive impact over a relentless drive for profits. Because Patagonia is 100% owned by its creator, it isn’t subject to profit demands from insatiable investors.
Patagonia, at its roots, was designed to create more efficient and less harmful climbing gear for rock wall pioneers. But yes, I do agree with you over the years, it has become a profit-seeking company but with better intentions than most.
People need clothes. Durable clothes last longer and generate lower emissions. If people buy durable more expensive clothes less often instead of cheap H&M crap, it's better for those people, the workers and the environment. In other words Patagonia is saying: "Buy only what you need, but what you need, buy from ethical brands like us." They benefit, but the environment as well. There is no paradox.
I really enjoyed the transparency in this video. After many years of research on my part, buying used is the best option. If you're going to buy something new, make it a conscious decision after a period of reflection. Do your best to offset the damage from the production and transportation of the product by planting trees, gardens, and picking up garbage in your neighbourhood or local outdoor rec areas.
GREAT VIDEO! As the founder of a small outdoor gear company, I think it's near impossible to do ALL the things Patagonia does. However, after watching this video, I realized it's easier to establish my products as environmentally conscious because I am small. I can use tires for shoe soles, or old sailing cloth for bags, and make my own water repellent. The point is, it's impossible to be environmentally friendly because creation means consumption, but you can be environmentally conscious as a company, making smart products out of materials that are there. PS you deserve ALOT more subscribers, you're like the Kaptain Kristen of the environment.
I worked for Patagonia a few years ago seasonally it was a great company to work for and in addition to what they do for the public they would also resell items that were brought back by customers to employees so the items would get continual use instead of just being thrown away
awesome video! really makes you think about our impact on climate change. Also, i when it comes down to it, Patagonia is doing SOMETHING. I personally love that they repair stuff, often we grow attached to our clothing; we all have had a favorite pair of shoes, jacket, jeans, and we love them because they have shared a memory with us... imagine your favorite pair of shoes that you met your wife be there on your wedding day, like new. In addition, I dont see nike, addidas, Arc'teryx, or the north face do this, which are even bigger companies. I get why people say its hypocritical to say "repair" and then sell a repair kit (3:26) so you can make money off of the consumer still, but even then a kit the size of our palm has a smaller foot print than 1 giant jacket.
Nice work. It is also worth exploring the conservation work that Patagonia has done abroad, specifically in Chile in support of the Thompkins efforts. Their work is important in that it preserves vital ecosystems but also exploitative and naive in that in perpetuates neoliberal trends and discounts local knowledge.
Nice video, educational, thanks. The only thing I’d be careful is making statements like “after they ran this ad revenue increased by 40%”, without giving context of whether that increase is higher or lower than expected increase without running the ad.
Really needed a warm raincoat for outdoor wear. I have not had one for ages and I tend to keep and repair clothing until I am unable to or until I donate it. I spent days looking for used ones at various second-hand shops: no success. I decided to bite the bullet and buy a new one but I chose Patagonia because of their emphasis on recycled materials and giving to environmental organizations. I try my hardeds to make eco-wise choices, but sometimes you need to buy new.
Got a lightweight Patagonia jacket for free from Toyota about four years ago. It's by far the best jacket I've ever owned. My mother in law has repaired the sleeve so far, and I continue to wear and repair it for years to come.
Patagonia is a role model for many companies that shows that you can try to be as environmentally friendly as possible while still making profits. We‘re living in a capitalist world and this how things go. Patagonia honestly tries to be as sustainable as possible while still making profits, growing (and hopefully thus replacing less sustainable alternatives) and most importantly creating awareness for the public.
The criticism of the past based on updated information will always be an easy disposition to speak from. This was pretty objective, however, the word "paradox" seemingly indicates the original intent. I think the heart of Patagonia's endeavors to be an intentionally unconventional company, which strives to exist in an industry predicated on the sole-purpose of fiscal profit, ought to be considered. Even their mission statement: "We are in business to save our home planet", reveals their true intentions. Their free repairs are indicative of their ability to learn and grow to be better stewards of the planet they claim to desire to save. The final thought is: Every company has to answer to question of their environmental impact. Whether they market themselves as eco-conscious or not, every business has to think about that. Patagonia is predicated on trying to outfit people to push limits and discover more than whats out there while resisting the temptation to become a public company which sells their soul for a profit. But think how you want! Cheers!
this is an amazing video, the graphics are simple yet effective, they flow very well and are very pleasing to look at. you've got a great skill and these insightful, thorough videos show that
Could you do a video on the Norwegian company Norrøna? They also have quite a big focus on the environment (repairing gear and what not), at least that's the impression I'm under :) Keep up the good work!
Okay, I think my main issue with this paradox is the incredibly small scale upon which you build it. Of course, if we simply only look at Patagonia in a vacuum, it is a paradox. You cannot sell products that use environmental resources without, well having to get these environmental resources. However, as soon as you start thinking about it on the whole scale of outdoor gear, or even fashion in general, it starts to become more complicated. You say every product they sell means more product produced, which is true for the company itself. In the bigger picture, it also means that one of their competitor most likely has *lost* a sale in exchange. If that competitor is less environmentally active, buying Patagonia is definitely better than not. It had a positive impact on the environment, in an absolute sense. Combine this with their ads, that literally (atleast superficially, but that is another topic...) try the opposite of what most ads do (they try to make you *not* buy something), I think the paradox starts to dissolve. Sure, if their ads would incite people buying a patagonia jacket on top of buying a competitor jacket, the paradox would hold. But right now, I don‘t see an issue with it. Because as you said, people are gonna need gear anyways, so a company trying to give them gear in the most environmental friendly way possible is great, while even telling them to buy second hand is okay in my terms. On another note: I agree about the paradox regarding them stating they are anti-consumerist. Sorry if this comes across as my trying to sound „factual“. This is obviously my own take on the issue.
Awesome video that discusses some pertinent points. One thing that wasn't discussed, and maybe could be another video topic, is the need for the next generation to experience the outdoors first-hand & see the need to protect it. It could be argued that through the growth of Patagonia, and the outdoor industry in general, they are helping to create more advocates. It could also be argued that you can create more advocates without Patagonia (or any other business), but I think through the evolution of their gear, it makes the outdoors more accessible to be able to venture to far off places that need protecting. Keep up the awesome work!
Love your channel! It's a very intelligent and conscious approach to environmental subjects without becoming patronizing or brainwashing the viewers. Keep going!!
this makes me love patagonia even more. They are in HIGH demand in the reseller world. I love that they have repairs. I wish our clothes had a repair warehouse such as jeans. When we pay 200 dollars for jeans and it rips at the wrong places, would love to be able to send it in and get it repaired.
Thing about patagonia is simple, they give back and help as much as they can, but at the end of the day they have a company and they want it thrive, but simutanisoutly want to be as eco friendly as possible
Ultimately, I see Patagonia as a role model for modern business in the age of climate change. I don't really see this as a paradox though. They are a business, not a charity, and they are allowed to make money. If they are able to generate higher sales revenue, it's true that this will result in more materials being used, processed and consumed. However, in their absence, consumers would be shopping elsewhere and likely buying lower quality fast fashion options with much greater frequency. With a growing population and increased demand for a reconnection with nature in an ever more connected world, I'm very much okay with handing those dollars over to a company who is morally sound, builds things to last and even services their items down the road to keep them going. I think the way you ended the video was well done and incapsulates the key points here. Buy slow, buy smart and consider not even buying at all. Thanks for putting this video together and allowing us to discuss these important topics.
Amazing video! It’s really good content that people need to hear. Happy to see someone pushing out content that’s deeper than “buy our stainless steel straw and bamboo toothbrush”
You can also thrift your clothes. There are tons of cool, unique, cheap and high quality finds at most thrift stores. It’s much greener since the product was only produced once but is getting a second life.
It’s Black Friday weekend 2021 as I’m typing this. I just went to the Patagonia website and there isn’t a single product on their home page. Instead there are multiple links to articles and websites about repairing, donating, and selling old clothes
TL;DR: Patagonia tries to make eco-conscious products and encourage consumers to repair existing vs buy new gear... but since they still make a profit - we should be skeptical of them!?!? Poorly presented argument / contradiction. We consumers could only be so lucky to be able to purchase from eco friendly suppliers!
Interesting perspective that draws our consciousness closer to the powers that be. Down here in Chile we are in mid fall, as you are in mid spring. It has been quite chilly and most people here including myself react to the cold by heating the house. I love my wood stove. However, after watching WIM HOFF my reaction to the cold has been drastically altered. His message will help to restore your health as well as helping to clean the atmosphere. It would be interesting to see the effects of his knowledge applied to an office of people somewhere.
I think it's also important to note that Patagonia is a benefit corporation, which means that they have a legal obligation to consider the planet as its stakeholder and that makes a huge difference - felt that it was a bit off when you mentioned that they're still a for-profit company. Additionally, they give away 1% of their sales every year to support grassroots environmental organisations, which is amazing! I know there is a little bit of contradiction here, but they're doing the best they can, which is miles ahead of any other company. So yeah they're going good
i think my ipad is listening to me i googled eco friendly producs and patagonia came up and i said it to my friend. never googled/ looked it up on youtube before. i’m like super scared
even though patagonia relies on the consumerist market it campaigns against, i can really appreciate their focus on longevity. i think the goal for companies like patagonia should be creating a product where the amount of uses and time it will last should outweigh the carbon footprint it took to make it. if we can make more long lasting products (and get people to understand the idea that buying a long lasting product means you don't keep buying more of it) i think it could all even out in the end.
Great video! I think there's a missing key point regarding your commentary on Patagonia's marketing approach, which is the "Don't Buy This Jacket" campaign's and in general the company's counter-positioning against fast fashion brands... It's an implicit and humble yet bold theme of Patagona's market positioning. I believe one of the specific objectives of the campaign messaging (re - "Don't Buy...") is to say something along the lines of, "if this is how bad our supply chain is for the environment, just imagine how terrible other companies are." Patagonia is THE anti fast-fashion brand. This is embedded in its brand ethos and positioning... e.g. As a consumer I specifically want to buy a Patagonia fleece because I know I'm not going to need to buy a new fleece for a really long time... and then I can also buy a couple o Patagonia f t-shirts for the same reason, and a Patagonia jacket for the same reason, etc., etc.
I have been wearing my MEC Fleece Liner for 30 plus years. Mocked by many; Don't care. I most certainly conform to the "Buy Once, Hold Forever" mantra. Society must accept that long-lived items are to be respected and purchased.
I like this guy's videos... And I don't deny that caution should be taken when engaging such companies but I feel you're bashing the only companies acting for climate change... Doesn't seem right
5 років тому
An ad company putting out propaganda against the competition they work for that has no environmental considerations, color me surprised.
Patagonia clothes outlast any other clothing that I have purchased. One thing I have always had an issue with is their willingness to outsource or contract clothing manufacturing to southeast asian countries which tremendously increases their carbon footprint. Their people first company culture only extends to the people in first world countries salaried staff and not to the laborers or sales staff.
"Buy smart, buy slow, or don't buy". I love that! I started my business (www.ethicalfashion.agency) because I'd like to see a lot more Patagonias in the world. If the whole fashion industry did what Patagonia does, our planet would be in much better shape. Great message and great video.
Patagonia also absolutely hates when you bring up their standard issue uniforms given to all of the special operations forces units in the US military. They don't like it when you acknowledge that their clothing is used in war, yet continue the contract because it brings in heaps of money
Only buy things if you don't already own something that fulfills the same purpose. That's most important. Don't be that person that buys an idea/image rather than an item. If there is no other way and you really need to buy something, I think it is reasonable to buy from Patagonia and similar brands (even though it is clear they are far from perfect). As with any other brand, you buy a bit of a product and a lot of the feeling associated with the brand. Maybe it is even impossible for you to not think "I am that person who [...]" (where you can insert anything from "always follows the latest trends" to "always wears that worn down old clothes and cares deeply about the environment"). That is why there are brand names on the product in the first place. Because people use that brand image to define themselves. So, the ideal brand would use recycling materials and save water and do all that stuff but sell the product without any label. I guess this wouldn't work, though. Remember? Many people are searching for some personality to buy. They could even be that guy who doesn't wear brands. It's simply capitalism, you buy anything, even your mindset. After all, we as consumers have to behave responsibly. The circumstance that Patagonia offers repairs and have a second hand section on their website is already a step into the right direction. So let's hope the "I now buy responsibly" is the last fabricated personality people take on and that they slowly stop buying new things for good.
The outdoor clothing industry needs to move to 1) fully recyclable products 2) product upgrading as well as repair to get the longest life out of a garment 3) a subscription model where we return the fully recyclable product to be upgraded or recycled when we want a new product 4) repairs & alterations so we get a product we want to keep for longer. Effectively the companies should take a multi generational view on products where each product can be recycled to form the next version and the effective life of each product is much longer. This coukd be financed by a consumer annual subscription model were you buy credits towards upgrades, repairs & a new product when the time comes. The companies will still make sales & would have a steady revenue stream to plan the next range of recyclable eco conscious products. They're getting brand loyalty and the consumer is arguably paying a bit more for less products but only those they need & that have been tailored for them.
if i were to buy any type of clothe, it's better that i buy it from patagonia than from any other brand (environmentaly speaking, in general). We agree on that, right? Then, how am i suposed to know about patagonia if they don't do advertisements? The idea of them investing in marketing is not paradoxal in this case, as long as they promote minimalism. Because they only inform you that the world is better off with you buying from them than from any other brand, because they do create less enviromental impact. And that if you are going to buy something because you need it, try to make your purchase the less polluting as possible. The idea of investing in marketing so that people buy stuff that cause less environmental impact is not paradoxal, as you pretend the people to know about you so this prevents an amount of less ecological sales from another brand. And this is what it's making the difference, not the fact that they are trying to make you want and buy their apparel just for the sake of their standing. If you got a better idea of how a brand could work in these terms, go and found it, because people need clothes. Oh, and make sure not to invest in marketing, as well as making the "non environmentally friendly" brand's costumers yours. Fairly complicate i think.
The real succession of majority-owners of the means of developing the commercial system have decided: "I've got a huge supply of a hugely versatile mineral. Therefore, shipping things must become intrinsically terrible. This reflects badly on neither my abilities, nor my popularity. Let's burn it." Obviously this is completely absurd, and the ability to come up with: "Popular reasons for doing something else with the minerals" should have been sought out, or created, then cherished and praised. EDIT: The ability to do that is called: "Being both allowed and predisposed to: Vote to: Pay taxes to: Listening to surveys EDIT: To which you say: Do that. Now that the minerals are versatile, don't think that means that you know what I want. Ask me, and come up with other stuff. Don't just assume I want you to burn them. I'm an adult.".
Would recommend anyone to read their founder's book: let my people go surfing by Yvon Chouinard. Very interesting book from an eco conscious mind running a global brand.
One more step they could take is to stop labeling/branding their products. Many, many people buy the brand to show off the name, and have little, to no, intention of "putting it to the test" outdoors. They would eventually only sell to those needing the quality, instead of those that want the notoriety. Same goes for all of the "high end brand" equipment and outerwear.
Patagonia specifically addresses this in their mission statement and other public statements theyve made. They are aware they do harm as a company, they say they wanna do more harm than good, but they cant completely cut out the harm. And their donations go towards small grassroots organizations that will actually make progress rather than huge non-for-profits that dont actually do much. While obviously they do harm they were a poor example for this paradox cause they are one of the few companies who admit in their mission statement that they do harm.
Patagonia stretches capitalism as far as it can without giving its products away for free. I will avoid buying gear when possible but when the time comes, I'm happy to support their mission.
An irony: It's funny how we people never question nor deeply criticize companies that don't claim to be environmentally conscious or activists and rather be silent about them, but will always look under a magnifying glass to all of the companies that are doing so. Shame on us. It is better to be an imperfect and more conscious brand rather than a don't give a shoe type of company. Remember we all have the power, not them. We are the ones how are sustaining their corporations.
I also made a video about greenwashing! Check it out here: ua-cam.com/video/mOpa8kd6fBI/v-deo.html
Kathmandu in New Zealand enough said.
Why did it take me so long to find this channel? 🤷🏻♂️
Production in any form outside a local ecosystem is contrary to natural law. Our economic paradigm favors consumerism because value is derived from production. You could argue that in nature, value is derived from production, yet scarcity prohibits the generation of waste and mankind's intelligence fails myopically when it comes to systems as complex nature. A surplus of advantages bought us time to use that intelligence to break natural law, equilibrium. As our surplus of crops grew, we had time to migrate and trade, and produce outside of nature in cities. Our changing climate and the Anthropocene, with all its ecological disasters, are products of this broken law. We can call it a footprint, but in its truest sense, it is a violation of equilibrium. Despite all our scientific breakthroughs, our technological innovations, nothing will reconcile us to our grieving Mother besides obeying equilibrium. Returning to that miserable existence will not be easy.
Just got my jacket repaired by Patagonia for free. Meaning I won't have to throw it away or buy a new one. I don't think we can eliminate our effect on the environment. But if companies that make things we need are more like them, we will be in a far better place.
Yup. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Aaron Flynn A jacket from them or did they repair a different brand jacket ?
I've done that as well. It's an interesting read each year when Patagonia publishes an accounting on how their profits are spent on donations to literally hundreds of environmental groups. It's not hypocrisy.
1. Refuse
2. Reduce
3. Reuse
4. Recycle
That's great, and I don't want to take anything away from that. However, here is another thought: you probably had to ship it off, right?
I recently moved to Uzbekistan (nicer than you'd think), and I was surprised that I could find a cobbler/tailor/seamstress in every neighbourhood. And most things cost 1-2 USD to repair. Granted, these are post-soviet labour costs, but this seems like a lower carbon scenario.
If Patagonia disappeared, another company (that is probably way less environmentally and ethically responsible) would come along and take the sales that Patagonia is getting now, so I have absolutely no problem with Patagonia because they're making a bigger difference than literally any other clothing brand while trying to change the culture of a very unsustainable industry.
If Stalin didn't exist, Hitler would have taken over Russia. But that doesn't mean Stalin was a good guy...
I disagree - you are assuming that everything we buy is something we need and therefore would have otherwise bought, which is nowhere close to true in the western world. Most people who buy a Patagonia t-shirt have plenty of other tees at home - they just like the brand or design. If Patagonia didn't exist, they would not necessarily have bought a t-shirt on that day.
@@user-tx5vr2lu6e However, if Patagonia didn't exist, shirts still would've been bought on that day because shirts were available. If the desire for a shirt is present, a company will sell one. It's supply and demand. As long as the demand for a shirt exists, you can be sure there will be supply. I'd agree that having an green-minded company leading sales isn't a bad thing at all, especially if they're better than other companies that would take its place
@@justingabriele3881 I 'm not sure of the distribution of buyers in terms of would-have-bought-one-anyway people and buying-for-the-brand people. Sure, some shirts would have been bought that day because the people wanted a shirt, but some were bought because Patagonia's brand appealed to them in a way that the 'replacement' brand didn't. A better example might be Fiji water. As a teen girl, I can guarantee you that a large amount of Fiji sales were not because people actually needed bottled water - there wasn't demand. They simply bought it because the bottle was pretty. If Fiji didn't exist, less plastic bottles would have been bought on any given day. Maybe eventually another company would have come up with an an aesthetic bottle, but maybe not - so far I haven't seen a company do so to anywhere close to the same success.
Koth is amazing
Very cool video, I still highly respect Patagonia though because their profit could be way higherr. Compare them with fast fashion brand like h&m or asos - patagonia is high quality, sells less, and is still concerned about their impact. People that buy stuff to explore nature harm nature by buying this very equipment - this is true, yet millions of people do not explore nature and harm it 100 time more. the world is a sad place
And I wonder if more people endeavoured to explore the outdoors, might a more environmentally friendly conscience begin to be built? Perhaps the next step Patagonia needs to take in their eco friendly mantra is to set up schemes to encourage more expeditions out into nature for people who either can’t afford it normally or people who generally choose not to.
Aaa
@@Ella-xn1pv that's a good idea
actually h&m is one of the companies (atleast the big ones) investing most in sustainable production processes and creating coalitions with zara and co. to motivate other companies to jump on the train too
@@clb4947 I am not sure about that, just look at product quality, nowadays h&m creates new collection every few months and it is hard to get anything from them that will last longer than this period of time without significant signs of wear and tear. I still own one of the popular brand t-shirt which is ~10 years old or even more, used and washed a lot and it is still in good condition. In past few years every single item that I bought from any of the brands like h&m is a lot worse in stands of quality and durability. For most of the companies it is not profitable to create product that lasts and this is so disappointing. To get anything that will last a longer period of time and use you need to spent 10x more than it used to be because of the market. Not to mention the production process of big companies which are forcing people from underdeveloped or without proper human rights restrictions countries like Bangladesh, China, India to work for a salary that barely is enough to provide food for themselves working for 10-12+ hours a day just to give us a new shiny t-shirt for the few dollars less than the other company. You can buy a t-shirt for less than 5$, but think that someone was working 14 hour shift being paid 1 or 2 $ for that shift just so it can be sold on a lower price... That is sick man, and yet I understand that there are people who are struggling on getting some sort of decent life and won't think about why the t-shirt they just bought was so cheap. Big companies are constantly destroying products they didn't sold for the sake of not lowering their exclusiveness? I am not sure how to explain it but basically if they started giving it for free to homeless people, they are afraid people would stop buying their products as they would feel that anyone can buy this... And for h&m products at least in my country their products are REALLY poor quality, when I walk in the store some of the products can break just when you put them on :/ Imagine using it longer than few times.
I think it's incorrect to call this a paradox. Patagonia is a private company. It's not traded on any stock exchanges, which means it's not bound to the needs of investors. I think a lot of the people who work at Patagonia would rather it cease to exist than betray its culture and purpose, and its possible for it to cease to exist without any investor conflict. It's impossible to live without taking from the environment. Maybe Patagonia could do more to protect and replenish the Earth but its already doing a lot more than average companies do. As far as I know, the ad is genuine and aimed to inform consumers rather than generate sales. However, especially today, they'll always be criticized. The very idea of environmentalism is seen as moot by some. So, "to avoid criticism, do nothing, saying nothing, be nothing."
Very true!
Patagonia is full of bullshit! They are selling products more than ever.
The actually bought a huge land and are are still buying off at Patagonia, Chile and with the help of the government turned it into a nature reserve.
To preface: I think most of us agree Patagonia is leagues ahead of most other for-profit companies in terms of its ethics and operating model combination. I don't see how this can't be a paradox. Every sale that Patagonia makes brings great gear and merchandise to a customer: an original goal of the company. Every sale that Patagonia makes affects the environment adversely in some way: another key tenet of the company. Similarly, repairing old clothes, using money toward non-profit purposes, or creating nature reserves, is money that helps the environment, but that also gets in the way of creating better products, and bringing Patagonia to more outdoor enthusiasts. Of course the beauty here is that humans are incredibly capable at handling internal paradoxes in our own lives with few qualms. It could also be argued that if Patagonia didn't exist, the demand would simply move to less environmentally friendly companies, so therefore it is more environmentally friendly for Patagonia to exist. However, if Patagonia exists "too much", as in selling too much product, this would also be less environmentally friendly.
Now this is my interpretation of the video and reading between the lines, but just that it is paradoxical does not mean they should not exist or are simply bad, for lack of a better term. I take the paradox to mean that the for-profit model and consumerism is difficult to reconcile with environmentalism, but this is precisely what Patagonia attempts to do by balancing on a thin high wire. In our capitalist world, they are bringing the highest level of ethics that consumers are unable or unwilling to do in their purchases and kudos to them for that, but this approach is always going to create cognitive dissonance.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this as well.
Well said!
I have a second hand Patagonia sweater that the previous owner threw out because they got makeup on the sleeve that wouldn’t come out. I’ve had it for over 6 years and its still like new
It's like new... Except for the makeup?
That was a good deal 😂
@@brixan... r/woosh
why would they throw it out? if you turn in old patagonia, they give you 50% of its cost as store credit
I just buy an used polar to test this brand
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that everything you do as a consumer is going to have an impact. I became accustomed to consumerism before I realized its flaws, but that doesn't mean I can suddenly pull out and refuse to participate. However, learning about this stuff makes me think twice before buying that brand new jacket when there's a perfectly good one somewhere that nobody wants anymore.
Great video!
Exactly! We still have have to purchase and consume, but as of right now I think we (I know I'm definitely guilty of this) tend to buy stuff without really putting a lot of thought into how much we're really going to need it or use it.
A company at the end of the day is there to make money. Patagonia is just making steps to be a little better and that's enough for me. Yeah, everything comes at a price and if you analyze anything you could find something bad in it but I think it's Patagonia's effort that counts.
That’s not what every company’s primary goal is. It’s quite common for older european companies to have goals like promoting culture or education. Many of them operate as subsidiaries of foundations.
Not necessarily. There is plenty of room for businesses to desire a positive impact over a relentless drive for profits. Because Patagonia is 100% owned by its creator, it isn’t subject to profit demands from insatiable investors.
Patagonia, at its roots, was designed to create more efficient and less harmful climbing gear for rock wall pioneers. But yes, I do agree with you over the years, it has become a profit-seeking company but with better intentions than most.
People need clothes. Durable clothes last longer and generate lower emissions. If people buy durable more expensive clothes less often instead of cheap H&M crap, it's better for those people, the workers and the environment. In other words Patagonia is saying: "Buy only what you need, but what you need, buy from ethical brands like us." They benefit, but the environment as well. There is no paradox.
beef women well said. Exactly
I really enjoyed the transparency in this video. After many years of research on my part, buying used is the best option. If you're going to buy something new, make it a conscious decision after a period of reflection. Do your best to offset the damage from the production and transportation of the product by planting trees, gardens, and picking up garbage in your neighbourhood or local outdoor rec areas.
GREAT VIDEO! As the founder of a small outdoor gear company, I think it's near impossible to do ALL the things Patagonia does. However, after watching this video, I realized it's easier to establish my products as environmentally conscious because I am small. I can use tires for shoe soles, or old sailing cloth for bags, and make my own water repellent. The point is, it's impossible to be environmentally friendly because creation means consumption, but you can be environmentally conscious as a company, making smart products out of materials that are there. PS you deserve ALOT more subscribers, you're like the Kaptain Kristen of the environment.
I worked for Patagonia a few years ago seasonally it was a great company to work for and in addition to what they do for the public they would also resell items that were brought back by customers to employees so the items would get continual use instead of just being thrown away
Dude I found this video doing research for my own video I'm making about Patagonia! Such a cool company eh? And btw... great editing man.
Patagonia also supports numeous outdoor advocacy groups and tries to give back a lot of money
awesome video! really makes you think about our impact on climate change. Also, i when it comes down to it, Patagonia is doing SOMETHING. I personally love that they repair stuff, often we grow attached to our clothing; we all have had a favorite pair of shoes, jacket, jeans, and we love them because they have shared a memory with us... imagine your favorite pair of shoes that you met your wife be there on your wedding day, like new. In addition, I dont see nike, addidas, Arc'teryx, or the north face do this, which are even bigger companies. I get why people say its hypocritical to say "repair" and then sell a repair kit (3:26) so you can make money off of the consumer still, but even then a kit the size of our palm has a smaller foot print than 1 giant jacket.
This guy's voice is so peaceful~
He makes me want to live a slow-paced life~
Nice work. It is also worth exploring the conservation work that Patagonia has done abroad, specifically in Chile in support of the Thompkins efforts. Their work is important in that it preserves vital ecosystems but also exploitative and naive in that in perpetuates neoliberal trends and discounts local knowledge.
Nice video, educational, thanks. The only thing I’d be careful is making statements like “after they ran this ad revenue increased by 40%”, without giving context of whether that increase is higher or lower than expected increase without running the ad.
Patagonia’s anti consumerism ad literally made me buy Patagonia instead of NF. LOL.
Btw, Wes Anderson-esq hahahaha nice one
Tanti Sofyan who uses TNF anyways?? TNF are for attention-seekers. Its either Fjallraven or Patagonia for quality.
Really needed a warm raincoat for outdoor wear. I have not had one for ages and I tend to keep and repair clothing until I am unable to or until I donate it.
I spent days looking for used ones at various second-hand shops: no success.
I decided to bite the bullet and buy a new one but I chose Patagonia because of their emphasis on recycled materials and giving to environmental organizations.
I try my hardeds to make eco-wise choices, but sometimes you need to buy new.
Kinda funny bc Patagonia is so expensive I never buy new, but the quality is so good I search for them on eBay and thredup.
Nice 5 minute + Patagonia ad you put togehther
Got a lightweight Patagonia jacket for free from Toyota about four years ago. It's by far the best jacket I've ever owned. My mother in law has repaired the sleeve so far, and I continue to wear and repair it for years to come.
I’ve had my black jacket for 18 years now. Still looking good. Best pantagonia fleece wind stopper I’ve ever. Purchased,
Patagonia is a role model for many companies that shows that you can try to be as environmentally friendly as possible while still making profits.
We‘re living in a capitalist world and this how things go. Patagonia honestly tries to be as sustainable as possible while still making profits, growing (and hopefully thus replacing less sustainable alternatives) and most importantly creating awareness for the public.
The criticism of the past based on updated information will always be an easy disposition to speak from. This was pretty objective, however, the word "paradox" seemingly indicates the original intent.
I think the heart of Patagonia's endeavors to be an intentionally unconventional company, which strives to exist in an industry predicated on the sole-purpose of fiscal profit, ought to be considered. Even their mission statement: "We are in business to save our home planet", reveals their true intentions.
Their free repairs are indicative of their ability to learn and grow to be better stewards of the planet they claim to desire to save.
The final thought is: Every company has to answer to question of their environmental impact. Whether they market themselves as eco-conscious or not, every business has to think about that. Patagonia is predicated on trying to outfit people to push limits and discover more than whats out there while resisting the temptation to become a public company which sells their soul for a profit.
But think how you want!
Cheers!
K. Jackson Ethier you know what's up
Two of my patagonia shirts I got for $70 total I've had for 4+ years. Still two of my favorite shirts.
this is an amazing video, the graphics are simple yet effective, they flow very well and are very pleasing to look at. you've got a great skill and these insightful, thorough videos show that
Could you do a video on the Norwegian company Norrøna? They also have quite a big focus on the environment (repairing gear and what not), at least that's the impression I'm under :)
Keep up the good work!
this is a really great and informative video, the breaking down of the paradox and revelation of a whole new perspective of Patagonia is refreshing.
“Buy slow buy smart and sometimes don’t buy at all” I like it
Okay, I think my main issue with this paradox is the incredibly small scale upon which you build it.
Of course, if we simply only look at Patagonia in a vacuum, it is a paradox. You cannot sell products that use environmental resources without, well having to get these environmental resources.
However, as soon as you start thinking about it on the whole scale of outdoor gear, or even fashion in general, it starts to become more complicated.
You say every product they sell means more product produced, which is true for the company itself. In the bigger picture, it also means that one of their competitor most likely has *lost* a sale in exchange. If that competitor is less environmentally active, buying Patagonia is definitely better than not. It had a positive impact on the environment, in an absolute sense.
Combine this with their ads, that literally (atleast superficially, but that is another topic...) try the opposite of what most ads do (they try to make you *not* buy something), I think the paradox starts to dissolve.
Sure, if their ads would incite people buying a patagonia jacket on top of buying a competitor jacket, the paradox would hold. But right now, I don‘t see an issue with it. Because as you said, people are gonna need gear anyways, so a company trying to give them gear in the most environmental friendly way possible is great, while even telling them to buy second hand is okay in my terms.
On another note: I agree about the paradox regarding them stating they are anti-consumerist.
Sorry if this comes across as my trying to sound „factual“. This is obviously my own take on the issue.
Here after the recent mind blowing news. We have some hope after all.
Buy slow, buy smart, or don't buy at all. I love it man. What an awesome motto. Great video btw.
Awesome video that discusses some pertinent points.
One thing that wasn't discussed, and maybe could be another video topic, is the need for the next generation to experience the outdoors first-hand & see the need to protect it. It could be argued that through the growth of Patagonia, and the outdoor industry in general, they are helping to create more advocates. It could also be argued that you can create more advocates without Patagonia (or any other business), but I think through the evolution of their gear, it makes the outdoors more accessible to be able to venture to far off places that need protecting. Keep up the awesome work!
Love your channel! It's a very intelligent and conscious approach to environmental subjects without becoming patronizing or brainwashing the viewers. Keep going!!
this makes me love patagonia even more. They are in HIGH demand in the reseller world. I love that they have repairs. I wish our clothes had a repair warehouse such as jeans. When we pay 200 dollars for jeans and it rips at the wrong places, would love to be able to send it in and get it repaired.
Really love this video. Both for the information and for the earnest review of both sides of the argument. Thank you for putting this together!
Thing about patagonia is simple, they give back and help as much as they can, but at the end of the day they have a company and they want it thrive, but simutanisoutly want to be as eco friendly as possible
Ultimately, I see Patagonia as a role model for modern business in the age of climate change. I don't really see this as a paradox though. They are a business, not a charity, and they are allowed to make money. If they are able to generate higher sales revenue, it's true that this will result in more materials being used, processed and consumed. However, in their absence, consumers would be shopping elsewhere and likely buying lower quality fast fashion options with much greater frequency. With a growing population and increased demand for a reconnection with nature in an ever more connected world, I'm very much okay with handing those dollars over to a company who is morally sound, builds things to last and even services their items down the road to keep them going. I think the way you ended the video was well done and incapsulates the key points here. Buy slow, buy smart and consider not even buying at all. Thanks for putting this video together and allowing us to discuss these important topics.
Amazing video! It’s really good content that people need to hear. Happy to see someone pushing out content that’s deeper than “buy our stainless steel straw and bamboo toothbrush”
Beautifully made graphics and content! Subscribed!
You can also thrift your clothes. There are tons of cool, unique, cheap and high quality finds at most thrift stores. It’s much greener since the product was only produced once but is getting a second life.
This is the first video I've seen of yours, and I'm happy you exist sir!
It’s Black Friday weekend 2021 as I’m typing this. I just went to the Patagonia website and there isn’t a single product on their home page. Instead there are multiple links to articles and websites about repairing, donating, and selling old clothes
TL;DR: Patagonia tries to make eco-conscious products and encourage consumers to repair existing vs buy new gear... but since they still make a profit - we should be skeptical of them!?!? Poorly presented argument / contradiction. We consumers could only be so lucky to be able to purchase from eco friendly suppliers!
You should be skeptical of every corporation regardless of how ethical they are
word @bwvids - i just watched 5 minutes of pure equivocation. today i learned that material is made of matter.
“Clothes and gear have a life before and after we buy them”
I’m going to remember this before buying anything.
I think I just found my go to brand for clothes.
I’m a big believer in repair > replace. Everyone should learn to sew, which fixed most clothing damages
This made me really want to buy more Patagonia
Interesting perspective that draws our consciousness closer to the powers that be. Down here in Chile we are in mid fall, as you are in mid spring. It has been quite chilly and most people here including myself react to the cold by heating the house. I love my wood stove. However, after watching WIM HOFF my reaction to the cold has been drastically altered. His message will help to restore your health as well as helping to clean the atmosphere. It would be interesting to see the effects of his knowledge applied to an office of people somewhere.
I think it's also important to note that Patagonia is a benefit corporation, which means that they have a legal obligation to consider the planet as its stakeholder and that makes a huge difference - felt that it was a bit off when you mentioned that they're still a for-profit company. Additionally, they give away 1% of their sales every year to support grassroots environmental organisations, which is amazing! I know there is a little bit of contradiction here, but they're doing the best they can, which is miles ahead of any other company. So yeah they're going good
i think my ipad is listening to me i googled eco friendly producs and patagonia came up and i said it to my friend. never googled/ looked it up on youtube before. i’m like super scared
even though patagonia relies on the consumerist market it campaigns against, i can really appreciate their focus on longevity. i think the goal for companies like patagonia should be creating a product where the amount of uses and time it will last should outweigh the carbon footprint it took to make it. if we can make more long lasting products (and get people to understand the idea that buying a long lasting product means you don't keep buying more of it) i think it could all even out in the end.
Great video! I think there's a missing key point regarding your commentary on Patagonia's marketing approach, which is the "Don't Buy This Jacket" campaign's and in general the company's counter-positioning against fast fashion brands...
It's an implicit and humble yet bold theme of Patagona's market positioning. I believe one of the specific objectives of the campaign messaging (re - "Don't Buy...") is to say something along the lines of, "if this is how bad our supply chain is for the environment, just imagine how terrible other companies are."
Patagonia is THE anti fast-fashion brand. This is embedded in its brand ethos and positioning... e.g. As a consumer I specifically want to buy a Patagonia fleece because I know I'm not going to need to buy a new fleece for a really long time... and then I can also buy a couple o Patagonia f t-shirts for the same reason, and a Patagonia jacket for the same reason, etc., etc.
thanks for the videos. knowing more about the history of a brand and what they are doing for the planet is really great
You forgot to mention that Patagonia is also committed to the 1% for the planet charity.
Interessante! Obrigada por publicar este vídeo.
Great vids man. Subscribed. Interested in a video done about REI.
Looking forward to more vids, keep it going!
4:27 just steal the jacket, then the company doesn’t get the profits
patagonia has receipts for their environmental policies and activities. but you didn't show that. i wonder why?
I have been wearing my MEC Fleece Liner for 30 plus years.
Mocked by many; Don't care.
I most certainly conform to the "Buy Once, Hold Forever" mantra.
Society must accept that long-lived items are to be respected and purchased.
I like this guy's videos... And I don't deny that caution should be taken when engaging such companies but I feel you're bashing the only companies acting for climate change... Doesn't seem right
An ad company putting out propaganda against the competition they work for that has no environmental considerations, color me surprised.
Patagonia clothes outlast any other clothing that I have purchased. One thing I have always had an issue with is their willingness to outsource or contract clothing manufacturing to southeast asian countries which tremendously increases their carbon footprint. Their people first company culture only extends to the people in first world countries salaried staff and not to the laborers or sales staff.
How do you know their improved their sales because of the ad ?
"Buy smart, buy slow, or don't buy". I love that! I started my business (www.ethicalfashion.agency) because I'd like to see a lot more Patagonias in the world. If the whole fashion industry did what Patagonia does, our planet would be in much better shape. Great message and great video.
On that note Patagonia just had a summer sale a lot of good stuff for 50% off
Patagonia also absolutely hates when you bring up their standard issue uniforms given to all of the special operations forces units in the US military. They don't like it when you acknowledge that their clothing is used in war, yet continue the contract because it brings in heaps of money
Fascinating channel! I’m hooked!
I bought a patagonia jacket from trift store for like 30 euros and it was barely even used
This might be a stupid question, but whats the difference in buying used or new if both peices of clothing have already been produced?
I really like this video! Could maybe a gotten a little bit more into about the negative feedback to their campaign but all in all really neat :)
Only buy things if you don't already own something that fulfills the same purpose. That's most important. Don't be that person that buys an idea/image rather than an item. If there is no other way and you really need to buy something, I think it is reasonable to buy from Patagonia and similar brands (even though it is clear they are far from perfect).
As with any other brand, you buy a bit of a product and a lot of the feeling associated with the brand. Maybe it is even impossible for you to not think "I am that person who [...]" (where you can insert anything from "always follows the latest trends" to "always wears that worn down old clothes and cares deeply about the environment"). That is why there are brand names on the product in the first place. Because people use that brand image to define themselves.
So, the ideal brand would use recycling materials and save water and do all that stuff but sell the product without any label. I guess this wouldn't work, though. Remember? Many people are searching for some personality to buy. They could even be that guy who doesn't wear brands. It's simply capitalism, you buy anything, even your mindset.
After all, we as consumers have to behave responsibly. The circumstance that Patagonia offers repairs and have a second hand section on their website is already a step into the right direction. So let's hope the "I now buy responsibly" is the last fabricated personality people take on and that they slowly stop buying new things for good.
The outdoor clothing industry needs to move to 1) fully recyclable products 2) product upgrading as well as repair to get the longest life out of a garment 3) a subscription model where we return the fully recyclable product to be upgraded or recycled when we want a new product 4) repairs & alterations so we get a product we want to keep for longer. Effectively the companies should take a multi generational view on products where each product can be recycled to form the next version and the effective life of each product is much longer. This coukd be financed by a consumer annual subscription model were you buy credits towards upgrades, repairs & a new product when the time comes. The companies will still make sales & would have a steady revenue stream to plan the next range of recyclable eco conscious products. They're getting brand loyalty and the consumer is arguably paying a bit more for less products but only those they need & that have been tailored for them.
Incredible video.
if i were to buy any type of clothe, it's better that i buy it from patagonia than from any other brand (environmentaly speaking, in general). We agree on that, right?
Then, how am i suposed to know about patagonia if they don't do advertisements? The idea of them investing in marketing is not paradoxal in this case, as long as they promote minimalism. Because they only inform you that the world is better off with you buying from them than from any other brand, because they do create less enviromental impact. And that if you are going to buy something because you need it, try to make your purchase the less polluting as possible.
The idea of investing in marketing so that people buy stuff that cause less environmental impact is not paradoxal, as you pretend the people to know about you so this prevents an amount of less ecological sales from another brand. And this is what it's making the difference, not the fact that they are trying to make you want and buy their apparel just for the sake of their standing.
If you got a better idea of how a brand could work in these terms, go and found it, because people need clothes. Oh, and make sure not to invest in marketing, as well as making the "non environmentally friendly" brand's costumers yours. Fairly complicate i think.
Patagonia proves that a company can both be sustainable and profitable! That’s why they are a for profit company.
Pls post a update on the sale of Patagonia!
My sons first word was Patagonia thanks to this video
The real succession of majority-owners of the means of developing the commercial system have decided: "I've got a huge supply of a hugely versatile mineral. Therefore, shipping things must become intrinsically terrible. This reflects badly on neither my abilities, nor my popularity. Let's burn it."
Obviously this is completely absurd, and the ability to come up with: "Popular reasons for doing something else with the minerals" should have been sought out, or created, then cherished and praised. EDIT: The ability to do that is called: "Being both allowed and predisposed to: Vote to: Pay taxes to: Listening to surveys EDIT: To which you say: Do that. Now that the minerals are versatile, don't think that means that you know what I want. Ask me, and come up with other stuff. Don't just assume I want you to burn them. I'm an adult.".
I really like this video. Thanks!
My daughter & I were going to do something like this... (just the clothes repair)
Look at a brand call Picture, is a French brand that makes Patagonia look like BP
Love your vids
Not to mention, every time you wash your plastic clothes their microfibers end up in our water system
Very Sad..i Hope we'll find a solution for microplastics fiber
The way..., to follow!
We can’t entirely fix the environment but we can try to make the environment more balanced.
Would recommend anyone to read their founder's book: let my people go surfing by Yvon Chouinard. Very interesting book from an eco conscious mind running a global brand.
Where are you? Where are your videos? I love your page (heart)
Thankyou!
great video, regardless of opinion, i love the graphics and pace :)
One more step they could take is to stop labeling/branding their products. Many, many people buy the brand to show off the name, and have little, to no, intention of "putting it to the test" outdoors. They would eventually only sell to those needing the quality, instead of those that want the notoriety. Same goes for all of the "high end brand" equipment and outerwear.
Patagonia specifically addresses this in their mission statement and other public statements theyve made. They are aware they do harm as a company, they say they wanna do more harm than good, but they cant completely cut out the harm. And their donations go towards small grassroots organizations that will actually make progress rather than huge non-for-profits that dont actually do much. While obviously they do harm they were a poor example for this paradox cause they are one of the few companies who admit in their mission statement that they do harm.
Patagonia stretches capitalism as far as it can without giving its products away for free. I will avoid buying gear when possible but when the time comes, I'm happy to support their mission.
great vid dude
cool vid
It is a paradox, the company must pay It's dues in order to stay up and running. Either we Pay to live or pay for the way we're living.
An irony: It's funny how we people never question nor deeply criticize companies that don't claim to be environmentally conscious or activists and rather be silent about them, but will always look under a magnifying glass to all of the companies that are doing so. Shame on us. It is better to be an imperfect and more conscious brand rather than a don't give a shoe type of company. Remember we all have the power, not them. We are the ones how are sustaining their corporations.
This video is more of a paradox than Patagonia.
In the end it's the consumer that changes the world. Don't buy something if you don't need it and if you need it buy responsibly.