I'm not sure the Holdfast Collective is what we need. Kind of along the line of the 'good' vs 'bad' billionaires discussion in the Announcement.
I don't think the setup, actually reaches its aims of truly challenging capitalism, and after reading the impact report I've become more uncomfortable with it. With only 37% of factory workers paid the living wage, then the profit that is passed to the Holdfast Collective comes from an uncomfortable place. Is it right to do harm in one place, so that you can do good in another?
Personally, I think the structure could end up becoming a bit of a trap for Patagonia. Maybe it could be restructured so that the decision making at Holdfast was citizen-led, and transparent but even then I'm still uneasy with the structure.
I would be interested to know whether Patagonia still believe that their model - of making loads of clothes and giving away some of the profit to different environmentel orgs - is still appropriate in 2025? Specifically two questions actually:
1. Would they consider a massive and drastic change to their business model in order to reduce their impact on the earth? As the impact report shows - it seems incredibly hard for them to actually reduce the impact that making a shit load of clothes every year has (and yeah sure I am also a proponent of "progress over perfection" but there are also limits to that - especially when your tagline is "we are in business to save our home planet").
Would they for example consider cutting half their clothing production in order to shift their business model to clothing repair and selling second hand?
2. Is the model of giving small amounts of money to lots of different environmental ngo's and orgs still appropriate in 2025? In my opinion we really need to build up very well organised mass movements to go up against the rise of the far right and the well funded corporations and their massive lobbying power. Would Patagonia ever use their financial and marketing might to genuinely try to do this? Would they ever send an email to their entire email list in America calling on people to take part in civil disobedience to challenge the Trump administration for example?
I would be interested to hear whether these are the types of questions they are asking themselves internally - its all well and good to be transparent but for me there was something lacking in the impact report.
Question 1 is a cracker. As is 2, because they're linked. Is it OK to do harm to then distribute the profit from that harm as you see fit?
Maybe you could argue that the impact of those funds, that are distributed to orgs., is larger than taking the profit and addressing your own issues. But, I find that a really uncomfortable message.
Isn't the factory workers that aren't receiving a living wage, that are the ones that are supporting the NGO's? Shouldn't that at least be recognised?
I spoke about this a bit at the end of the Skolnick episode and I know you've been thinking the same re POW after listening to my chat with Jeremy - is it even fit for purpose as a model given what's going on in the world?
Hi Matt, I have quite a few questions. 1. Given that Patagonia has pots of profit, why aren't they using them to reduce their emissions and pay their supply chain a living wage? 2. Don't they worry about their colonialist attitude of causing harm to then go about trying to clean things up? 3. What would it take for Patagonia to reduce their production and do more with ALL the product they already have out in the world? They could start with the 1% of everything they've ever made that's sitting in warehouses around the world. 4. If Patagonia is serious about reducing emissions and its ecological impact, wouldn't it be better to have nature on the board as a decision-maker rather than as a beneficiary of the profits from the environmental damage caused? Fingers cross you get that meeting?
I'm interested in their Environmental Profit & Loss, EP&L criteria. The section on their website about this states "stop making styles until their impact can be lessened". Can they give examples of products or product lines that they have stopped making and haven't yet restarted. What constitutes enough impact reduction?
Related to the above, I'd like to know what their end game is? What does Patagonia look like when they've met all of their climate ambitions?
Finally I'd like to know if they have any plans to make absolute reductions in the amount of gear they sell. We currently use 1.8 times more global resources per year than the planet can support (https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/). Most people in the global north need to consume less. Do Patagonia have plans to support this shift?
The absolute reduction is a great question. Can a company operating in this system, actually do that? Can services such as repair, reuse, sharing be as financially viable. I think they can but the big brands have already invested so deeply in their supply line that I think they're stuck. Can they pivot?
I’m glad to hear you are diving deeper into the narrative of eco-saviour that Patagonia has been known for - and perpetuated(?). The link you shared from the Minority Report sheds important light on the image that Patagonia has marketed themselves as. I’ve both bought into the story - if I buy this jacket I will help a brand do ‘good’ - but it’s also been unsettling, like something just doesn’t feel right about participating in consumerism as a way of healing the world.
Do you have any other recommendations on articles or op-eds that are critiquing the messaging that Patagonia and other outdoor brands are communicating about doing ‘good’ for the planet.
It's a good question, and tbh I'm still doing some digging myself. As I discussed at length in the outro to this week's podcast episode, I'm thinking there's another Announcement episode in this.
My questions would be, do you have any regrets about setting up the Holdfast Collective? Would you still make the same decision today?
What's your thinking here Gav?
I'm not sure the Holdfast Collective is what we need. Kind of along the line of the 'good' vs 'bad' billionaires discussion in the Announcement.
I don't think the setup, actually reaches its aims of truly challenging capitalism, and after reading the impact report I've become more uncomfortable with it. With only 37% of factory workers paid the living wage, then the profit that is passed to the Holdfast Collective comes from an uncomfortable place. Is it right to do harm in one place, so that you can do good in another?
Personally, I think the structure could end up becoming a bit of a trap for Patagonia. Maybe it could be restructured so that the decision making at Holdfast was citizen-led, and transparent but even then I'm still uneasy with the structure.
I would be interested to know whether Patagonia still believe that their model - of making loads of clothes and giving away some of the profit to different environmentel orgs - is still appropriate in 2025? Specifically two questions actually:
1. Would they consider a massive and drastic change to their business model in order to reduce their impact on the earth? As the impact report shows - it seems incredibly hard for them to actually reduce the impact that making a shit load of clothes every year has (and yeah sure I am also a proponent of "progress over perfection" but there are also limits to that - especially when your tagline is "we are in business to save our home planet").
Would they for example consider cutting half their clothing production in order to shift their business model to clothing repair and selling second hand?
2. Is the model of giving small amounts of money to lots of different environmental ngo's and orgs still appropriate in 2025? In my opinion we really need to build up very well organised mass movements to go up against the rise of the far right and the well funded corporations and their massive lobbying power. Would Patagonia ever use their financial and marketing might to genuinely try to do this? Would they ever send an email to their entire email list in America calling on people to take part in civil disobedience to challenge the Trump administration for example?
I would be interested to hear whether these are the types of questions they are asking themselves internally - its all well and good to be transparent but for me there was something lacking in the impact report.
Question 1 is a cracker. As is 2, because they're linked. Is it OK to do harm to then distribute the profit from that harm as you see fit?
Maybe you could argue that the impact of those funds, that are distributed to orgs., is larger than taking the profit and addressing your own issues. But, I find that a really uncomfortable message.
Isn't the factory workers that aren't receiving a living wage, that are the ones that are supporting the NGO's? Shouldn't that at least be recognised?
I spoke about this a bit at the end of the Skolnick episode and I know you've been thinking the same re POW after listening to my chat with Jeremy - is it even fit for purpose as a model given what's going on in the world?
Hi, thanks so much for reading and the shoutout!
Loved it. Thanks for sharing those reflections.
Hi Matt, I have quite a few questions. 1. Given that Patagonia has pots of profit, why aren't they using them to reduce their emissions and pay their supply chain a living wage? 2. Don't they worry about their colonialist attitude of causing harm to then go about trying to clean things up? 3. What would it take for Patagonia to reduce their production and do more with ALL the product they already have out in the world? They could start with the 1% of everything they've ever made that's sitting in warehouses around the world. 4. If Patagonia is serious about reducing emissions and its ecological impact, wouldn't it be better to have nature on the board as a decision-maker rather than as a beneficiary of the profits from the environmental damage caused? Fingers cross you get that meeting?
Thank you Heather
I'm interested in their Environmental Profit & Loss, EP&L criteria. The section on their website about this states "stop making styles until their impact can be lessened". Can they give examples of products or product lines that they have stopped making and haven't yet restarted. What constitutes enough impact reduction?
Related to the above, I'd like to know what their end game is? What does Patagonia look like when they've met all of their climate ambitions?
Finally I'd like to know if they have any plans to make absolute reductions in the amount of gear they sell. We currently use 1.8 times more global resources per year than the planet can support (https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/). Most people in the global north need to consume less. Do Patagonia have plans to support this shift?
The absolute reduction is a great question. Can a company operating in this system, actually do that? Can services such as repair, reuse, sharing be as financially viable. I think they can but the big brands have already invested so deeply in their supply line that I think they're stuck. Can they pivot?
Thanks Andy!
I’m glad to hear you are diving deeper into the narrative of eco-saviour that Patagonia has been known for - and perpetuated(?). The link you shared from the Minority Report sheds important light on the image that Patagonia has marketed themselves as. I’ve both bought into the story - if I buy this jacket I will help a brand do ‘good’ - but it’s also been unsettling, like something just doesn’t feel right about participating in consumerism as a way of healing the world.
Do you have any other recommendations on articles or op-eds that are critiquing the messaging that Patagonia and other outdoor brands are communicating about doing ‘good’ for the planet.
It's a good question, and tbh I'm still doing some digging myself. As I discussed at length in the outro to this week's podcast episode, I'm thinking there's another Announcement episode in this.