As snow is being shed in Vancouver at the early start of November and the temperature is beginning to lower to bitter coldness, I have been looking to invest in an ultra warm fleece in preparation for this long winter. Particularly entertained by Patagonia’s vibrant patterned designs, I would have bought a collection by now if it was not for their branded “sustainable” image as nothing but a cover for their ironic disruption to the environment.

Patagonia is a well worn brand in the scope of camping and outdoor enthusiasts. From fleece to windbreaks, it is well liked for their quality and most of all, their inspiring mission statement to “build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis”. As it has recently become a trend that consumers enjoy being more informed of their environmental footprints for every purchase made, Patagonia is therefore favoured in this light in every aspect.

Though some consumers fully support Patagonia’s mission statement and are drawn in by the fact that they are leaving a minimal footprint for the environment, it has recently been discovered by a former graduate of Thompson, Mark Browne that a single fleece wear of Patagonia sheds more than 250,000 synthetic microfibers into the ocean after every laundry wash. In addition, in order to achieve the wanted “worn out” look, Patagonia orders their manufactured fleece to be put in a “killer wash” before selling. This immense pollution largely contradicts their goal of reducing environmental impact as it worsens as the clothing ages.

This mere attempt in reaching out a sustainable hand shows that though some companies talked about in class, such as Ben and Jerry’s wholeheartedly seek out ways of producing the best quality of ice cream while establishing a good supplier and customer segment relationship, Patagonia, when informed of their detrimental impact on accelerating climate change, merely glanced over it as a worriless concern. This speaks to the ironic non-transparent appeal of companies like Patagonia – seeking to achieve a welcoming platform in corporate social responsibility only for branding and marketing purposes in the ultimate hope of gaining customers and thereby, increasing their profit.

It is understandable that Patagonia – a clothing manufacturer – is trying to minimize their carbon footprint, but, as stated in their ingredients list, using 100% recycled nylon, polyester, and wool will only create a deeper cut into our ecosystem as older wear sheds more microfibers into our ocean. By reusing fabric material and donating an earth tax of “1% for the Planet” is simply not enough to label themselves as a company that chases sustainability as their ultimate goal.

Word Count: 483

Work Cited:

Ben & Jerry’s is a values-led company. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2017, from http://www.benjerry.com/values

IV, J. R. (2015, June 03). 5 Famous Logos & The Mountains In Them. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from http://www.theinertia.com/music-art/5-famous-logos-the-mountains-in-them/

O’Connor, M. C. (2016, November 16). Study: Your Fleece Jacket Is Awful for the Environment. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.outsideonline.com/2091876/patagonias-new-study-finds-fleece-jackets-are-serious-pollutant

Our Business and Climate Change. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2017, from http://www.patagonia.com/climate-change.html

L. (2015, September 14). Patagonia Women’s Los Gatos Fleece Vest. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4P7JEky9tE&ab_channel=LandfallNavigation

Reasons Why I Love Patagonia. (2017, August 28). Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.theodysseyonline.com/reasons-why-love-patagonia

Synthetic Microfiber Pollution. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2017, from http://www.patagonia.com/synthetic-microfiber-pollution.html