Patagonia applies this attitude at pretty much every step of the way. For example, they train their "quality insurance staff" to review the factories where the clothing is produced with a "contractor relationship assessment" and also hire a third party auditing company to do the same. This is to ensure that all the cogs linked back to the company promote the same values Patagonia does. In 1996 they switched over to organic cotton and every cotton garment they've made since then has been from organic fabric. Patagonia has implemented a recycling program for old clothes, where customers can bring back old coats or other apparel items to have its fibers recycled into new products. Employees at Patagonia's HQ in Ventura get the day off when the surf is high. They subsidize child-care for their employees. They only employ factories where turnover rate of staff is low. Patagonia pledges either 1% of annual sales, or 10% of pre-tax profits (whichever amount is greater) to environmental causes yearly. They allow their employees time off and grant money to study the environment. And on and on, you see the direction this is going.
Patagonia is something of an anomaly in the debate over corporate responsibility. What would Milton Friedman say about this tree hugging company? It's interesting, Patagonia is a privately owned company so it is difficult to get yearly concrete sales figures. It would seem though, that the draw of Patagonia is largely in their attitude towards the environment. Who buys their products? Mainly, outdoorsy people who have a great love and appreciation for the planet. They are rock climbers, hikers, runners, they camp, they fish, they cross-country ski. Their philosophy about the relationship between people and the planet is basically in line with Patagonia's. Why else would they spend $33 on a pair of heavy duty mountain climbing socks?
So what would Friedman say? Being privately owned, they don't have stockholders to be conscious of. Additionally, it would seem that their profits and publicity are directly linked to their environmental awareness. At what point to the lines between corporate social responsibility and the pursuit of profits blur and become one and the same? Would Patagonia be Patagonia without social responsibility? I would argue not. The brand is built on its foundation of sustainability and corporate responsibility - that there is a larger picture out there that we are all a part of, and to be oblivious to that idea is to mark your brand as antiquated.
I think Edward Freeman and and Yvon Chouinard, Patagonia's founder, would go out for drinks and spend hours patting each other on the back for their convictions. Freeman's support of corporate social responsibility to all the stakeholders in a company is practiced to perfection by Patagonia. They don't draw the line of consciousness at their employees or products, they extend it to the planet at large, the factories that produce the clothing, to the very fabric they use. Patagonia sees the big picture - all the stakeholders - and embraces it.
If the recent trend in green marketing and corporate sustainability is any indication, social awareness is here to stay. Patagonia is a shining example for those companies attempting to update their mission statements and show the consumer that they are aware of their footprint on the planet. It will be interesting to see if Patagonia's profits will increase with increased consumer awareness of the environment or if other companies will become savvy of the trend and out-green the original green company.
Hey, interesting find. I think you're right that Milton Friedman would say that it is fine for Patagonia to make a pitch to the eco conscious segment of consumers, by giving money to charity, taking old clothes for recycling, etc. He would see that as a cost of doing no business, no different than putting up photos of yummy cheeseburgers could be used to entice grease lovers into a restaurant. But I wonder what he might say about giving employees the day off when the surf is up. If you assume that most customers don't know that they do this, then would he not say that the managers were stealing from the owners? (Though if the owners also manage it, that would make it stealing from themselves, which I'd imagine he is ok with - though I can't imagine Ayn Rand would be).
ReplyDelete