[voisin]

Would you rather they not make this move? Comments like yours are unnecessarily exhausting. Are they perfect? No. If your standard is to criticize and tear down anyone doing anything less than perfect than you won’t ever be happy. Compared to almost everyone in this industry, this is a major move. How about we applaud it and hope others do the same rather than approach everything with a jaded eye because it doesn’t meet some impossible standard?

[pphysch]

I'm calling a spade a spade. It's a huge PR move that aligns with the brand identity.

The (former) shareholders will continue to lead luxurious lives. Patagonia will continue to contribute to wasteful fashion and the global oversupply of clothing products.

If any net-good is caused by this PR campaign, I will consider it a coincidence.

[voisin]

Patagonia’s pricing and quality can hardly be considered fast fashion! If you think it is contributing to the global oversupply of clothing the what do you propose instead? No clothing unless it is $1000/item and lasts forever?

I think you need to reevaluate whether it is truly a spade you are calling a spade or whether your feelings about an entire industry lead you to denigrate every actor, including those imperfect actors who actually show leadership in the industry. Again, what standard do you need to see met in order to be satisfied?

[pphysch]

If Patagonia disappeared tomorrow, the world would not run out of quality clothing. That would be a bold sustainability move!

[mturmon]

I think you have inadvertently supplied the reductio ad absurdum of your line of reasoning on sustainability.

[pphysch]

Interesting interpretation. I was simply providing an example of what a bold sustainability move might look like, contrasting with the low-stakes PR move of shuffling around the ownership of a private corporation.

Here are some less extreme examples:

- Make Patagonia 100% non-profit

- Make Patagonia 100% employee owned (equitably)

- Invest all profits in (any) clothing repair centers and services around the world

[mturmon]

> Patagonia will continue to contribute to fast-fashion...

OK, this is just wrong.

"Fast fashion" has a meaning -- it's about duplicating high fashion or celebrity fashion cheaply and quickly and mass-marketing it with a lot of turnover.

That's not what Patagonia is doing, either by its actions or by its advertising. They have sold a line of fleeces, baggy surf shorts, and rain shells for decades now. The designs improve and refine and slowly morph, but they are largely the same.

I still wear a Patagonia purple ultralight rain shell that I bought in the 1990s. It's very similar to [https://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-houdini-windbreaker-j...].

These items have long life (both as durable clothing articles, and as purchasable items in the catalog) and aren't really mimicking runway/celebrity trends at all. They are the opposite of fast fashion, along several axes. A significant part of their website is devoted to promoting older clothes, and selling used clothes, e.g. https://www.patagonia.com/stories/worn-wear/, and https://www.patagonia.com/stories/dont-buy-this-jacket-black... .

[pphysch]

Thanks, I did not know fast-fashion referred specifically to runway fashion, which Patagonia is not AFAIK. I corrected my comment.