Interview with Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
But, this is too shallow, and too pessimistic, to be true. YC is a bouldering and climbing luminary. He put up some hard climbs and boulder problems, some right in LA (Chouinard's Hole at Stoney point comes to mind, but it's an easy, fun one). His attitudes have permeated down into the bones of climbing culture today. It's a "nut up or shut up" kinda sport. Maybe that's why it attracted him.
As another commenter said, he smithed his own tools and hardware. Little known fact: the company Black Diamond was created by a group of people that bought the department from YC/Patagonia as it transitioned to soft goods more.
It's awesome that he's still around, fighting the good fight, trying to save our little globe. It's awesome that he's transitioning his company to ever more sustainable practices; and pushing suppliers to do the same. I can see it in other outdoor gear companies, too. They've seen what Patagooch is doing and they're jumping on the bandwagon. Sustainability has never been sexier. Just check out REI's website. They're hardcore pushing these principles, too. Interesting, too, that the outdoor industries are rapidly growing.
I also think it's great that YC and Patagonia are unabashedly involving themselves in politics. It's great to see a company...well, "nut up or shut up" regarding climate change. Glad they're putting money where their mouth is trying to oust climate-change-obstructionist republicans.
If only they still made climbing hardware. I'd buy it just to see my money go towards good causes, like getting republicans out of office.
I don't know too much outside of reading his book (which is, of course, biased), but it sounds like very early on (before Patagonia was founded) is when he had a change of heart. Wikipedia quotes, "Around 1970, he became aware that the use of steel pitons made by his company was causing significant damage to the cracks of Yosemite. These pitons comprised 70 percent of his income."
Unless you're talking about something else?
Times have changed, camming equipment developed (which simply didn't exist before so walls would be unclimbable without pitons). They were just climbing with whatever was possible.
Actually climbers were one of the first pioneers of ecological and sustainable approach to nature, not only because they lived on shoestring. Once you get into these sports and experience it regularly, you realize how important and awesome it all is for us.
Him pivoting when he learned is the only thing he could do. I was talking more about building products from petroleum based fibers and whatnot. Calling them a "sin" is a stretch, but I couldn't think of another phrase.
In the book he contrasts the culture of US climbers with European ones back then; Europeans focused on conquering nature (climbing tall mountains), while the US had advocates like John Muir, Ansel Adams, and Robert Frost focusing on being in nature.
It does seem like his awareness of the long-term damage has been long-standing. Patagonia started with importing rugby shirts because of their durability, environmental tithing started in the 80s, and the push for more sustainable materials in the 90s (with the realization it takes heavy involvement in the supply chain to carry out and enforce). Along the way he talks about repurposing old buildings instead (and adopting their quirks) of building new and actively encouraging repairs instead of replacing garments.
- Early advocate of Clean climbing
- All around dirtbag hero and hardman (numerous FAs in the valley, the bugaboos, patagonia, the gunks)
- blacksmith, who made and used his own tools to climb.
- by all appearances a bullheaded guy on ethics and best practices: “ The whole purpose of planning something like Everest is to effect some sort of spiritual and physical gain and if you compromise the process, you’re an asshole when you start out and you’re an asshole when you get back.“
As it happens, the companies he founded or was involved in make very nice gear and i’m happy to own an ethically appropriate amount of it. Preferably preowned, and repaired instead of replaced.
FC: What do you think of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk pursuing interplanetary travel and Mars and moon colonies because they don’t seem to believe that we can save our home planet?
YC: [Laughs] I think it’s pretty silly. And not just silly, but it’s really a shame. The monies that are going to space exploration should be used to save our own planet right now. We’re in a triage situation. Things are so grim. It’s World War III. I lived through World War II, and I remember what the country had to do to mobilize. You couldn’t buy sugar. You couldn’t buy meat.
If you own a business, please join. If you're an employee, please share it with your leaders. It's a small cost in the grand scheme of things, especially for a crucial cause. B-Corp is another group I strongly suggest looking into.
The FAQ says that:
> Our members have given more than $225 million back to environmental nonprofits since 2002.
which I think agrees, as that’s under $15M/yr average (though I assume heavily weighted towards recent data).
That being said Patagonia is as a company that manages to perfectly brand itself as a sustainable company in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it. They are surfing on the climate change and greenwashing wave more than ever. Yvon has been out of Patagonia's management for a couple of years now.
If a company is doing good, should they be allowed to let people know about it? Do you think they're doing this for craven purposes only? Or might they be putting their money where their mouth is and are proud of it? That it might encourage others to make similar decisions in their own lives, both personal and business? I'd like to think that people (and that's what a company is, a group of people) are capable of doing things for reasons other than pure greed or profit.
Do you fault people for making purchasing decisions based on the actions of a company in addition to the products or services they provide?
Sometimes I wonder what drives people to apparently only see the most cynical view. In my more uncharitable moments I think that's because they can't imagine others doing things because they think they're they right thing to do. And if they can't extend that to others, what does that say about themselves?
But perhaps it's just that they've been burned too many times in the past. Whatever the reason, I choose to embrace actions of others that are good. I believe I'm capable of doing good, and that others can, too. There's so many things we need to do together, and cynicism gets in the way of us trusting each other to do it.
I think that Patagonia is 100% committed to being sustainable because it is in their value but also and mainly because it is their market niche and what brings them business. still think it is part of a market strategy. I'm happy that they managed to combine ethics, value and business. It is of course extremely convenient for them that being so ethical is also what makes their business so lucrative.
Most companies don't have the luxury to fit a market niche where the target customer are the top 1% of the world (like Patagonia does).
> "in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it."
> "surfing on the climate change and greenwashing wave"
and
> "It is of course extremely convenient for them"
These are all phrases often used to signal that their primary motives are something other than what you are claiming to praise them for. (Indeed, you say as much: "mainly because it is their market niche and what brings them business.")
Yes, they're a business and to stay in business they to be profitable. What people choose to do to be profitable makes a difference.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greenwashing
> "green· wash· ing ... expressions of environmentalist concerns especially as a cover for products, policies, or activities"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hype
> "hype: ...
> 1 : DECEPTION, PUT-ON
> 2 : PUBLICITY, especially : promotional publicity of an extravagant or contrived kind"
I also find it convenient that they will repair their gear, often for free.
That means my $300 surfing wetsuit will probably be with me for a long time.
Then you shouldn't have accused them of greenwashing, because that's exactly the opposite of what greenwashing means.
They sell apparel to members of the military. AFAIK they don't design or sell military specific items.
It wouldn't surprise me--even the best-intentioned companies sometimes keep making compromises to stay profitable until they don't resemble their values any more. Money ruins everything. I just haven't heard anything indicating that money has ruined Patagonia yet.
Patagonia introduced in the end a special washing bag for catching these micro-plastics. The problem seems to be currently unsolvable.
Or some replaceable filter in style of vacuum cleaners, that could last a year or two and wash machine would indicate the replacement time. This doesn't seem unsolvable with proper regulation.
I really admire his philosophy.