Hacker News Reader

Comment by MorningInfidel | Hacker News Reader

Patagonia: the posterchild of corporate hypocrisy. You can't make this stuff up, also from WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/patagonias-poly-hypocrisy-blend...

View on HN

"From the WSJ" means something quite different when it's reporting (like the article here), and the opinion page, like what you're linking to. That opinion piece reminds me of nothing more than this comic[0]

[0] https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

https://pasteboard.co/M7nigkQRAypP.jpg

>You can't make this stuff up

Links to an opinion piece making up a fake controversy using a fake stance the company does not have in a transparent "gotcha" attempt to undermine them. So I guess you apparently can make this stuff up.

That is a terrible take and wholly opinion based - NOT ACTUAL REPORTING, no one including Patagonia is saying don't mine or don't use oil based products. It's utter bullshit. We can use those products but be responsible in how we gather them.

They refused to sell to mining and petroleum companies, while profiting off of them. Seems hypocritical of them to me.

So, you can’t participate in commerce and criticize or attempt to reform anything about it. Seems ridiculous to me. It seems like using your power and position to attempt to affect change just realistic, rather than some imagined high minded idea that just closing up shop and wandering into the woods is the only way to participate in any system one deems to have unethical aspects of any kind at any level.

That's not at all the case, none of the companies they refused were in their supply chain. Also that's a ridiculous argument, you use this product that EVERYONE in the world uses and modern society demands, but you don't have the right to criticize it? So mining and petroleum companies are allowed to do what ever they want. I can't advocate for cleaner energy because I drive a gas powered vehicle? I can't work towards renewable electricity because I currently use carbon fuel based electricity (the only kind available to me)? It's absurd and a absolutely absurd argument to lay at Patagonia.

But it’s a great argument if you want to derail a discussion about reform. Instead of talking about reforming mining industry or reducing single use plastic, you can get everything focused on “hypocrisy” and who should be able to criticize and how genuine Patagonia really is. It’s a great argument if you know what it is actually trying to do.

Totally, it's the low hanging fruit of the political discussion. Someone says something that should change, instead of attacking the argument they point and yell look they aren't perfect!!! We can't listen to them.

Some people are saying that.

Plastic shouldn't be used where it isn't needed, e.g. vests.

I'm sure you could find some crazy ass on the internet preaching that. Patagonia isn't saying that. Plastic used to improve a product isn't bad, it's bad if it's made and the raw materials are gathered in a environmentally destructive manner. That's EXACTLY what Patagonia is trying to criticize. Environmental destruction as part of their supply chain. Do as little harm as they can and still make the best products they can. I'm not even a patagonia customer (sizes run too small for me) but their history of environmental activism should be celebrated IMO.

They are welcome to use wool and invest in new methods of producing artificial fibers without using oil.

They've had decades to work on this, never did. Let's not forget about the massive catalogs they used to ship out in the 90s, far larger than they needed to be. They were huge because they were so dedicated to putting pretty pictures of people in nature to promote their lifestyle brand. How many thousands of trees died for their catalogs?

While we're talking about how amazingly benevolent and caring they are, what about the workers in the US they laid off when they outsourced their manufacturing? What about the CO2 they introduced into the atmosphere as a result of this decision, courtesy of their products having to be shipped across the world?

This whole reminds me of my former CEO, preaching to the company about equity, meanwhile due to Colorado regulations, we all knew that his salary was 111X that of the average employee there. The movement can be summarized as this: "I'm really, really, really fucking rich, but don't focus on that. Focus on these terrible people who don't vote like you who do dirty, nasty, bad things people who vote like you don't like. Sure, they're getting screwed by the same people screwing you, but I promise you, your problems are THEIR fault. Now, please protect the planet, I gotta get on my private jet and fly to my chateau in Switzerland."

I'm done with you, clearly you have a bone to pick with Environmental activists or more likely you are a troll trying to get a rise out of people that care about. I never said they were prefect, that's not a requirement to do good now. Yes they laid of workers here but they pay living wages in those outsourced countries. Many of them FAR closer to the raw materials. If fact outsourcing manufacturing has at times been found to be a wash in terms of environmental impacts. Finished products are often much smaller and less impactful to ship than raw materials. I don't know that is the case here but unless you can so prove that it's Environmentally damaging to outsource their product your are spouting bullshit. Beyond that Patagonia sells their products all over the world so no one aside form them has any clue if it's a negative impact or not. Also how do you know they haven't invested in new methods of producing artificial fibers? Also since when do you need to be a materials scientist to care about the environment? Also they use a TON of wool in their products. I've tried to buy their products, they are normally cut in a manner that doesn't work well for me - slim and tapered, often when I wanted it was because of the wool usage as it's a great material for outdoor clothing.

I'm not a troll, and in the early 2000s I worked on renewable energy installations (off-the grid solar and microhydroelectric) and during that time I lived for a 14 months in a self-sustaining, off-the-grid community (left when it got a little cult-y). I did all sorts of green building (primarily cordwood/earth plaster) techniques, and worked for one of the authors of this book: https://www.amazon.com/Building-Green-Complete-How-Alternati...

He gifted me with a copy as a reviewer back then.

I'm a committed environmentalist, and I've grown deeply skeptical and disgusted with corporate douchebags who live in giant mansions and fly in private jets and pretend to really care about the environment. Haven't you?

It's obviously functioning as a religion-like tool for them to reclaim moral superiority due to a prevalent ideology that makes them feel guilty for their wealth. It lets them continue to keep their money and feel good again. You may disagree, but I'm not being disrespectful to you in any way. "I'm done with you" followed by ad-hominems isn't a productive response.

BTW, I take cold showers daily, keep my house at 65 in winter, turn off AC in summer and use open windows and fans. I drive a Tesla. I don't pretend to be super eco-friendly, but I'm sacrificing more than these posturing executives and board members do. I've met a few very prominent voices in this space, and been in a couple of their homes. They are gluttonous consumers of energy, raw materials, resources, and fossil fuel energy in general. People who live in 20,000 square foot homes should shut up about climate change. They tarnish the entire movement when they open their mouths.

The quip about "living wage" in those countries, paired with no apparent concern for people in your own country is exactly the rationalization made in boardrooms, when everyone knows it was driven by the bottom-line and nothing else. Your rationalization made it sound as if the intention of outsourcing was to help the environment. I think you know this is absurd. They reduced their costs and didn't lower their prices, so they could pocket the difference. Because that's what corporations are designed to do, and the posturing is serving the same purpose via emotional brand marketing for a target demographic.

I’m saying that. The insult is not appreciated.

Most companies are guilty of this, doesn’t make it right.

I’m not saying Pantagonia might not be a better company environmentally than others, just mentioning that I find their usage of plastics in clothing objectionable.

I also do find it hypocritical that they sell plastic products while doing some kind of boycotting of companies producing raw materials for plastics.

Recycling plastic drinking bottles into something useful, like a vest, instead of letting them go in a landfill sounds pretty needed to me. They aren’t creating plastic.

What is a responsible way to use oil based products, in the eyes of Patagonia and other moral posers? They refuse to sell apparel to oil companies. The apparel they refuse to sell is created with polyesters made from the the commodity these same oil companies produce.... and people are going to pretend like this isn't objectively hypocritical?

I grew up in an evangelical Christian fundamentalist household. I know what the hypocrisy and nonsensical self-contradictions born of performative ideology looks like. And this, along with the rest of the current "stakeholder capitalism" zeitgeist reeks of it.

I also grew up in a evangelical Christian fundamentalist family (Pentacostal - Church of God with snake handling and speaking in tongues, the whole crazy line of shit), so I feel like I'm pretty aware of that line of hypocrisy. To say that environmental leadership in for-profit companies is ANYTHING like that is lazy cynical bullshit. I can't believe that someone that grew up in that level of shit show could possibly state that, I simply don't understand that AT ALL. Patagonia started and has been a leading member of 1% for the planet, for their website:

donate 1% of annual sales or salary

That's the minimum to be a member. I've done volunteer work with partner orgs and 1% for the planet is a large help for the environment. Tell me again how starting, leading, and donating to that kind of fund is hypocritical? They are committed being as Environmentally sound a company as possible. They make products that are aimed at outdoor and people that care about the environment, their products are huge in hiking, climbing, and fly fishing communities. Sure a large number of people buy their products because of looks or prestige but that has never been their target market. You are talking about a company that actively encourages customers to buy their products used and to reduce/recycle.

To answer your question, which I highly doubt it in good faith, a responsible way to use oil, is to extract it from the environment with the lowest possible risk, placing the planet before profits, and extracting the product in as socially responsible way as possible. Don't drill sensitive areas just because it might be cheaper. Recycle and reuse (Patagonia is one of the best clothing companies actually doing this) as much as possible. Above all else be a responsible steward of the planet and it's environment.

Some reading on Patagonia's Environmental activism: https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/ https://www.patagonia.com/activism/ https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/ https://journal.businesstoday.org/bt-online/2018/patagonias-... Here is a duck duck go search for a ton of more resources: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=patagonia+environmental+activism&i...

Again I want to be clear, I'm not affiliated with Patagonia in anyway, not an employee nor a customer. What I am is an environmental activist, fly fisher, and outdoor person. To me Patagonia is a model of what an environmentally responsible company should be. I care deeply about climate change and to defeat that we need companies like Patagonia.

For anyone curious about whether recycled plastics in clothing have less environmental impacts than primary raw materials, they do [0].

[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09213...

I have mixed feelings about Patagonia. I think corporations should have high standards and I share a lot of their outspoken values. At the same time however, they do have polyester in almost all clothes which risks ending up in the ocean as micro plastics when washing them. They also according to themselves still use DWR-treatment with fluorocarbons. It's sometimes like they think that publicly recognizing a problem is enough while there are other brands who's already banned all forms of fluorocarbons and don't use polyester or spandex in all their clothes still making less fuzz and bragging about their environmental efforts.

Patagonia's approach perpetually teeters on balancing pragmatism, quality, and environmental values.

If the company doesn't exist, it can't effect change. If a product doesn't perform a top-notch job, people won't buy it. There is a lot rolled into the phrase "Cause no unnecessary harm" [1]; I imagine it is a perpetual internal struggle within Patagonia.

[1] https://www.patagonia.com/core-values/

That's the thing tough. As it is now I think there are plenty of alternative outdoor brands that are doing a better job in this balancing act.

I'd be very interested to learn about some of them -- what are two or three that are top-of-mind for you?

Heaven forbid any company try to make anything in the world better by any means, then. I’m sure some clever person can find a way to criticize something about them! They probably make products for (shudder) coastal elites!

I am hitting the paywall. Is there really anything more to this argument than some Patagonia products rely on oil and mining? We are all hypocrites by that standard. There is no way to completely divorce yourself or your business from some of the ills of society. Therefore failing to do so shouldn't mean you lose the ability to criticize those ills.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com