Patagonia and sustainability Case Study

This report will provide analysis and recommendations for Patagonia’s sustainability initiatives. The analysis will examine the current state of the company’s sustainability initiatives. Best practices from the literature will be utilized to them make recommendations for how the company can improve, including what metrics it can utilize, and how it should approach sustainability from a marketing perspective.

The current approach to sustainability combines input and output measures. An input measure, for example, is the percentage of organic cotton that the company uses, based on evidence that shows organic cotton is less harmful to the environment than conventional cotton. Programs like Common Threads also reflect an input-based approach, as are the five Rs. These approaches start with program design, but they also operate largely on the assumption that these plans, if executed, will deliver results. There are fewer means by which the effectiveness of these programs are measured. Having specific output measures would help the company to make better decisions with regards to scarce resources – knowing which programs are the most effective is a pathway to making the right choices that have the maximum impact.

One of the solutions to the problem of finding measures is basically what Patagonia already does – “defining a set of pragmatic guidelines whereby a corporate entity can improve its environmental performance” (Atkinson, Hett & Newcombe, 1999). The second approach should also be adopted – it begins with outlining a formal definition of sustainability. Because every corporation is free to set this definition as they please, many focus on the areas that are of strategic or marketing interest. Patagonia should start with a set definition of sustainability, one that includes not only key inputs relating to fabric, water, and labor, but also should have a set of output-based measures regarding things like fossil fuel usage, energy usage, diversity and other issues. By focusing on specific output measures, the company can establish long- and medium-range plans to make steady improvements in these areas.

Many of these initiatives would also be tied to things like lean business practices. There are a number of companies that have realized that waste is one of the things that can be improved upon that will align sustainability with profitability. When you waste less, your business becomes more sustainable, but also your margins increase. Benchmarking against companies that focus on waste reduction is one of the areas where Patagonia can drive improvement for many years to come with respect to sustainability.

In general, Patagonia’s approaches are not especially innovative in terms of sustainability. The company’s programs are great, but there is actually quite a bit of room for improvement. The leaders in sustainability focus on a number of different areas, and have built sustainable practices into not just the organizational culture but into everything that they do. Patagonia was certainly innovative during its early years, but the company has maybe fallen back of the pack a bit lately, as other companies have taken the sustainability mantle to all aspects of their organization. Where something like Common Threads is a valuable initiative, it is also a sideline that does not cut straight to the core of Patagonia’s business. The company would survive just fine without it; at the most innovative companies their sustainability initiatives are essential to their success.

The “Don’t buy this Jacket” campaign was great marketing, but not at all successful in terms of sustainability. The fact that it sold a lot of jackets is exactly why – the message would have been effective in terms of sustainability had it been taken and adopted at face value. There are many things that Patagonia can do in terms of sustainable business, but if people are buying more – and clearly doing it without a whole lot of thought – then that particular campaign was not it.

Patagonia can very much continue to be profitable and encourage consumers to stop buying. The recommended messaging for that would be to focus purchases on high-quality items that can be repaired (something the company already does) and require fewer repurchases. Buying cheaper items made from less sustainable raw materials, and buying more often because of poor quality, encourages the disposable consumerism that Patagonia is against. Don’t Buy This Jacket was slightly different messaging that was less sustainable if taken literally, but encouraging mindful consumption is entirely compatible with sustainability. As a company that produces goods that fit with the mindful consumption model, Patagonia would be the beneficiary of increased mindful consumption.

A further recommendation would be to focus on lean practices. As noted, Patagonia’s campaigns are generally a sideline to their business – they are certainly not integral to the company’s operations. But a focus on efficiency and waste elimination can be something that cuts right to the core of the company’s business. Furthermore, lean efforts are quantifiable – the company can measure wasted materials, wasted energy, wasted water, and social responsibility initiatives like paying workers at their manufacturing contractors a living wage. By focusing on measurable outputs, the company will be able to showcase its successes in moving towards increased sustainability.

It is also recommended that Patagonia build marketing around that. For example, the company can create case studies that juxtapose its practices versus industry norms. The gains from buying Patagonia can be quantified, for example highlighting the benefits of buying a Patagonia jacket once every six or seven years (or more) versus buying a cheaper jacket every two years. Such a tactic would be a more concrete way of getting the consumer to think about consumption, and steer the consumer to Patagonia as a solution to conspicuous consumption rather than part of the problem.

Another recommendation for Patagonia would be to encourage specific practices. An example would be a social media campaign where followers can trade tips for sustainable practices, be those in terms of consumption of Patagonia goods (i.e. in nature) or in terms of donating to causes. There are some great ways for Patagonia to leverage its audience as an asset. It has 350,000 Twitter followers, 3 million Instagram followers and over 1 million Facebook followers. Leveraging that audience to behave in more sustainable ways will be more powerful than any single program that company can implement on its own.
All told, Patagonia’s sustainability efforts are starter efforts. Looking at what other companies are doing, it’s clear that Patagonia can do better – a more cohesive strategy that is tied to marketing, production and design will yield results much stronger than the mishmash of individual campaigns the company is currently pursuing. This is not to be too critical, just placing focus on how the company can do better going forward by benchmarking against best practices out there today.



References

Atkinson, G., Hett, T. & Newcombe, J. (1999) Measuring corporate sustainability CSERGE Working Paper GEC 99-01 Retrieved November 13, 2017 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6701/07a5c24718d8a9b73c05c56adf4ed2818ffc.pdf