Lessons from Patagonia's (Work in) Progress Report
14 November 2025 | 431 Words
The Californian outerwear brand, known for prioritizing planet and people, has published its first progress report since its founding 52 years ago. Here’s what companies can learn from their alternative approach to scaling a profitable and sustainable business.
With COP30 ongoing, one topic remains noticeably absent from the conference’s agenda: clothes, and the toll they take on our planet. Fitting for Patagonia to release its first progress report in its 52-year history this week. It presents trials and errors as well as successes, offering a blueprint to becoming an environmentally and fiscally responsible enterprise.
Patagonia presents an anomaly in today’s apparel business landscape. Despite belonging to the minority of profitable companies putting people and planet first for over half a century, founder Yvon Chouinard opens the report saying: “It has never felt more difficult”, lamenting the worsening state the earth finds itself in. This sentiment is emphasized by fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbering most delegations at the COP30 conference in Brazil, where ambassadors are meeting to discuss how to curb the accelerating climate crisis. While government intervention serves as a valuable tool to reign in the largely unregulated fashion industry, it seems as though change can only truly happen from within.
The report calls on companies to follow Patagonia’s lead in prioritizing people and planet. However, with no profit-driven incentive, this seems highly unlikely as applicable to the wider industry. Kenneth Pucker, contributor to the Business of Fashion and Professor for Sustainable Business Dynamics at Tufts University in Boston, disagrees. “There are many extensible approaches from Patagonia’s Work in Progress approach.” He names the internal carbon price, a practice where fees are applied internally to manufacturing steps, proportional to their carbon footprint — these fees result in savings that can be reinvested elsewhere.
For example, in electrifying the manufacturing process. If done right, relying on renewable energy is cheaper than relying on fossil fuels, though the expensive switch is what currently puts factories off. Kim Drenner, Head of Environmental Impact, calls on brands to stop gauging suppliers on production costs. She also believes local governments should take a bigger role in making green solutions a financially realistic energy alternative for manufacturers.
Pucker emphasises that other companies should “learn from Patagonia’s embrace of advocacy”. He refers to “New Rules” as an example — legislation that would raise fines on all brands selling in New York and California who do not provide supply-chain transparency and make over $100million in global revenue.
Supporting industry regulations would "ultimately benefit all brands, keep the playing field level and lift the floor for industry social and environmental practice and impact."