Surfpolitik Patagonia: The Company I Hate to Love

In: Surfpolitik by 0 Comments Tue 24th Feb '09

Tags: Patagonia , greenwash , Billabong , Quiksilver , environment , stuart nettle

click to enlarge

Wayne Lynch, Patagonia's Australian ambassador

Stuart Nettle
February 19, 2009

There's a saying in politics that people get the leaders they deserve. That is, it's a democratic vote, the people control the process, and if there's a turkey of a politician in power, well... the majority of the people think he's OK.

A similar sentiment applies in business. Companies react to market demand, so if a company is engaged in unethical practices but are allowed to continue then it's because people think it's OK. The consumers control the process and they get the companies they deserve.

Simplistic? Sure, but as a general rule it works.

For the above reason, companies - and I'm thinking of surf companies - have adopted environmental measures in a very piecemeal way. Mostly as kneejerk reactions to short-term market trends; a quick cashing in on the everchanging whims of focus groups.

That they have implemented measures in this way says as much about us as consumers as it does about them as companies. And, on the whole, Australians have been a bit backward in adopting ethical consumerism.

Billabong, to it's credit, has introduced boardies made from recycled PET bottles and have been pushing a campaign titled 'Be The Change You Want In The World'. On their Australian website they also spruik the fact that one of their team riders has a high-powered thundercat that he uses to go fishing in.

Quiksilver dipped it's big toe into the green pool with it's 'Quiksilver Thinks Green' initiative, a month long campaign of recycled paper bags and organic cotton T-shirts. It happened for an entire month, back in September.

In contrast to this fragmentery and, in part contradictory, approach by the big surf companies, Patagonia - who recently opened their first Aussie store at Torquay - have an all-encompassing attitude to environmental and social issues. More than any other major company I know of they have taken the notion of corporate responsibility just as seriously as the capitalist imperative.

In that way they have challenged the traditional idea of the market controlling the demand.

You could mount a good argument that this is just savvy marketing on Patagonia's behalf until you realise that they implemented this program back in 1985, at the height of the greed decade. Who really would have cared about a company giving money to charities back in that era? Besides the people who run the company that is. That they cared enough to challenge the 80's zeitgeist gives their action more credence then is immediately evident.

Since 1985 Patagonia have donated approximately (US)$25 million to various environmental groups, mainly small grass-roots local groups. They also co-founded the 1% For The Planet alliance, a group of businesses which commit at least 1% of their total sales to environmental causes.

But despite their philanthropy Patagonia are sometimes (and disappointingly) not above employing hackneyed sentiments for the sake of turning a buck. For instance, from their website you can pay (AUD)$40 plus postage to buy a shirt that says 'Live Simply'. Well meaning, no doubt, yet hypocritical, no less.

And the environmental essays on their website spend too much time in cheese and corn territory rather than critically examining the complexity of human behaviour and it's deleterious affects on the earth.

But perhaps my standards are too high? Certainly their own standards are far higher than any of their competitors, and for that reason alone my conscience is more at ease spending coin with them.

However, I do wonder if the current Australian surfwear market could sustain other companies like Patagonia? Or there is only room for one company of their ilk? As I mentioned earlier we've been a bit slow on the uptake in considered consumerism, so with a limited size perhaps Patagonia have the green clothing market stitched up (boom, boom).

Yet ideally I'd like to see the day when it's no longer a niche market and the initiatives that Patagonia are famous for become the rule rather than the exception. But who jumps first? The consumers or the companies?

stuart@swellnet.com.au

Loading Comments