Patagonia was started by a rock climber who sold his hand-made climbing gear into the free market. He was well rewarded for doing so and from that was able to grow into the Patagonia many of us know and love today (indeed my favorite clothing company).
The company is not only run on a capitalist basis, it's the reason it exists in the first place.
But yeah, it's true they're more conscious and environmentally friendly than most. And I think they play an important role in pushing back against fast fashion, which is incredibly polluting and wasteful.
I believe that Patagonia cares about the environment and wishes there was more they could do, but I think they are absolutely driven by the forces of capitalism, whether they like it or not, and it’s visible in their current practices. They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. Yes they sprinkle in campaigns and messaging to not buy new unless you really need it and they facilitate recycling/reuse of their past products, but capitalism still forces them to seek growth, relevance, and sales to survive, which they do. Not faulting them for it, just wishing it wasn’t that way.
>They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year.
These are all things a regular entrepreneur would do whether they were capitalist or not.
Or any of _other peoples' money_ was involved.
Even when the only environment to operate in is recognized as overwhelmingly capitalist, a non-capitalist entrepreneur can still have some unfair advantages.
When you're selling all you can make for a profit long enough, you're supposed to be doing well depending only on business structure after that. Yes, you might have a disadvantage being surely influenced by the forces of capitalism, but it can often be done.
Also without growth as an articulated goal, the pressure of exponential demands can be appropriately moderated and more sustainable growth with better returns can still result compared to alternative leadership approaches which focus on growth most aggressively but still end up wishing they could do as well.
>If you want to understand the entrepreneur, study the juvenile delinquent. The delinquent is saying with his actions, _This sucks. I'm going to do my own thing._
I think you may be misusing the term “capitalist”. I always understood that it had more to do with the production side of a business than sales or long-term goals: the capitalist (a founder or investor) provides capital so that a business can acquire production facilities, and is entitled in return to a portion of the proceeds from the enterprise that he or she enabled. The business strategy and long-term vision can be anything the parties agree upon.
The closest thing I can think of to a private non-capitalist business would be one that relies on other companies to do the actual work and haven’t invested in their own production facilities. There are plenty of these around today, but that doesn’t appear to be what you’re referring to.
Patagonia was started by a rock climber who sold his hand-made climbing gear into the free market. He was well rewarded for doing so and from that was able to grow into the Patagonia many of us know and love today (indeed my favorite clothing company).
The company is not only run on a capitalist basis, it's the reason it exists in the first place.
But yeah, it's true they're more conscious and environmentally friendly than most. And I think they play an important role in pushing back against fast fashion, which is incredibly polluting and wasteful.
I believe that Patagonia cares about the environment and wishes there was more they could do, but I think they are absolutely driven by the forces of capitalism, whether they like it or not, and it’s visible in their current practices. They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. Yes they sprinkle in campaigns and messaging to not buy new unless you really need it and they facilitate recycling/reuse of their past products, but capitalism still forces them to seek growth, relevance, and sales to survive, which they do. Not faulting them for it, just wishing it wasn’t that way.
>They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year.
These are all things a regular entrepreneur would do whether they were capitalist or not.
Or any of _other peoples' money_ was involved.
Even when the only environment to operate in is recognized as overwhelmingly capitalist, a non-capitalist entrepreneur can still have some unfair advantages.
When you're selling all you can make for a profit long enough, you're supposed to be doing well depending only on business structure after that. Yes, you might have a disadvantage being surely influenced by the forces of capitalism, but it can often be done.
Also without growth as an articulated goal, the pressure of exponential demands can be appropriately moderated and more sustainable growth with better returns can still result compared to alternative leadership approaches which focus on growth most aggressively but still end up wishing they could do as well.
>If you want to understand the entrepreneur, study the juvenile delinquent. The delinquent is saying with his actions, _This sucks. I'm going to do my own thing._
__Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia
I think you may be misusing the term “capitalist”. I always understood that it had more to do with the production side of a business than sales or long-term goals: the capitalist (a founder or investor) provides capital so that a business can acquire production facilities, and is entitled in return to a portion of the proceeds from the enterprise that he or she enabled. The business strategy and long-term vision can be anything the parties agree upon.
The closest thing I can think of to a private non-capitalist business would be one that relies on other companies to do the actual work and haven’t invested in their own production facilities. There are plenty of these around today, but that doesn’t appear to be what you’re referring to.
1 reply →
What definition of "capitalism" are you using?
Patagonia certainly seems to exist in a world of private ownership, private investment decisions, and voluntary exchanges in a free market.