Patagonia’s Progress Report Cliff Notes
By Hannah Mae, November 2025
Patagonia’s recent release of what they call an Impact “Work in Progress” Report is more than radical transparency — it’s an admission and an acknowledgment that, regardless of all the incredible work they’ve done in conservation and responsible business, it is never enough.
And after reviewing all 156 pages, I’m coming to terms with the truth: this isn’t impact, it’s harm reduction. It’s an honest confrontation with the reality that standard business practices create harm.
This is an admission that nobody’s perfect — not even the best.
Some might read this as hopeless: if one of the most ethical companies in the world is acknowledging that the problem is too big, then what chance does anyone else have?
But hope shouldn’t be lost.
Here, Patagonia is offering a playbook — a template — for any company looking to make a difference.
It is a report that is finally telling the truth about the scale of the challenge, and in that honesty there’s real opportunity to work together and make meaningful strides.
In the spirit of business-unusual and using business as a force for good, I’ve spent way too much time nerding out on this — reporting transparency is my love language — so here are the cliff notes and highlights that stood out most to me.
Patagonia: “No company we’re aware of—including our own—truly gives back as much or more than it takes. What we can do is be fully accountable for our impact: we recognize the damage we cause, and we do what we can to reduce and repair that damage.”
Our Take: MIC DROP. The truth is, your footprint will always be larger than anything you can do to “make up” for it. Risk mitigation and harm reduction is a step in the right direction, but net zero harm is impossible at nearly any scale. Let’s be honest with ourselves. BUT this recognition of reality is not permission to give up. Mitigation and harm reduction still matters.
Patagonia: “Currently, we are not in scope to report for Europe’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Over the past two years, we’ve put in substantial effort to prepare for it.”
Our Take: The European CSRD initiative is a regulation that currently requires certain companies to report their environmental and social impact, with the intent of bringing all companies into reporting compliance within the next nine years. The ripple effects of these regulations are already significant—and we’re here for it.
Patagonia regarding decarbonization: “Back when we set this goal, it was a bold target. But the more we learned, the more we rejected the idea of buying offsets while continuing to pollute. So we ditched that goal and upped the ante: clean up our supply chain, stop polluting in the first place, and reach net-zero emissions by 2040.”
(they again reiterated further in the report.)
“In 2018, we announced efforts to achieve carbon neutrality across our entire business by 2025. But balancing out emissions with offsets felt like purchasing the passing grade. So in 2021, we set our sights on true net-zero GHG, as defined by the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), by 2040.”
Our Take: 👏 Thank you for saying this out loud — more people need to recognize that purchasing offsets, though potentially well intended, are not addressing root causes like operational inefficiencies, over production, poor supply chains, and bad quality products.
Again further in the report Patagonia states: “The climate crisis is an existential threat, and every part of Patagonia’s business is implicated. Nearly 99% of our emissions come from our supply chain. We take responsibility for all of it, so decarbonizing our supply chain is a crucial part of reducing our emissions.”
Our Take: “99% of our emissions come from our supply chain.” Please enter supply chain management team! This is such a huge point that most business don’t consider — all supplies has a footprint: inks, apparel, swag, office supplies, building materials, ingredients, containers, packaging, cleaning supplies, tech hardware — everything has an origin story.
Patagonia regarding long term pay off social and environmental investments: “Even when something costs more upfront—like absorbing the added expense of Fair Trade or switching to organic cotton—it tends to pay off in more ways than one. This commitment builds loyalty and supports long-term health.”
Our Take: In order to donate over $180 million they must be doing something right and it really drives home the sentiment ‘no money, no mission.’
Patagonia regarding their partnerships: “By aligning our business with these institutions, we are putting progress over perfection and acknowledging that this is not a one-time project, but simply how we do business.” —Charlie Bischoff, Director of Treasury
Our Take: There’s been some criticism on LinkedIn about Patagonia and supposed “greenwashing” (though after reading this report, I’m struggling to see it). It’s important to remember: progress is still progress. I genuinely don’t understand the criticism—would you rather buy from SHEIN or Patagonia? Don’t let a company’s lack of perfection cloud your sense of perspective.
Patagonia’s response to recent business difficulties: “There’s no getting around it—the 2025 fiscal year was tough. Changes in the global economy, shifts in how people shop, and the rising costs of doing business pushed us to make hard decisions. We restructured parts of the company and ended some programs we cared deeply about. These changes impacted many people, and we didn’t take them lightly.”
[…] In 2025, some of our choices felt aligned for some employees and at odds for others. We faced real tension between holding true to our purpose and facing economic realities. That tension isn’t something we’re trying to smooth over—it’s something we’re working through.
To do that, we’re getting better at listening. In the past, we relied on a single annual engagement survey to gauge how employees were doing. This year, we began collecting feedback more frequently to help us track what’s working and where support is needed.”
Our Take: Like those silly click-bait headlines say: this is a masterclass in effective employee management. They’re realistic about expectations, and they keep reiterating their commitments instead of hiding from the hard parts.
Why I love this response so much:
It’s transparent about business challenges—both external pressures and internal realities.
It acknowledges shortcomings, which honestly feels like the theme of this entire report.
They continue to iterate. No policy or procedure is permanent, and a solution that worked for years may not rise to the occasion in a new economic era.
This is good shit—take note.
Patagonia: Note ‘tenure’ chart above.
Our Take: The proof is in the pudding: check out that evidence! Almost 50% of their employees have been with the company for 5+ years and not to mention the nearly 25% 10+ years. Think about all the time saved training new employees, all of the legacy knowledge retained, and the ability to continue to refine workflows… * chef’s kiss *
Patagonia: “For the M10® Anorak, we dropped in some car-battery tech. Most porous membranes for garments are made chemically, requiring a solvent bath and resulting in randomly sized holes. But automakers developed a nanoporous membrane made mechanically—stretching the material to create uniform nano-sized holes. The Xpore® membrane in the M10 Anorak is made the same way.”
Our Take: What we’re calling out here is cross-industry innovation. The importance of stepping out of silos, looking beyond your own sector, and borrowing brilliance from unexpected places cannot be overstated. This is how real sustainability gains are made—by refusing to accept “how it’s always been done” and staying curious enough to try something completely different.
Patagonia: “Poorly made products drive waste, pollution, and overconsumption—outcomes that conflict with our purpose.”
Our Take: This cannot be overstated.
Patagonia regarding regenerative agriculture in cotton farming: “The demand is the most frustrating part—it’s difficult for sourcing teams to plan how much cotton they’ll need years in advance, and without an upfront commitment from brands, farmers and suppliers don’t have the incentive they need to make the transition worthwhile.”
That’s why we advocate for regulated reporting and broader government regulation—especially in a time when those regulations are rolling back at an alarming rate.”
Average premium paid to Organic Cotton Accelerator farmers in addition to market price: 10%.”
Our Take: Talk about an industry disruptor — Patagonia is going above and beyond, they’re making systematics changes. But the honest admission here is that they can’t do it themselves.
Our Take: The number we’re calling out here is the 89,806 workers in Patagonia’s supplier factories. Compare that to the 3,716 people Patagonia employs directly. That means their supply-chain workforce is more than 2,300% larger than the team they have immediate control over.
Jaw drop.
This is a TRUE business footprint and it’s important not to lose that perspective. What do you think your business footprint really is and how is business conduct and expectations affecting those people?
Patagonia regarding their international workforce: “Workers in the apparel industry are some of the lowest paid in the world.”
“When we started working on living wages in our supply chain 10 years ago, no company had ever broached the topic with our factories before.” —Rachel Kepnes, Manager of Social Impact and Compliance
“As part of our road map, we conducted pilots with factories over the past few years to determine how we as a brand can support wage increases through productivity gains or reviewing the compensation structure.”
Our Take: Responsibility has to start somewhere, and too often businesses don’t look beyond their own immediate employees. Patagonia is acknowledging that their greatest impact—and greatest obligation—lives in the factories they don’t directly control.
Our Take: I’ve been exploring this idea lately: so many nonprofits and community initiatives exist to counterbalance the harm created by businesses—cleaning polluted waterways, addressing carbon emissions, responding to food deserts left by monopolized grocery chains, even absorbing the fallout of homelessness driven by unchecked development.
So when Patagonia says they view their philanthropy not as charity but as the cost of doing business, that feels like the right outlook. Harm done is harm done, and taking responsibility for it isn’t generosity—it’s accountability.
Patagonia regarding ‘renewable energy’: “The truth is that many energy sources labeled “renewable” have significant negative impacts. For example, hydropower coming from large and small dams and reservoirs, while making up the majority of the renewable energy mix in many regions, is far from zero-carbon or emissions-free.
Our Take: 👏 Slow 👏 clap 👏. It’s hard to see beyond what we’re told, and “renewable” or “clean” energy is often a misnomer. Not all designated renewables are created equal, and many still carry significant environmental impacts. I haven’t seen a definitive study naming the “cleanest” option—the verdict is still out. In the meantime, the first step toward reducing harm is acknowledging that harm exists. Patagonia’s transparency here is refreshing (and they’ve been calling out the impacts of dams for years). We need more honest language in this space—“diversified energy” or “alternative energy”—not blanket labels that hide the trade-offs.
With that, I’d love to hear input and thoughts from your biggest take aways!