The debate around whether Patagonia is greenwashing is intensifying in 2025, as its first full Work in Progress impact report reveals both standout climate leadership moves and uncomfortable gaps on emissions, materials, and circularity.
Big Climate Moves And Radical Transparency
Patagonia’s unique ownership model funnels almost all profits not reinvested in the business to the Holdfast Collective, which has received around 180 million dollars since 2022, alongside a long‑standing 1% of revenue pledge via 1% for the Planet.
The 2025 report highlights repair and durability, backed by tools like the Ironclad Quality Index and a global program that repaired about 174,799 products in FY25, plus the Worn Wear resale model and one of the largest apparel repair infrastructures in the U.S.—though resale still accounts for only about 1% of total revenue, or roughly 13 million dollars on ~1.47 billion dollars in annual sales. Around 84% of fabrics and trims by weight are now “preferred” materials, and Patagonia holds certifications including B Corp, GRS, and Regenerative Organic Certified.
Emissions Going The Wrong Way
Despite a pledge to reach net‑zero by 2040, Patagonia’s total greenhouse gas footprint increased by about 2% in FY25 compared with FY24, to roughly 182,646 metric tons CO₂e, and sits somewhere in the high‑teens to mid‑twenties percent above its 2017 baseline depending on the source.
The company attributes this rise largely to a shift towards more carbon‑intensive categories such as packs and duffels, even as it scales preferred materials and removes “forever chemicals” from fabrics, while more than 90% of emissions remain locked upstream in raw materials and manufacturing across supply chains in Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Indonesia, making it extremely challenging to decarbonise at scale.
Materials, Circularity And People Gaps
Patagonia reports that about 80% of its synthetic materials are now recycled, but the remaining 20% are still virgin fossil‑fuel‑based—even as annual revenue sits near 1.47 billion dollars. Its goal to hit 100% preferred materials by 2025 has been missed at roughly 84% “preferred”, and fibers like spandex remain over 96% virgin.
On circularity, Patagonia aimed for 50% of recycled synthetics to come from “secondary waste” streams such as textile waste or discarded fishing nets by 2025, but has reached only about 6%, while only around 1% of products are returned for recycling and just 20% of those can actually be processed, leaving an effective recycling rate near 0.2%.
On people, Patagonia notes that roughly 95% of its factories are Fair Trade Certified and all pay at least minimum wage, yet external analysis suggests only about 39% of relevant facilities currently deliver a verified living wage, and many of the same suppliers are also used by fast‑fashion brands such as Primark, underlining how difficult it is to transform labour conditions in outsourced, low‑wage production hubs.
Is Patagonia Greenwashing?
Patagonia opens its Work in Progress report with the line “Nothing we do is sustainable” and goes on to document failures, missed targets, and rising emissions in a level of detail that is rare for a major fashion brand, which is why several analysts argue this is not classic greenwashing. Instead, they point to a perception gap: public reverence for Patagonia as a uniquely sustainable company is “out of proportion” to the reality of growing absolute emissions, heavy ongoing dependence on synthetics, and very limited end‑of‑life solutions.
Experts suggest that if future disclosures—such as FY26—repeat the same structural problems while marketing still leans heavily on planet‑saving narratives, accusations of greenwashing will likely intensify; for now, Patagonia looks like a highly imperfect but unusually transparent global brand that is still far from sustainable, yet significantly ahead of many peers that disclose less and do less.
