[Snowshovel]

A trust to be created and profits spun into the world and climate https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/

[Cyclopath]

Some people are so poor they have nothing but money. This is a great counter example!

[Route Loser]

This looks like a very tax-efficient method of transferring voting control to heirs. And at least as promising a marketing strategy as "Don't buy this jacket." Undoubtedly some profits will continue to fund effective conservation efforts. Undoubtedly some will be wasted on ineffectual contributions, and political contributions unrelated to the stated mission. Employees will continue to be exceedingly pleased with their jobs compared to most other businesses, but when Chouinard decided, "there were no good options" for the future of the company, he seemingly forgot a transfer of some portion of control and/or value to the people who create the value.

[Waterman]

Chouinard has demonstrated in the past that he cares about his employees and the environment ,and is more than willing to put his money on the line. Show me any businessman who has done as much good other than his buddy Tompkins. The guy is a inspiration.

[Pyrites]

An article from northern Cascadia. $100m cad donation to BC Parks https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/chip-wilson-nature-donation-1.6584267

[Sculpin]

[Bosterson]

I'm curious who you mean by the "people who create the value" - the employees? (And if so, which? just the retail/business side? the 3rd party vendors across the world who literally create the materials and products?) Or do you mean public ownership - ie, to the people who are the ones buying the products and making the company money? Functionally this seems no different from last week - the Chouinard family and their inner circle still choose the direction of the company, but the business profits no longer flow to the private owners (the family). Patagonia used to allocate a certain amount of money as a kind of internal grant program that the employees could vote to distribute to charities, etc. To the extent that they are structuring it now so that all business profits will now be charitably distributed (vs accruing to owners), I understood the "dividend" reference to just be an explanation of how the profits pass from the business into its new charitable structure to be distributed.

[Route Loser]

[Cyclopath]

I think the money is more important than control over what color next year's fleece will be. This climate crisis is just getting started and already devistating; sure there are other causes too and that's a game people can play no matter what causes somebody supports.

[Anne Elk]

[Route Loser]

[Secret Agent Man]

Some can snipe at Chouinard, and some of the critiques are probably legitimate, but is there any major outdoor company better? Unless someone is making their own outdoor clothes out of wool from the sheep they herd, we're all participating in a capitalist system, and the best we can do is reduce our harm. I can't sew my own jackets or smith my own ice axes so I have to buy stuff from somebody. Patagonia, both before and after this step, seem to be doing it better than any of the competition. Their products are pretty dang good too. Bravo, I say.

[Randito]

Hey if the NFL can organize as a non-profit, why not Patagonia?

[Snowshovel]

I think Chouinard thought that employee owned companies will always be in someone’s sights. Black Diamond is now part of Clarus

[Kim Brown]

From the article: Here’s how it works: 100% of the company’s voting stock transfers to the Patagonia Purpose Trust, created to protect the company’s values; and 100% of the nonvoting stock had been given to the Holdfast Collective, a nonprofit dedicated to fighting the environmental crisis and defending nature. The funding will come from Patagonia: Each year, the money we make after reinvesting in the business will be distributed as a dividend to help fight the crisis. Holdfast Collective is a 501(c) 4 , which allows political contributions, unlike 501 (c) 3's, which cannot endorse politics. Both the Trust and the Collective have bylaws/Mission statements they're bound to, per IRS regs. Holdfast Collective is also a Certified B corporation. I have never heard of that, so googled it. It holds them to the standard of that designation; it's of no IRS or legal consequence, but if their certification is yanked, it would be something that would be noticed. The Trust and Holdfast should ensure the certification remains intact. It's like Charity Navigator, EnviroStar, or BBB, Dun & Bradstreet - not necessary but something to advertise and hold itself accountable. Interesting stuff.