One thing I’ve been saying a lot lately (most often when talking about The Carrot Project and its grand ambitions) is that the world needs a thousand Patagonias, that quite possibly WAY more useful (effective, world-saving, awesome for everyone and everything) than virtuous governments or powerful activists or a well-funded, well-organized philanthropic sector would be a thundering herd of businesses that care.
And it’s an enjoyable thought. Makes me smile to imagine a world in which lots of main stream companies define themselves by their crunchiness. But, yesterday, after writing about bottled water, language, and marketing, I started getting a little nervous about choosing Patagonia as THE example of a business worth celebrating.
Are they really all that sustainable?
I mean I do love reading things like this:
Here [the Leading the Examined Life section of Patagonia’s website] we’ll examine Patagonia’s life and habits as a company. The idea is to give more of our practices some air and thought, and to change habits often played out on an industrial scale, with concomitant effects. We’ve been in business long enough to know that when we can reduce or eliminate a harm, other businesses will be eager to follow suit.
But do they mean it?
And is it really possible that the Footprint Chronicles, something that capitalism wouldn’t let exist unless it had marketing value, are not only marketing but also transparency?
I believe it. But it’d definitely be a lot easier to believe it if it weren’t so exceptional.