Six lessons Patagonia’s 2025 Impact Report teaches us about becoming a truly sustainable business

What if our best is never going to be good enough? 

As someone who works in energy and sustainability, I read Patagonia’s 2025 “Work In Progress” impact report through an intoxicating veil of admiration, dread and relief. Admiration because very few companies have embedded impact into their DNA as deeply as Patagonia and yet are so brutally honest about the challenges that real sustainability presents. Dread, because the report lays bare how even an impact-first company is struggling in its battle against Scope 3 supply chain emissions, thermal energy locked into fossil fuels, and policy changes that continually widen the gap between intent and impact. And relief because, in saying the quiet part out loud — literally stating “nothing we do is sustainable” — Patagonia is confronting our “wicked problems” head on and forcing itself to come up with ideas to tackle them. 

Patagonia’s report shows that, on almost every impact target it has set for itself, the company is struggling. Its emissions continue to rise (+2% year-over-year, at last count), in the face of a 2040 net zero goal; it has yet to stamp out the scourge of foreign migrant worker fees for the staff that make its products; and after 20 years of effort it still hasn’t completely eliminated PFAS (forever chemicals) from its products. Numerous shortfalls and failures are listed - not in small print, but in stoic emphasis. 

Yet Patagonia’s admissions here are not defeatist — they’re clarifying, even inspiring. The report reframes sustainability from a marketing promise into a discipline of continuous impact reduction, honest accounting, and rigorous trade-off management. For companies that want to build a durable sustainability strategy and deliver real impact, this report offers some pragmatic lessons. Here are six. 

First, structure drives behavior. Patagonia’s purpose-led governance structure, anchored by the Patagonia Purpose Trust and a benefit corporation charter, ensures each decision is evaluated against people, the planet, and business reality. This isn’t a slogan, it’s a system: the company has a board finance, impact, and risk committee. These mechanisms embed impact targets into budgets, link executive oversight to emissions and labor metrics, and create cross-functional accountability, within a structure that can withstand leadership changes, market shocks, and quarterly pressure. 

Second, targets must align with science. Patagonia replaced its former carbon neutrality goal by setting a 2040 net zero emissions goal, validated by the Science-Based Targets initiative. That transition raises the bar on accountability and forces investment where it matters: decarbonizing Scope 3, where nearly 99% of the firm’s footprint resides. 

Third lesson: go where the emissions are, not where the PR is. Patagonia’s FY25 footprint — 182,646 metric tons of CO2e — comes mostly from heat and steam in textile mills, not office lights. They addressed this with coal phaseout requirements; electrification studies across Taiwan, China and Japan; and a practical toolkit to help mills switch to industrial heat pumps, electric steam boilers and thermal oil systems. They also did the unfashionable work of financing supplier transitions, signing multi-year agreements to de-risk capital upgrades. One pilot — a steam boiler replacement in Taiwan is projected to cut 27,500 tons of CO2e annually, roughly 30% of the facility’s footprint. These actions represent the type of bold contract innovation that it will take to meaningfully reduce Scope 3. 

Fourth: transparency as an operating principle. Patagonia’s double materiality assessment under Europe’s CSRD framework looked across 90+ topics, engaging management, employees, customers, suppliers and ambassadors. Greenhouse gas emissions surfaced as the most material topic, and the report openly tracks areas of progress and shortfall: 98% renewable electricity in owned operations (still working on the last 2%); 100% of new products made without intentionally added PFAS; 6% of synthetics from secondary waste — well below the 50% goal. This candor is valuable: it prevents complacency, focuses capital, and invites scrutiny that improves outcomes. 

Fifth point: growth must be conditional. Patagonia acknowledges that more products mean more emissions, waste, and strain. They walked away from Meta advertising on principle, and they’re leaning into resale for durable gear. That’s not anti-growth; it’s growth that measures costs upfront, setting benchmarks, and being willing to say no when expansion compromises values. Every company should develop its own version of what Patagonia calls the “bonsai approach,” to shape growth deliberately and with intention. 

Finally, sustainability is systems work, not brand theater. Patagonia’s report calls out the need for enabling policy; for grid-level storage; highlights the limitations of biomass for heat; and emphasizes the importance of industry and stakeholder collaboration — something the Scandinavians know as cooperative advantage. Tone matters: no “shiny object” tech indulgence, no victory laps — just open-source tools, supplier contracts, and semiannual leadership updates that tie decarbonization to financial planning. 

Why does this honesty matter? Because it resets expectations. If the most purpose-built apparel company admits “nothing we do is sustainable,” then the rest of us can stop pretending sustainability has an endpoint. Honesty turns sustainability into risk management, whether it’s regulation, supply chain disruption or reputation, and into strategy on product design, procurement, finance, and governance. It also accelerates learning: when leaders publish what didn’t work, where they’re behind, and how they plan to course-correct, others can adopt and improve those practices faster. 

So why are Patagonia’s observations vital for all companies, even those not prioritizing sustainability? Because climate and nature risk are business risk. Energy volatility, regulatory shifts, consumer trust, and supply chain stability will shape margins and market access across every sector. Even if you don’t share Patagonia’s purpose, you will share Patagonia’s constraints. The sooner firms build honest, science-aligned, governance-backed programs that tackle Scope 3, finance supplier transitions, and report progress without spin, the better prepared they’ll be for what’s to come. 

Earth is no easy boss. But with the kind of clear-eyed transparency and systems-level action Patagonia models, we can move from slogans to impact that is imperfect, iterative, and real, together.