Chouinard is quoted about this in the article:

“But I’ve become cynical about whether we can have any influence,” Chouinard said. “Everyone’s just greenwashing. The revolution isn’t going to happen with corporations. The elephant in the room is growth. Growth is the culprit.”

> “Everyone’s just greenwashing. The revolution isn’t going to happen with corporations. The elephant in the room is growth. Growth is the culprit.”

Unchecked growth is one of the hallmarks of cancer. Kind of an interesting analogy.

Is there any theory/ideas about how a "post-growth" economy would/could function?

There are many, it's a very old, very well thought-out tradition. Try reading Kropotkin, or from a more modern perspective, Richard Wolff.

However, it doesn't align with the current vision of orthodox Western capitalism, so it isn't particularly popular in mainstream media or culture.

What is the problem with companies offering sales?

No problem with companies putting something on sale.

One of their values is that:

"We know that our business activity—from lighting stores to dyeing shirts—is part of the problem. We work steadily to change our business practices and share what we’ve learned. But we recognize that this is not enough. We seek not only to do less harm, but more good."

Running sales, just generates more impulse purchases and consumerism. If the products they make are truly the best that they can, they wouldn't have the need to clear out stock on a regular basis and to make way for new styles being made all the time.

Furthermore, they love to plaster their branding all over the "Big Oil, Don't Surf" campaigns (of which I do think is a good cause), but it's a little hypocritic when the surf industry wouldn't exist without oil, not to mention that their own wetsuits contain synthetic rubber (derived from oil).

But their wetsuits are 85% natural rubber, by far leading the industry. https://www.patagonia.com/yulex-natural-rubber-wetsuits.html

Some people simply won't purchase unless it is on sale. Better to own one quality pair of shorts than two cheaper mediocre pairs. Also, advocating for drastic reductions of oil extraction does not mean you have to give up oil completely. The world is in trouble not because we use oil, but because we use way, way too much of it when viable alternatives exist.

This is clearing out products that haven't sold. Making sure they find a home instead of having to get rid of them in the trash.

Patagonia has admitted that at the end of the day, they are a company in a capitalist society. They know, and have said many times, it's better to re-use or keep longer what you have than to buy something new. But at the end of the day, do you want to buy from a company that does absolutely nothing for the environment or a company that at least, tries to minimize their impact? They are probably one of the best company out there when it comes to sustainability.

Let's stop trying to bring down the companies that are actually doing better and criticize the companies that do absolutely nothing. Perfect is the enemy of good.

> Running sales, just generates more impulse purchases and consumerism

You probably didn't hear of their "Don't buy this jacket" campaign: https://www.patagonia.com/blog/2011/11/dont-buy-this-jacket-... They also promote buying used items through their WornWear program.

If people didn't buy from Pata, they'd probably be giving their money to TNF or Columbia or some other company that is far worse for the environment. None of the others are certified B corporations. I'm glad it exists as a better option, even if it's not perfectly zero impact.

Everything has an impact.

The ultimate act of conservation is suicide. Few are that committed. We are all hypocrites.

I think doing something positive with you life (e.g. advocating for people to make responsible procreation decisions) could give you a net positive existence. I think advocating people commit suicide isn't going to win you many adherents though (unless you have a really cool story about where you go after suicide, e.g. Heaven's Gate :P).

Patagonia runs sales partially for the same reason anyone else does, which is to clear out inventory that didn’t sell at full price.

But unlike most other companies, Patagonia also plans ahead for some inventory to go at sale prices, in order to serve dirtbag outdoors lifers who would never pay full price... the same sort of people who started Patagonia a long time ago.

This was explained to me by a Patagonia sales rep about 20 years ago when I worked retail. I assume it’s still true because their end of season sales still seem to have prime inventory in them.

> Surely if they truly wanted to minimise their impact on the planet, they would rid their stores of sales and cut back on the amount of new styles/designs that they release.

Yes-- if Patagonia weren't a capitalist endeavor it would have a smaller impact on the planet. :)

I'd venture to guess that the largest minimization occurs because their customers can wear a large number of their garments for a decade or more before they begin to break down due to normal wear and tear. Moreover, one could send back any garment from any period in their history (barring underwear) and if it's salvageable they'll repair it. Their refurbishing program even supports at least one brick-and-mortar refurbished clothing store that I know of.

Can you imagine the environmental impact if Apple had anything resembling such a program? Or hell, if Apple simply ceased lobbying against the right-to-repair...