So, you can’t participate in commerce and criticize or attempt to reform anything about it. Seems ridiculous to me. It seems like using your power and position to attempt to affect change just realistic, rather than some imagined high minded idea that just closing up shop and wandering into the woods is the only way to participate in any system one deems to have unethical aspects of any kind at any level.

That's not at all the case, none of the companies they refused were in their supply chain. Also that's a ridiculous argument, you use this product that EVERYONE in the world uses and modern society demands, but you don't have the right to criticize it? So mining and petroleum companies are allowed to do what ever they want. I can't advocate for cleaner energy because I drive a gas powered vehicle? I can't work towards renewable electricity because I currently use carbon fuel based electricity (the only kind available to me)? It's absurd and a absolutely absurd argument to lay at Patagonia.

But it’s a great argument if you want to derail a discussion about reform. Instead of talking about reforming mining industry or reducing single use plastic, you can get everything focused on “hypocrisy” and who should be able to criticize and how genuine Patagonia really is. It’s a great argument if you know what it is actually trying to do.

Totally, it's the low hanging fruit of the political discussion. Someone says something that should change, instead of attacking the argument they point and yell look they aren't perfect!!! We can't listen to them.