What Patagonia’s ‘gift to earth’ means for authenticity
Nick Rewcastle, Managing Director of New Reach PR, ponders in SportsPro
whether Patagonia’s lauded decision to commit all future profits towards protecting the planet could mark a shift in the meaning of brand authenticity.
Patagonia has ‘given their company to planet Earth’. In layman’s terms, what that means is that the ownership of the company has been transferred to two charitable trusts, allowing profits not required to be reinvested into the running of the business to go directly towards fighting the effect of climate change.
The brand claims that “instead of ‘going public’, you could say we’re ‘going purpose’.” It’s fair to say that sacrificing profit to instead give back to the planet is pretty purpose-led.
The news spread like wildfire across the US and overnight here in the UK, before we knew it, every daily was running it. It was even the second most read story on BBC News – yes, in the week after The Queen’s death.
However, the best thing about this was that it wasn’t a ‘PR activation’ from Patagonia – this is genuine. Patagonia embodies the definition of being a purpose-led business. It actually cares. We can’t ignore the fact that founder Yvon Chouinard (pictured above) is a billionaire, but the authenticity comes from the fact that instead of financial growth, he commits to giving back and to his values.
Chouinard has written an open letter detailing the reasons behind this decision. He claims that he never wanted to be a businessman, things escalated and before he knew it, Patagonia was what it was. He never wanted to be a billionaire, and just wants to do good – that ethos has resonated through the brand’s existence.
Now, Earth is Patagonia’s ‘only stakeholder’. It’s powerful, and everyone is talking about it. Could we regard this as the most authentic moment in business history?
For a few years now, in the rise of the purpose-led movement, and the need for brands to be seen to do good, the definition of authenticity has been scrutinised. Nobody has really come up with the answer. Perhaps unbeknown to Chouinard, we finally have our answer.
Is this the big shift that we needed in authentic action?
Share via:
About the Client
Team of the Week - 03.04.26
Team of the Week - 27.03.26
About the Client
Team of the Week - 20.03.26
Team of the Week - 13.03.26
Team of the Week - 06.03.26
A recent report from Sky News' Rob Harris has highlighted England players’ concerns about feeling pressured to speak out on political issues at major tournaments. Reading this was disappointing, but not surprising. It reflects a growing tension in modern sport: athletes sit at the centre of public conversation, yet many don’t feel supported, prepared or protected when that conversation turns political. Athlete platforms are powerful, their reach is undeniable. But that should not automatically mean they should be the frontline voices on every political or geopolitical issue. It's also fair to assume that not only to many not feel comfortable or qualified to hold that role. The burden of expectation Sporting bodies, brands and even fans now look to athletes to offer a stance whenever a sensitive global issue arises. The expectation is heavy, and the scrutiny is unforgiving. This raises an important question for the industry: Are we empowering athletes to use their platforms responsibly, or are we leaning on them to take positions that organisations themselves are hesitant to lead on? Too often, what starts as an opportunity for authenticity becomes a burden that athletes never asked to shoulder. Where athlete advocacy fits Athletes can, and do, drive meaningful social impact — especially when speaking from lived experience. And perhaps this is where the industry should be focusing its support. There is enormous value in athletes championing social and economic issues that feel natural, relevant and constructive, such as: Improving access to sport Inspiring participation Championing inclusivity Supporting community programmes Highlighting the health and wellbeing benefits of activity Addressing inequalities These are not 'soft' issues, ultimately they shape society and improve lives. This is where athletes are uniquely positioned to influence, without being dragged into politically charged territory. Who should really lead political conversations? If governing bodies, rights holders or organisations wish to take political or ethical positions, they should lead from the front — not rely on athletes to be the public face of those complexities. Athletes can support, amplify and add humanity to important discussions, b ut they should not be the default spokesperson for institutional viewpoints. As the role of athletes continues to evolve, the industry needs a clearer, more responsible framework for how we support them. That means: Giving athletes the freedom to choose if and how they speak Providing education, guidance and safeguarding when they do Reducing pressure to comment on politically sensitive issues Elevating athlete voices in areas where they have genuine authority Ensuring organisations do not outsource political leadership to individuals Ultimately, the goal should be to empower athletes — not overwhelm them. And back them up when they do. Their platforms are at their most powerful not when they’re forced into political commentary, but when they’re sharing stories, insights and perspectives that inspire participation, change communities and open doors for others.
Team of the Week - 27.02.26
Team of the Week - 20.02.26