Last February, the CEO of Patagonia, perhaps the world’s most conservation-minded outdoor gear and clothing company, spoke to eager business students and outdoor-industry professionals at the University of Colorado at Boulder. CEO Casey Sheahan’s message was simple: Companies can do right by the environment and society and still turn a profit.
Sheahan’s talk was peppered with examples of Patagonia’s investment in conservation. Its parking lot is covered with solar panels; it supports efforts to restore the desiccated Colorado River Delta. But the tension between commerce and conservation surfaced when Sheahan showed an ad the company ran in The New York Times the day after Thanksgiving. Below a picture of a cool, new Patagonia jacket, the headline blared, “Don’t Buy This Jacket.” The text explained:
Because Patagonia wants to be in business for a good long time — and leave a world inhabitable for our kids — we want to do the opposite of every other business today. We ask you to buy less and to reflect before you spend a dime on this jacket or anything else.
Somewhat to his surprise, Sheahan said, the ad, “didn’t hurt us a bit. Sales were up on Black Friday 19 percent; sales for Cyber Monday were up 28 percent. It was reverse psychology — an interesting experiment.”
To the cynic, this kind of “experiment” simply reinforces the notion that companies’ green leanings only go as far as the bottom line. But the reality is more complicated than that. The industry first flexed its muscles in Salt Lake City back in 2003. Spurred on by CEO Peter Metcalf of Black Diamond Equipment, the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) confronted Utah’s governor over a deal he’d cut with the Bush administration to remove protection from millions of acres of public lands.
The industry said, in effect: “Back off, governor, or we’ll take our industry’s lucrative Outdoor Retailer trade shows to another city.” The governor did back off, even setting up an outdoor industry advisory committee to give industry leaders a voice on public lands decisions.
Since that showdown, the industry’s commitment to conservation in the West has grown. Through the OIA and its sister organization, the Conservation Alliance, companies regularly funnel grants to conservation groups, send delegations to Washington, D.C., to lobby for protection of the public lands used by their customers, and back sympathetic political candidates through a political action committee.
Yet, ultimately, the industry’s contribution to conservation remains minuscule. The roughly 200-member Conservation Alliance doled out only a little over $1 million in grants last year. This is welcome money for lean nonprofits, but it’s also pocket change compared to what extractive industries spend to gain access to public lands. A new OIA report calculated that consumers spend some $646 billion annually on outdoor recreation, generating more than six million jobs and $80 billion in state and federal taxes. Surely an industry so robust could do more to support conservation, both financially and politically.
Now, Utah is once again giving the industry an opportunity to step up its game. The current governor, Republican Gary Herbert, has rekindled the debate over wildlands protection by laying claim to 19,000 miles of rights of way across federal lands and signing a bill demanding that the federal government cede 22 million acre of national forest and BLM land to the state.
Peter Metcalf, whose $150 million climbing-gear company is based in Utah, is once again speaking out. On July 12, he quit the governor’s advisory group and called on his industry to take a stand in support of wildlands. Meanwhile, the Outdoor Retailer show says it may need to find another home than Salt Lake City, which lacks space for a growing number of vendors and attendees. The departure of the two annual retailer shows, which generate approximately $40 million annually in direct spending, would be a bitter economic pill for Salt Lake and the governor to swallow.
Will the outdoor industry have enough power and determination to get the governor to back down? Whatever happens, the outdoor recreation industry needs to start walking its talk to become the force for conservation it claims to be.
Editor’s Note: Although we usually let opinion pieces run without comment whether we agree with all their points or not, in this case we feel it deserves additional information. At this year’s Outdoor Retailer trade show the OIA issued a fairly blunt ultimatum to the governor of Utah to stop his feud over roadless rules and federal land. The author also fails to point out other initiatives that companies take on their own to directly fund groups ranging from the Access Fund to the International Mountain Biking Association. The $1 million given to Conservation Alliance — of which Adventure Journal is a member — is only part of what the industry gives to the environment, including that many companies “tithe” to 1 Percent for the Planet.
In affiliation with High Country News. Environmental coverage made possible in part by support from Patagonia. For information on Patagonia and its environmental efforts, visit www.patagonia.com.
The Daily Bike: Mountain Bike Enduro World Series Kicks Off
Overlandia: Driving a 1936 Rolls Royce Across India
15 Seconds: Driving Indian Creek, Utah
The Man Who Skied Down Everest Climbs it at 80
National Avalanche Legend Doug Abromeit Passes Away
Smokey Is Fighting Fracking and the Feds Don’t Like It
Prickly, Beloved Mountain Gazette Print Version Shut Down
Historical Badass: Alpinist Alex Lowe
Volunteer Fired at Saguaro National Park for Reporting Graffiti
Sierra Club Joins Lawsuit Against Mountain Bike Park
Driver Busted After Bragging on Twitter About Hitting Cyclist
The Daily Bike: Les Granges du Galibier, Giro d’Italia 2013
15 Seconds: Boiling Clouds
The List: The 10 Things You REALLY Need on a River Trip
















{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
ad for patagonia?! sponsored in part by patagonia?! muddled rehashing of other peoples’ reporting rife with conflicts of interests… perhaps you should have followed patagonia’s advice: “don’t buy this story.”
The fact that Patagonia underwrites Adventure Journal’s environmental coverage will always leave us open to accusations of conflict of interest. We are more aware of this than anyone and accept it as a cost of gaining the support that enables us to bring you environmental stories every single day — more than any other outdoor media outlet. Those of you who know us personally know, I hope, that Adventure Journal was founded on the basis of integrity — to make decisions about what we cover and how we cover it without regard to advertisers, potential advertisers, or commercial interests. Having worked for countless commercial print publications, I can assure that’s far from common, and when I launched AJ it was to do things differently. Some three years down the road, I hope the proof is in the pudding.
For the majority of you who don’t know us personally, I would hope that over time you have or will come to trust our integrity through the stories we post, through our transparency, and through our willingness to acknowledge and address mistakes or lapses of judgment.
As for Patagonia and its support, there’s no question that it forces us into some challenging decision making — but not, as you might think, about what to cover or how to cover it. Every time I’ve assigned a piece to writer where Patagonia might be involved, the instructions have been to treat them the same as any other company, for better or worse. No, if anything, my concerns are not about the substance of the pieces, because I know they aren’t, but the perception that they might be swayed in one or another by Patagonia’s support.
Now, as to this piece in particular, I find it curious that you would accuse us, I’m not sure what, exactly…duplicity? conflict of interest?…because it is at its heart a criticism of both Patagonia and the outdoor industry. If we truly were concerned about not offending Patagonia, we wouldn’t have run it at all. Personally, I think the story is a mishmash of ideas, some valid, some completely off base. If I were going to sell AJ’s soul and shill for Patagonia, it would be with a lot better piece than this. But it raises interesting points and is provocative and therefore in my judgment was worth running, regardless of whether you buy it or not.
That’s a pretty worthy editors note on Paul’s piece. The money that comes from One Percent is a factor larger than the Conservation Alliance (an awesome organization). It’s membership grew through the downturn of the economy. It’s also worth noting that OIA’s definition of the industry is massively broad and fractured so to compare it to the concerted effort and dollars spent by energy companies (who have a clear unifying goal) seems a little strange. Our industry is a really crazy collection of mom and pop stores etc in with ski hills and brands like the North Face with really diverse stances on land use and conservation. Most of these efforts remain rooted in the grassroots — individuals (albeit powerful ones) stepping up and taking action.
Yes we can do better. Yes, we should do better. Yes our industry has a massive foot print. It just seems like there were some facts left out of this piece and a few that were cherry picked.
hi steve, thanks for these insights. i’m not accusing you or the site of shilling for patagonia. in fact, i think it’s great that patagonia helps you produce environmental content. but here you’ve got a news piece featuring patagonia, with a patagonia ad prominently placed in your edit space, and a footnote at the bottom saying the very content above was paid for in part by patagonia. i think most people would agree that this all creates a strong appearance of a conflict of interest — and all the more reason to disclose the conflict in a formal sense rather than casually at the end.
It’s fine, Tim. More than anything, I want AJ to be transparent — to be open to discussing the issues and, most important, to raising the issues in the first place. This — Patagonia — is actually an issue I’ve wanted to address, and this seemed like a good forum.
As a dude who isn’t in the outdoors industry, I don’t know if my argument carries much weight, yet I believe more people in the local outdoors industry of Utah must get on board. This spring I was in conversation with snowboarders, skiers, and a shop owner (at his shop) about the negative aspects of skiLink. The Response was ambivilance; one guy said, “It is what it is, man! You can’t stop progress.” The shop owner and the crew of boarders and skiiers all backed him up. Granted, the issue is not black and white (see http://www.wasatchcanyons.slco.org), but if our community never fights for what we love, then who will?
Wrong word in my post…not ambivilance. That’s not the problem as much as apathy.