Patagonia sustainability score: 50/100
Better than 93% of Apparel (Durable / Outdoor)
Leading practice starts at 60. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Patagonia manufactures durable outdoor apparel and gear, founded in 1973 and headquartered in Ventura, California. The company is structured as a public benefit corporation with voting control held by the Patagonia Purpose Trust and economic ownership distributed through the Holdfast Collective, required to deploy profits to environmental causes.
Founded 1973Head office Ventura, California, USStaff ~3,000Revenue ~$1.5BWebsite ↗
Patagonia has embedded environmental mission into its ownership structure and publishes comprehensive annual disclosure, but absolute emissions are climbing 25% above 2017 baseline. Scope 3 reductions remain elusive despite supplier engagement. The company's trajectory directly contradicts its 2040 net-zero commitment.
Patagonia scores 50/100 (Making progress) on SINK's independent climate assessment, scored from public data only. Scores are free. Nobody can pay to change a score, speed it up or hide it. Last verified May 2026.
That places Patagonia joint 155th of 1,023 companies scored, and 5th of 58 in Apparel (Durable / Outdoor).
What is Patagonia doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Transparency & Accountability and Controversies & Red Flags (8/10, 8/10). Weakest on Emissions Trajectory and Water Impact (2/10, 4/10).
Where Patagonia lost points
For each question that lost points, the evidence our public rubric looks for that we didn't find.
What would raise this score
- Whether its emissions are fallingShow its emissions are falling.
- Its effect on waterMeasure its water footprint and set reduction targets.
- Emissions from its supply chainHave its Scope 3 emissions fully verified and show them falling year on year.
Every question that lost points
- Emissions from its own operations7/10Its own emissions aren't independently verified or tracked over several years.
- Emissions from its supply chain6/10Its Scope 3 emissions aren't fully verified or falling year on year.
- Whether its emissions are falling2/10No evidence its emissions are falling.
- How clean its energy is7/10Less than 90% of its energy shown to be renewable.
- Its effect on nature6/10No verified restoration beyond its own footprint, or supply chain not mapped for nature risk.
- How it uses materials and handles waste7/10No verified figures for reuse and recycling across the business.
- Its effect on water4/10No measured water footprint with reduction targets.
- Its climate targets7/10Its targets aren't validated by the Science Based Targets initiative.
- How openly it reports8/10No shareholder vote on climate, or not everything publicly verifiable.
A score changes when the evidence does. We use new published evidence at the next rescore. Anyone can send us new evidence, free. How to send it.
How is Patagonia's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleHas Patagonia's score changed?
Patagonia's score has been reviewed 2 times and currently stands where it started, at 52.
- 52 → 5225 April 2026
Session 2a cleanup: recomputed performance from sum(questions[].score). performance 63→62, score 52→50.
- Scored 528 February 2026
Initial score at platform launch
What evidence is Patagonia's score based on?
11 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
45% of them were published by Patagonia itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“For FY25, they made up less than 1% of total emissions”
“Patagonia went through assurance in FY17 (our SBT baseline year) and is currently undergoing assurance of our FY24 footprint”
“Raw materials and finished goods manufacturing accounted for 92 percent of Patagonia's footprint in fiscal year 2025”
“Between 2017 and 2025, Patagonia's total, absolute emissions have increased by approximately 25%”
“committed to ensuring none of their packaging comes at the expense of the world's most climate- and biodiversity-critical forests”
“Holdfast Collective chipped in to help The Conservation Fund purchase and protect 8,000 acres near Georgia's Okefenokee Swamp”
“No quantifiable water reduction targets, water usage data, or specific supplier-level water conservation initiatives could be identified”
“cover a broad range of impact areas, including environmental management systems, chemicals, water use, water emissions”
“Patagonia has achieved 98% renewable electricity adoption across its global operations as of Fiscal Year 2024 and maintained 98% adoption in 2025”
“major corporations such as Microsoft, Apple, Salesforce, and Patagonia endorse”
“Patagonia will continue to donate 1% of sales each year to grassroots environmental nonprofits. This commitment is part of our business charter”
If you believe a source has been misread or a newer version exists, submit a challenge.
Is this your company? Claim this profile (free)
Use this score in tenders
Send the link, or the one-page score sheet. It links back to this page and every source. Free.
Open the score sheet →Send new evidence, free
Scored low because little is published? Publish what you do and send us the link, free. If it holds up, your score changes, and the change is logged on your page.
How to send evidence →Put your score on your website, free
It shows the current band, sector rank and score, and links to this page, so it changes when the score does.
Track this score
Bidding for a public contract? Check if you need a Carbon Reduction Plan, free →
Want your own page like this?
Free, independent, every source shown. Send it to any buyer who asks about your sustainability.
How does Patagonia compare with other apparel (durable / outdoor) companies?
Where Patagonia sits among apparel (durable / outdoor) peers.
Among the 58 major apparel (durable / outdoor) brands we've scored, Patagonia sits 5th of 58.
Who scores higher in Apparel (Durable / Outdoor)?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Patagonia.
Burberry has cut operational emissions 94% and supply chain emissions 49%, exceeding targets early.
See the breakdown →Reformation claims sustainability leadership but operates a fast-fashion growth model—14 to 53 stores since PE acquisition in 2019—driving absolute emissions up 24.5% year-on-year despite third-party verification.
See the breakdown →Eileen Fisher is a B Corp leader in supply chain transparency and climate ambition, with Scope 3 emissions cut 47–51% against a 2017 baseline.
See the breakdown →Which companies moved this week, and why.
One email, every Sunday. Score changes, new research, the stories behind the numbers. Free.
We'll send one email to confirm. No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.
Checking a company?
Search free →Asked to prove you're sustainable?
Get your business scored, free →Been scored?
Find your page and claim it, free →Scores are free. Nobody can pay to change a score, speed it up or hide it.