private company

Patagonia

Industry Retail

An outdoor apparel company held through a purpose trust and environmental nonprofit structure, with repair, reuse, and sourcing commitments but no worker ownership. Patagonia still benefits from mission-aligned ownership and product durability, but its 2026 trademark lawsuit against Pattie Gonia now materially weakens its market-conduct and accountability record.

Why this matters: Purpose ownership can constrain extraction without becoming workplace democracy.

Letter grade C Performative High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 28, 2026

Final Score 41* C - Performative

CPERFORMATIVE41 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material44

Bonus+0

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap44

Penalties-3

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

C - Performative

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from Accountability Opacity.

Strengths

Extraction7/10
Ownership6/10
Loss-Bearing Fidelity6/7

Penalties

Accountability Opacity-2
Ideological Disavowal-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessPartial (AI)
Linked claims13
Direct axis claims13
Coverage11/11

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	6 / 10	Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. That places Patagonia in the middle of Ownership: there is some mission, member, producer, or public-interest constraint, but decisive control is not fully democratic. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 125 scored entries below, 20 tied, 81 above on Ownership. Linked evidence Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. [1]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	5 / 10	Patagonia moved voting stock to the Patagonia Purpose Trust, creating a purpose lock above ordinary family or public shareholder discretion while leaving governance short of worker or stakeholder democracy. Patagonia moved voting stock to the Patagonia Purpose Trust, creating a purpose lock above ordinary family or public shareholder discretion while leaving governance short of worker or stakeholder democracy. That places Patagonia in the middle of Governance: there are accountability mechanisms, but they stop short of broad democratic control. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 127 scored entries below, 20 tied, 79 above on Governance. Linked evidence context Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. [1] context Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments. [2] Patagonia moved voting stock to the Patagonia Purpose Trust, creating a purpose lock above ordinary family or public shareholder discretion while leaving governance short of worker or stakeholder democracy. [3]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	7 / 10	Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. That places Patagonia in the middle of Extraction: the institution creates real value but still leaves room for rent extraction, unequal bargaining, or surplus capture. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 140 scored entries below, 32 tied, 54 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. [1] context Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments. [2] Patagonia transferred voting stock to a purpose trust and nonvoting stock to Holdfast Collective, routing company value toward environmental purpose instead of ordinary shareholder exit. [4]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	5 / 7	Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. That places Patagonia in the middle of Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have some protection or agency, but not enough binding power to control the relationship. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 152 scored entries below, 40 tied, 34 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. [1] context Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments. [2] Patagonia’s purpose-trust structure protects mission at the ownership level, but public materials do not show worker ownership or binding worker control over governance. [5]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	4 / 7	Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. That places Patagonia in the middle of Solidarity with the Unemployed: some access, severance, retraining, openness, or mutual-aid value is present, but it is not central or durable. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 127 scored entries below, 30 tied, 69 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Linked evidence context Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. [1] context Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments. [2] Patagonia’s public impact work and environmental funding support broader ecological and community goods, but the business is still an apparel company rather than a direct employment-access or mutual-aid institution. [6]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	6 / 7	Patagonia states that company ownership was reorganized so value beyond reinvestment flows to the Holdfast Collective, making profit-direction a central loss-bearing and reversibility question. Patagonia states that company ownership was reorganized so value beyond reinvestment flows to the Holdfast Collective, making profit-direction a central loss-bearing and reversibility question. That places Patagonia high on Loss-Bearing Fidelity: the institution is structured to absorb real costs rather than shifting losses onto weaker parties. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 163 scored entries below, 54 tied, 9 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. [1] context Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments. [2] Patagonia states that company ownership was reorganized so value beyond reinvestment flows to the Holdfast Collective, making profit-direction a central loss-bearing and reversibility question. [7]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	2 / 5	Patagonia’s repair, durability, and purpose-trust record still give it real market-conduct credit, but the January 2026 federal trademark suit against Pattie Gonia shows meaningful brand-control gatekeeping against a much smaller climate-activist enterprise. Patagonia’s repair, durability, and purpose-trust record still give it real market-conduct credit, but the January 2026 federal trademark suit against Pattie Gonia shows meaningful brand-control gatekeeping against a much smaller climate-activist enterprise. The value moves below its prior middle placement because the record now includes direct use of legal leverage to police overlapping environmental advocacy and apparel-adjacent activity, while staying above lower-scored apparel firms whose core market model depends more broadly on coercive lock-in, deceptive pricing, or systematic consumer traps. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum update: Patagonia remains better than ordinary extractive apparel giants on mission ownership, but the Pattie Gonia suit places its market conduct below mission-aligned brands that avoid using trademark litigation to constrain small activist or parody-adjacent projects. Uncertainty Track the case outcome and any settlement terms before deciding whether this should become a stronger market-conduct reduction. Linked evidence Patagonia publicly links product, repair, footprint, and ownership commitments to environmental purpose, but it still operates in premium apparel markets with ordinary consumer pricing constraints. [8] On January 21, 2026, Patagonia filed a federal trademark lawsuit against Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Pattie Gonia Productions and Wyn Wiley, seeking injunctive relief, nominal $1 damages, and recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs, and investigative expenses. [9] context In its Pattie Gonia complaint and public statement, Patagonia described a broader pattern of stopping similar trademark uses including FRATAGONIA, CATAGONIA, PETAGONIA, PETROGONIA, and GATAGONIA, and argued that brand protection requires action regardless of whether the target supports Patagonia’s core initiatives. [10]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	5 / 5	Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments. Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments. That places Patagonia high on Product Integrity: the core offering is genuinely useful and comparatively less dependent on traps, degradation, or harmful dependencies. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 134 scored entries below, 92 tied, 0 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments. [2]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 109 scored entries below, 81 tied, 36 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective. [1] context Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments. [2] Patagonia’s purpose-trust and Holdfast Collective ownership model is designed to preserve environmental commitments as the company grows, though scale still depends on apparel supply chains. [11]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	The lawsuit is publicly disclosed, so this is not a hidden-record problem. The lawsuit is publicly disclosed, so this is not a hidden-record problem. The opacity penalty applies because Patagonia’s public framing presents the case as brand protection and not a challenge to identity, advocacy, protest, or creative expression while the requested injunction and fee exposure would materially affect a named queer climate activist’s persona, advocacy, and small enterprise. That gap between values branding and legal leverage creates reputation-laundering risk serious enough for the binary penalty. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Accountability Opacity is binary in this rubric: the penalty applies where reputation framing materially obscures accountability for institutional power, even if the underlying facts are partly disclosed. Uncertainty Review later filings or settlement statements for whether Patagonia narrows, withdraws, or intensifies the requested relief. Linked evidence context On January 21, 2026, Patagonia filed a federal trademark lawsuit against Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Pattie Gonia Productions and Wyn Wiley, seeking injunctive relief, nominal $1 damages, and recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs, and investigative expenses. [9] After Wiley publicly asked Patagonia to drop the lawsuit on May 27, 2026, the Guardian reported Wiley’s claim that Patagonia was trying to erase an activist and Patagonia’s response that the matter was not about challenging identity, advocacy, protest, or creative expression. [12]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	Patagonia is explicit about environmental values, so it does not fit the stronger neutrality-theater tiers. Patagonia is explicit about environmental values, so it does not fit the stronger neutrality-theater tiers. A limited penalty is warranted because its trademark framing treats litigation against Pattie Gonia as unavoidable brand maintenance and says the matter is not about identity or advocacy, even though the dispute directly reaches an activist persona built around climate advocacy and queer performance. That is a bounded softening of a contested power choice rather than a full denial of institutional standpoint. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal calibration: -1 is for bounded softening of contested choices; stronger penalties are reserved for powerful institutions presenting major gatekeeping or coercive authority as neutral or objective. Uncertainty Refresh if Patagonia changes its public explanation, drops the case, or obtains/withdraws contested relief. Linked evidence Patagonia's public materials state a mission, values, ownership model, advocacy role, or institutional standpoint plainly enough that this record does not identify penalty-level neutrality theater. [13] context After Wiley publicly asked Patagonia to drop the lawsuit on May 27, 2026, the Guardian reported Wiley’s claim that Patagonia was trying to erase an activist and Patagonia’s response that the matter was not about challenging identity, advocacy, protest, or creative expression. [12] In its Pattie Gonia complaint and public statement, Patagonia described a broader pattern of stopping similar trademark uses including FRATAGONIA, CATAGONIA, PETAGONIA, PETROGONIA, and GATAGONIA, and argued that brand protection requires action regardless of whether the target supports Patagonia’s core initiatives. [10]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 81/100

13 verified linked claims 13 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 11/11 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 14/20

13 verified linked claims

Source quality 13/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

13 direct claims across 11 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 28, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

11/11 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessPartial (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Patagonia states that voting stock moved to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and nonvoting stock moved to the Holdfast Collective.

Ownership Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 4, 2026

Patagonia ownershipOfficial self-description · 68%

2Patagonia publishes environmental and social responsibility information about product, supply chain, and footprint commitments.

Product Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 4, 2026

Patagonia our footprintOfficial self-description · 68%

3Patagonia moved voting stock to the Patagonia Purpose Trust, creating a purpose lock above ordinary family or public shareholder discretion while leaving governance short of worker or stakeholder democracy.

Governance Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 5, 2026

Patagonia ownershipOfficial self-description · 68%

4Patagonia transferred voting stock to a purpose trust and nonvoting stock to Holdfast Collective, routing company value toward environmental purpose instead of ordinary shareholder exit.

Extraction Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Patagonia ownershipOfficial self-description · 68%
Patagonia 2025 Impact ReportOfficial self-description · 68%

5Patagonia’s purpose-trust structure protects mission at the ownership level, but public materials do not show worker ownership or binding worker control over governance.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Patagonia ownershipOfficial self-description · 68%
Patagonia 2025 Impact ReportOfficial self-description · 68%

6Patagonia’s public impact work and environmental funding support broader ecological and community goods, but the business is still an apparel company rather than a direct employment-access or mutual-aid institution.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Patagonia ownershipOfficial self-description · 68%
Patagonia 2025 Impact ReportOfficial self-description · 68%

7Patagonia states that company ownership was reorganized so value beyond reinvestment flows to the Holdfast Collective, making profit-direction a central loss-bearing and reversibility question.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 5, 2026

Patagonia ownershipOfficial self-description · 68%

8Patagonia publicly links product, repair, footprint, and ownership commitments to environmental purpose, but it still operates in premium apparel markets with ordinary consumer pricing constraints.

Market Conduct Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Patagonia ownershipOfficial self-description · 68%
Patagonia 2025 Impact ReportOfficial self-description · 68%

9On January 21, 2026, Patagonia filed a federal trademark lawsuit against Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Pattie Gonia Productions and Wyn Wiley, seeking injunctive relief, nominal $1 damages, and recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs, and investigative expenses.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 28, 2026

Justia docket: Patagonia, Inc. v. Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. et alGeneral web source · 58%
Patagonia complaint against Pattie Gonia Productions and Wyn WileyPrimary public record · 100%
Patagonia Works: Protecting Our Brand updateGeneral web source · 58%

10In its Pattie Gonia complaint and public statement, Patagonia described a broader pattern of stopping similar trademark uses including FRATAGONIA, CATAGONIA, PETAGONIA, PETROGONIA, and GATAGONIA, and argued that brand protection requires action regardless of whether the target supports Patagonia’s core initiatives.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 28, 2026

Patagonia complaint against Pattie Gonia Productions and Wyn WileyPrimary public record · 100%
Patagonia Works: Protecting Our Brand updateGeneral web source · 58%

11Patagonia’s purpose-trust and Holdfast Collective ownership model is designed to preserve environmental commitments as the company grows, though scale still depends on apparel supply chains.

Scale Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Patagonia ownershipOfficial self-description · 68%
Patagonia 2025 Impact ReportOfficial self-description · 68%

12After Wiley publicly asked Patagonia to drop the lawsuit on May 27, 2026, the Guardian reported Wiley’s claim that Patagonia was trying to erase an activist and Patagonia’s response that the matter was not about challenging identity, advocacy, protest, or creative expression.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 28, 2026

Guardian: Patagonia sues drag queen Pattie Gonia for trademark infringementIndependent reporting · 82%
Patagonia Works: Protecting Our Brand updateGeneral web source · 58%

13Patagonia's public materials state a mission, values, ownership model, advocacy role, or institutional standpoint plainly enough that this record does not identify penalty-level neutrality theater.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

Patagonia official siteGeneral web source · 58%
Patagonia our footprintOfficial self-description · 68%

Alternatives

BQUALIFIED44 Ace Hardware retailer-owned hardware cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED43 Do it Best member-owned hardware cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED42 Dr. Bronner's private benefit corporation · same market BQUALIFIED47 John Lewis Partnership employee-owned retailer · United Kingdom BQUALIFIED45 Second Use Building Materials employee-owned building-material salvage business · Washington, Pacific Northwest

Competitors

BQUALIFIED44 Ace Hardware retailer-owned hardware cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED43 Do it Best member-owned hardware cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED42 Dr. Bronner's private benefit corporation · same market CPERFORMATIVE38 REI Co-op consumer cooperative · same market CPERFORMATIVE37 Taylor Guitars private instrument maker · same market DEXTRACTIVE34 Framework Computer private repairable-electronics company · same market DEXTRACTIVE34 Grove Collaborative public benefit household-products company · same market DEXTRACTIVE31 Costco public company · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Patagonia Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

May 28, 2026 at 12:00 PM UTC codex score-calibration

Added source-backed legal and public-response claims for Patagonia’s Pattie Gonia trademark suit and adjusted Market Conduct, Accountability Opacity, and Ideological Disavowal so the lawsuit affects the score.

May 6, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding toxic-products-assessment

Added tentative AI-generated Toxic Products penalty 0 and directory value for current toxic, addictive, pesticide, livestock, chemical, or consumer-safety product exposure.

May 5, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai_scaffolding score

Published tentative AI-generated scaffolding score 45 for initial human review under gcd-rubric-v1.

View Full Audit Log