Become a Member

Get access to more than 30 brands, premium video, exclusive content, events, mapping, and more.

Already have an account? Sign In

Become a Member

Get access to more than 30 brands, premium video, exclusive content, events, mapping, and more.

Already have an account? Sign In

Brands

News

Why Patagonia Won’t Put Your Company’s Logo On Its Clothing Anymore

The company’s push to extend its clothing’s lifespan may be the final nail in the coffin for Wall Street’s unofficial uniform

Get access to everything we publish when you sign up for Outside+.

Over the past few decades, Patagonia’s fleece has become as common on Wall Street as on the trail, with logo-embossed vests given away at conferences and to employees. But that’s about to come to an end. This week, Patagonia announced it would no longer add corporate logos to its products going forward.

In a post on its site, the company cited waste and environmental reasons for its decision. According to Patagonia, using one of its garments for just two additional years reduces its carbon footprint by 82%.

“What we’ve learned is that adding an additional non-removable logo reduces the life span of a garment, often by a lot, for trivial reasons,” the company wrote. “People change jobs, and the extra logo makes for an awkward re-gift. People tend not to pass logo’d gear down to their kids, and not everyone wants to be an advertisement on weekends, even if they’re proud to go into work on weekdays. The result? Perfectly good gear ends up forgotten in the closet—or worse, gets tossed in the trash.”

Patagonia has bet big on reusability in the past few years. In 2017, the company began reselling its own used products under its Worn Wear program. In 2005, it began a push to make all of its products recyclable through its Common Threads initiative.

The company has clashed with Wall Street firms over their business practices and image before. In 2019, the company announced it would only partner with “mission-driven companies that prioritize the planet,” widely interpreted as a dig at the financial firms that had made its products ubiquitous in the corporate world.