João Privatti

Dr. Blankenship

MGT-4450

16th July 2022

PATAGONIA

1. Any company could choose to run its own business. Follow the basic rules and do what

works. Maybe promoting the bare minimum and having a focus on profitability and

following an older philosophy that with profit, good things would come. Another

alternative is to be a declared environmentalist company and be concerned only with

your business and actions, not paying much attention to your own network of influence.

We remember Nike in the past decade being massacred by the media with accusations

of exploitation and encouragement of child labor. We could bring up the discussion of

sweatshops located in Asia and why they exist, but I do not think it is convenient at this

point. Another alternative business model would be for the company to be able to

influence and modify its entire supply chain, and that is exactly what Patagonia set out

to do. First, becoming the main example that can be seen in the company's culture and

then through conciliation with its suppliers. Patagonia created the conservation alliance

in 1989, whose mission was to incorporate other companies with Patagonia's values. In

addition to this vision forward, this alliance also provides donations to environmental

causes on an ongoing basis. In addition, I consider the development of the CRA and the

FLA as the main factor, which aims to teach, train, and audit factories so that they can

meet renewable demands. To keep track of this, in addition to audits, in 2007 Patagonia
 joined the FLC association, which shares data related to environmental causes. With this

data, the company can establish a benchmark within its influence network.

2. I think that any company that reaches a certain size, that company should expand its

line of action. Not necessarily with products, but to strengthen the brand. If this new

product line is in line with what the brand stands for, I do not see any problem with

that. An example would be RedBull which started selling energy drinks and today has

become almost an entity. It sponsors formula 1 races, and radical sports, bought several

football teams, and is now considered a very successful company. Another example

could be Apple itself, from personal computers to music and cellphone devices, which

became the flagship. In addition to diving and once in the line of wearables and

speculate even in the automotive industry. So, I think it would be good if the company

decided to branch out, but it needs to be done carefully.

3. I would say yes because it was one of the first companies to take an attitude. For its

time, it could be considered unorthodox. A company that decides to take a path that

goes against the industry is taking more risk. But more risk, more return, and the

company have been successful in that. being upfront for a cause that nowadays, we

consider for ourselves more than normal. The environmental cause has become

something giant in which the entire industry needs to be integrated. So, I do think that

Patagonia has advantages for being one of the first. The fact that it is a private company

allows this autonomy, unlike companies that are listed on the stock exchange and that

have a clearly different objective.