instarx's Profile

It is certainly better than nothing, but it is necessarily over-simplified.

2 KwH to product one pair of shoes - good information, but how much energy did it take to ship them from China to the US or from the port to the store? No child labor used in manufacturing them, but how about child-labor in gathering the raw materials or loading them on the truck?

Were the factory workers that made them paid a living wage?

I'm not criticizing your friend's company, but pointing out that these can be very complex calculations. I have nothing but admiration for Patagonia's commitment, but I see corporate PR in this label. It is suspicious to me that there is nothing is negative on it - all is perfect and that is just not realistic. Better would be an overall sustainability score for each product that encompasses these and other important parameters. Certainly if these issues are what Patagonia thinks are the primary issues associated with their products then list them, but they are not all there is to sustainability and it looks self-promoting as a result.

I also see that 100% of factories were assessed against Patagonia's Code of Conduct. OK, but how many passed? Do you see how a 100% score might look like just PR? How often are they assessed? What do the asessments measure? Better information would be something like "The factory that made this item had a Patagonia Sustainabilty Score of 89." (for example).

Hours served in our community: In what... a month? A year? 10 years? That particular statistic is meaningless and has no relationship to the shoes at all.

I applaud Patagonia's effort in developing this, but they should make it more meaningful and less "fluffy".