Abstract
Patagonia, an outdoor clothing company thrust into the limelight by a New York Times full-page ad that in 2001 invited customers not to buy its own gear, has recently responded to the inherently low capacity of firms to supply ecosystem services. Since the firm is a generic term encompassing many different bundles of property rights, the specific mechanism of the Patagonia Purpose Trust is researched to find whether it has plausibly locked the company in on preserving ecosystems through its environmentally driven community investment, product re-design, and supply chain overhaul. A mechanism-based methodology is employed, organizing the units of observation in keeping with a formal ontology and benchmarking Patagonia's mechanism against the generic templates of a corporation and a charitable Trust to highlight what is distinct about Patagonia. The findings are that, in a nutshell, Patagonia's mechanism consists of: 1) increasing the opportunity cost of not redressing a breach of purpose by designating an ascertained beneficiary with an unequivocal interest in Nature's preservation; 2) offsetting fiduciaries' influence on asset management with a countervailing mechanism; and 3) designing a procedure centered on the renewal of credible co-trustees to keep checking on fiduciaries in the long run.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.