Patagonia, a well-known American outdoor brand that adheres to the principle of "Earth first, profit second", has recently faced widespread controversy over charging "Earth usage fees".

The 'Earth usage fee' actually refers to the shipping cost, which is a new policy implemented by Patagonia Tmall flagship store from April 1st. Users who purchase a piece of clothing at their flagship store are required to pay a "Earth Usage Fee" of 15 yuan, with an additional 5 yuan for each additional piece. Patagonia also adopts a prepayment form. If the customer confirms receipt and does not return the goods, Patagonia will refund 15 yuan. If the customer returns the goods, 15 yuan will not be refunded.

After the release of the new policy, many users questioned whether Patagonia's move was a disguised way for consumers to bear the brand's operating costs, especially in the context of major e-commerce platforms providing shipping insurance services, Patagonia's approach was even more out of place.

Freight becomes' Earth usage fee '

Patagonia named this event "Return for No Reason, Earth Has a Price" and stated that the purpose of this move is to reduce carbon emissions.

Patagonia released a set of data in the event introduction: Patagonia had a high return rate of 69.7% during the "Double 11" period in 2025. From 2023 to 2025, Patagonia will generate carbon emissions equivalent to approximately 31.4 laps of a fuel powered car around the Earth's equator due to shipping and returns.

Therefore, Patagonia has decided to no longer hide logistics costs and instead charge separate packaging and logistics fees for each order. And Patagonia donated all of these expenses to the SEE Foundation's "1% Earth Tax" environmental public welfare project.

Patagonia 'policy has sparked considerable controversy. Some consumers question whether Patagonia is using the banner of "environmental protection" to exert moral pressure on users and make them bear the operating costs of the brand; Some consumers also question whether this move appears to be "environmentally friendly" but is actually marketing; But there are also consumers who understand this approach, believing that it makes consumers think twice before buying clothes.

Patagonia Tmall flagship store has not opened shipping insurance. According to the new policy, if consumers return goods, they must bear the shipping and return costs themselves. Regarding the question of whether the donation details are public, the brand customer service responded that the donation amount and vouchers will be uniformly announced by the end of the year.

A head of a leading domestic clothing brand told the Economic Observer that Patagonia 'approach is quite difficult to implement in practice. The small order volume can still be handled, but once the order volume increases, the order recording and refund process will be extremely complex, requiring a lot of manual processing. Unless e-commerce platforms intervene to assist in building mature systems, it will be difficult for brand owners to operate independently and efficiently.

The person in charge further analyzed that the high return rate in the current clothing industry is an open fact. The solution can actually be very simple, just cancel the shipping insurance. But platforms are usually unwilling to do so for fear of losing competitiveness with other platforms. Merchants are forced to bear the cost of shipping insurance, which is about 3 to 5 yuan per order, even higher than the actual shipping cost (usually within 3 yuan). If merchants do not participate in platform marketing activities and are concerned about losing platform traffic.

The consumption habits guided by platform rules, combined with competition and competition between platforms, put merchants in a relatively weak position. According to the person in charge, the return rate of merchants before shipment is between 30% and 40%, and there is still a return rate of 30% to 40% after shipment. To control the return rate, the brand can only focus on products, services, and experiences. Therefore, in his opinion, Patagonia 'approach is prone to falling into a "thankless" situation in the current environment of "internal competition" in e-commerce.

The 'hard landing' of ideas

In fact, Patagonia '"Earth Has a Price" policy launched in China is not a temporary idea, but a continuation of its long-term environmental protection concept. However, this concept has shifted to the Chinese market and collided with local consumer habits.

In 1973, rock climbing enthusiast Yvon Chouinard founded Patagonia in the United States, starting with high-performance outdoor equipment. For over 50 years, this brand has been known for its "ultimate environmental protection" concept. In 1985, Patagonia promised to allocate 1% of its annual sales to environmental protection, a tradition that continues to this day. In 2002, Patagonia initiated the establishment of the "1% for the Planet" organization, calling on more companies to join this commitment.

One of Patagonia's well-known events was during the 2011 "Black Friday" shopping festival, when they published an advertisement in The New York Times titled "Don't Buy This Jacket," urging consumers to shop rationally. As a result, sales increased by approximately 30%.

In 2022, Yvonne Joynard made a shocking decision in the business world to transfer all ownership of the company with a market value of $3 billion. The specific structure is: approximately 2% of the total share capital is transferred to Patagonia Purpose Trust, which has voting rights and aims to safeguard the company's values; Approximately 98% of the total share capital (without voting rights) is donated to Holdfast Collective, a non-profit organization dedicated to addressing environmental crises and protecting nature.

Many seemingly 'anti business' measures by Patagonia have actually helped it generate considerable revenue. Therefore, the controversy over Patagonia in the market has never ceased.

According to a report released by Patagonia, from May 1, 2024 to April 30, 2025, its global sales reached $1.47 billion, of which 61% came from the US market and 39% from the international market.

Patagonia entered China in 2006 and adopted an agency model. The headquarters did not send any teams or set up direct stores. The operating entity is Shanghai Bata Outdoor Products Co., Ltd., which operates 3 online stores and 7 offline direct stores. The brand has not publicly disclosed its performance in the China region, and the industry estimates that its global share is extremely low.

Yang Dayun, CEO and brand expert of Uta Investment, believes that Patagonia, as a benchmark brand in the global outdoor sports and environmental protection field, has no problem launching the "Earth Use Fee" policy in China, but it is "not adapted to the local conditions". The current understanding of sustainable development among Chinese consumers and their willingness to pay a premium for environmental protection has not yet reached a certain level of maturity.

Wu Xiaxue, a digital retail analyst at the NetEase E-commerce Research Center, believes that Patagonia's 15 head heavy shipping fee is seen by many users as a "disguised charge" and is not easily accepted; Secondly, under the dual incentives of "free try on" and shipping insurance, consumers are more inclined to "try on in large quantities" and then return unsuitable products, which has become a consumption habit.

In addition, some consumers have questioned whether Patagonia is using this move to cover up the lack of product strength. The brand has not undergone localization transformation, and the mismatch between the version and size has already increased the return rate. Therefore, users believe that Patagonia's simple attribution of the problem to "consumer impulse" is a shift in responsibility.

From Patagonia 'long-term practice, environmental protection and business have always been deeply intertwined, and finding the right balance between the two has always been the focus and difficulty of its brand operation. What should Patagonia do when consumers say 'don't buy more environmentally friendly' or 'don't sell more environmentally friendly'?