Radical Transparency: What to Learn (and What Not to Learn) from the Patagonia Case
In the first article of this series, we explored why the sentence “nothing we do is sustainable” triggered such a strong reaction. In the second, we argued that the discomfort revealed more about how sustainability reporting is interpreted than about the statement itself.
This brings us to the question that usually follows: transparency.
The public response to the statement was quickly framed as an example of “radical transparency”—often celebrated, sometimes romanticized, and occasionally treated as a model to emulate.
That framing deserves closer scrutiny.
Transparency Is Not a Strategy
Transparency is frequently discussed as if it were an end in itself. More disclosure is assumed to be better. More honesty is assumed to build trust automatically.
In practice, transparency is a tool. And like any tool, its value depends on how it is used and what system surrounds it.
The Patagonia case—often cited as an example of openness—did not gain attention simply because it was transparent. It gained attention because the disclosure disrupted expectations.
That distinction matters.
Transparency that aligns with governance, decision-making, and accountability can strengthen credibility. Transparency that stands alone can just as easily create confusion, misinterpretation, or unintended risk.
What Transparency Actually Contributes
At its best, transparency serves three functions:
it clarifies assumptions,
it exposes trade-offs,
it makes decision logic visible.
This is particularly valuable in sustainability, where impacts are complex, data is imperfect, and outcomes are shaped by forces beyond any single organization’s control.
Used this way, transparency supports maturity. It acknowledges uncertainty without abandoning responsibility. It allows stakeholders to understand not just what is happening, but why.
The problem is that transparency is often confused with disclosure volume or blunt language. Neither guarantees insight.
The Risk of Copying the Gesture
One of the most common reactions to the Patagonia case was the suggestion that “all companies should be this honest.”
This is where the conversation becomes simplistic.
The visibility of a statement does not tell us anything about the system behind it. Without understanding the governance structures, internal controls, escalation mechanisms, and risk management processes that support such disclosures, copying the gesture becomes risky.
Honesty without structure is not courage. It is exposure.
When organizations replicate tone without replicating systems, transparency can quickly turn into liability—internally and externally.
Honesty vs. Governance
There is an important distinction between being honest and being governed.
Honesty is about intent.
Governance is about consistency, accountability, and follow-through.
An organization can be honest and still poorly governed. It can disclose limitations openly and still lack the mechanisms to manage them effectively.
This is why transparency alone cannot substitute for governance. In fact, when transparency is not anchored in governance, it can undermine trust rather than build it.
Stakeholders do not just want candor. They want to know:
how decisions are made,
how risks are managed,
how commitments are monitored over time.
Transparency answers questions. Governance sustains answers.
Why Patagonia Is a Poor Template
The irony is that the Patagonia case is often least useful when treated as a model.
The company operates within a specific context:
a long-established environmental narrative,
a customer base aligned with that narrative,
and governance structures that allow for unusually direct communication.
None of these conditions are universally transferable.
Treating the case as a blueprint misses its real value. The lesson is not “say uncomfortable things.” The lesson is understand the conditions under which uncomfortable truths can be communicated responsibly.
What Practitioners Should Take Away
For sustainability practitioners, the takeaway is not to pursue radical transparency for its own sake.
The more relevant questions are:
What information genuinely supports better decisions?
What uncertainty can be disclosed without eroding accountability?
What trade-offs must be explained, not just acknowledged?
Transparency should be calibrated, not maximal. It should be deliberate, not performative.
And above all, it should be embedded in a system that can absorb what is revealed.
A More Useful Definition of Transparency
Perhaps transparency in sustainability is not about saying everything, but about saying the right things clearly, consistently, and in context.
That requires restraint as much as boldness.
The Patagonia case is useful not because it shows how far transparency can go, but because it forces us to ask what transparency is actually for.
That question matters more than any single statement.
