In an article entitled The Billion-Dollar Patagonia Paradox, The Sourcing Journal provides a synopsis of the company’s “Work in Progress” sustainability report, the first ever in its 52-year history. Of course, as a privately held company, Patagonia was not required to issue these types of reports. But the company has always been vocal about its focus on the planet and a variety of things it does to reduce its carbon footprint.

That’s an easier challenge when dealing with Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Scope 1 emissions are emissions that come from sources that the company owns or directly controls. They are a direct result of the company's operations. Scope 2 emissions result from the generation of purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling consumed by the company. It’s in Scope 3 wherein lies the problem. Scope 3 emissions are all other indirect emissions that occur in a company's value chain, both upstream (suppliers) and downstream (customers). They are a consequence of the company's activities but are produced by sources they do not own or control. These are the most difficult to measure and manage.

Zevero, on a mission to fight climate change, provides this overview: