Section of the Patagonia Activism website

[asikurrahmanshuvo]

As Bob Hoffman wrote some time ago: “Taxes may be unpleasant. But taxes are by far the most powerful source of resources for societies to correct social ills. Taxes fund education, housing, health initiatives, social programs. When corporations take extraordinary measures to avoid paying taxes, they are causing extraordinary harm to the citizens who need it most…”

“When corporations take extraordinary measures to avoid paying taxes, they are doing extraordinary harm to the citizens who need it most.”

Bob Hoffmann
The thing is, it’s not illegal to pay zero taxes. But how can we as consumers georgia phone number list trust all those powerful purpose statements, commercials, publications and promotions when we know, because we know, that they come from brands that are deliberately avoiding the basic pillars of supporting citizens and their communities?

Think of Patagonia, for example, where purpose has always preceded products since its founding.

Mark Ritson estimates that “We [these purpose-driven companies like Patagonia] are about 0.2% of the world’s brands. The rest are commercially driven operations that aren’t necessarily bad and often take a responsible approach to packaging and other business challenges, but they’re not in a position to intervene on major social issues.”


Used correctly, purpose is a way for companies to think deeply about what they do, how they do it, and what their impact is on the world as a result.

They can be part of the essential shift from profit maximization to value creation.

As Field confirms, “the great thing about brand purpose” is that when done well, it introduces new dimensions to a category so that a brand can differentiate itself in ways it couldn’t before.