You do realise he could've just not done anything if that was the point? Why go through all the trouble if he could've just kept the company?
Some people will find problems with everything, what a depressing comment. I guess he also runs it as a B-Corp and wrote a book promoting the concept because he wants more power, there's no way he actually wants the employees to have more balanced lives and to put less impact on the planet, it's just a ploy to get more power.
You're the type of person that hears a friend donated money to charity and mutters to themselves that they just did it for attention and recognition.
> Why go through all the trouble if he could've just kept the company?
Because Chouinard is 83 and getting close to his inevitable death, which would have triggered a tax bill for his heirs on the order of $700 million. Because the family likely doesn't have $700 million in cash to pay that tax bill, they would almost certainly be forced to sell off a large portion of their equity in the company, thus losing control to outsiders who many not be fully aligned with the family's interests.
The scheme he just executed allows them to pay only $30 million in tax, and the family will be able to keep control for generations to come without ever triggering an estate tax as each member dies.
The family's interests are keeping the values of the company. They are not cashing out as you say, so what power play is this? The fact that the company will keep operating with the environment and the well being of its employees in mind instead of becoming another puppet to private equity?
If this was some oil company pumping out dividends or whatever I'd understand, but your problem is with Patagonia of all things?
And what is the problem with this, if the family's interests align with "protecting the environment and furthering charitable causes" rather than outside shareholders' usual interests of "make me money at all costs"?
Not to mention that the reason the family is receiving said tax break is because the firm's income will no longer flow through them. Giving up the future profits of the firm in perpetuity is surely more expensive than paying a one-time tax bill.
It is symptomatic of our society that people find it impossible to believe that there is even one wealthy man on the planet whose goals and actions aren't entirely self-centered.
What's the problem with a royal family that monopolizes political power and passes it down through their bloodline? Why is representative democracy and the peaceful transfer of power a better system?
Western civilization at least is currently of the opinion that heritable political power is net bad, even if there are plenty of examples of it being good. I suspect the primary reason for this is that competence, context, and experience aren't easy to pass on to your children, and most of the things that make an individual worthy of wielding tremendous power get lost and corrupted after only 2-3 generations.
Most of us can agree now that Chouinard is probably doing net good for Earth's biosphere. Why do you think that will continue to be the case when his grandchildren and great-grandchildren are in charge? Even if they still have the same surface level values, how do you know that they won't be so under educated and incompetent that they won't make counter productive and even destructive decisions with the unearned power they have?
I have zero problem with competent and successful individuals who become absurdly wealthy and powerful.
I have many problems with these individuals then attempting to pass on their extreme wealth and power to their offspring who almost certainly aren't strong enough to wield it.
It's way better for those individuals to force sell to Private Equity, largely ran by the existing elites, that most likely don't have sustainability as a first order goal - immediately, because you're afraid the grandchildren of the founder might do that later?
You raise excellent points about perpetuating lineages and yet your proposal would immediately put a large portion of patagonia in the hands of the very people you propose to want to keep power away from.
If we get another nike or adidas in 2 generations instead of as soon as the guy dies, that's still a way better outcome.
It took me years to realize that there are people who will criticize anything you do.
Donate nothing? You're selfish.
Donated money? You didn't donate enough.
Donate a lot of money? As you say, people will say it was just for the attention.
Some people will find problems with everything, what a depressing comment. I guess he also runs it as a B-Corp and wrote a book promoting the concept because he wants more power, there's no way he actually wants the employees to have more balanced lives and to put less impact on the planet, it's just a ploy to get more power.
You're the type of person that hears a friend donated money to charity and mutters to themselves that they just did it for attention and recognition.