How should a public firm that wants to engage in corporate social responsibility in a way that might sacrifice short-term profitability explain this decision to shareholders? Companies are increasingly building social and environmental responsibility into their company value and mission statements. More than 500 American companies have signed the UN Global Compact, a commitment to standards that improve human rights, protect the environment, and advance societal goals. Outdoor clothing and gear company Patagonia has grown its business profitably for more than 45 years while advocating for public lands, environmental activism, and sustainable supply chains. Its founding mission was to “build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, and use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.” Recently, Patagonia changed its mission to “Patagonia is in business to save our home planet.” To ensure movement toward this mission, the company prepared for a full year in advance of publicly announcing the shift. Patagonia recently announced that it would give the $10 million it gained from a federal tax cut to fight for environmental causes that were threatened by the tax cut, including regenerative agriculture, politics, and protected lands. It has also used its brand marketing to endorse specific political candidates who support sound environmental policies.