In 2015, representatives of 196 countries got together in Paris, to pass an agreement to address the effects of climate change. This Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), dealing with greenhouse-gas-emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance, signed in 2016. 13% of all green-house gas emissions and environmental pollution comes from plastics, and single-use plastics (SUPs) make up 40% of all plastic use. These 'use once and throw away' plastics are used as packaging containers for everything, from beverage bottles (e.g Coca Cola and bottled water), to food products (energy bars, chips and cookies, packaged foods, packaged fresh fruit/vegetables), to clothing (shrink-wrap and garment bags for new clothes).

Patagonia is a well-respected, socially-aware company that is committed to reducing its environmental footprint. It has done so with many innovative materials in its clothing. However, among consumers, there is a large 'attitude vs. behavior' gap. While 66% of consumers say they are willing to pay more for environmentally responsible brands, only 1-5% actually buy greener products. This case focuses on single-use plastics in particular, and Patagonia's efforts to create better packaging.

 

 give  3 reasons with factual proof why Patagonia should choose to spend its money on Government Lobbying and Consumer Education is better than spending its money on R&D to innovate on packaging.