Patagonia doesn't offer free shipping, and that's fine, but why does it have to be called a "Earth Usage Fee"?

Ask AI · Why has Patagonia’s environmental narrative sparked controversy in the Chinese market?

As Patagonia’s “ultra-committed environmental story” has spread into other countries and cultures, the challenges of this model have only grown. How much China’s consumers actually know about it and identify with it remains hard to say.

By | Luo Lixuan Zhang Ya

Your environmental cause—I’ll pay for it?

Outdoors brand Patagonia, nicknamed “Wall Street’s office workwear,” has, over the past couple of days, left many Chinese consumers fairly annoyed.

Yesterday, Patagonia published a post on its official account on Xiaohongshu, announcing that in April it would launch a “Earth Usage Fee” at its Tmall flagship store.

Put simply, it’s no longer free shipping. More specifically, Patagonia will “separately charge packaging and logistics fees for each order.” The first item costs 15 yuan; for each additional item, there’s an extra 5 yuan charge—so buying 2 items costs 20 yuan, and 3 items costs 25 yuan.

The note on Patagonia’s official Xiaohongshu account

If consumers confirm delivery and don’t need to return, this fee will be refunded to the consumer’s account exactly as originally paid. If consumers need to return due to personal reasons, this logistics fee will not be refunded. If you need to return 1 of the 2 items, then 5 yuan out of the 20 yuan will be refunded— and so on.

According to the official account, the reason for this fee is to reduce the environmental impact of online shopping by charging for it. “Although we avoid using discounts to incentivize people to place orders; we use corrugated cardboard boxes made from recycled materials so that resources can be reused as much as possible; we choose courier bags made from biodegradable materials, which have less impact on the land. But we know this is far from enough.”

In the official account’s content, during last year’s Double 11 period, Patagonia’s return rate was 69.7%. From 2023 to 2025, Patagonia’s Tmall flagship store generated 190.36 tons of carbon emissions due to shipping; and 40.9 tons of carbon emissions due to return shipments. Based on the official account’s logic, if consumers reduce returns and exchanges, carbon emissions can be reduced.

For the brand’s messaging, consumers’ first reaction is that they don’t buy it.

First, the brand is directly putting part of these costs onto the consumer’s head. The reason seems to point to the consumer having done something wrong (making multiple returns and exchanges).

Even if the brand states that “this is not a punishment,” shipping fees are still paid by consumers, which makes it very easy for people to feel negative. On top of that, the brand keeps repeating its earlier narrative about protecting the environment, which then feels out of step—standing on a moral high ground while forcing all consumers to pay.

Some people commented directly, “First take care of private jets—I’m sure my delivery is going to ride in a common sleeper.” Others complained, “After watching stars train their fan base, we still have to watch the brand train consumers,” and “Common prosperity doesn’t include me—environmental pollution is all blamed on me!”

The most dangerous thing is that many comments begin to suspect that Patagonia has “double standards” in both domestic and overseas markets.

The official account says it avoids using discounts to incentivize consumers to place orders, but now Patagonia’s websites in Canada and the United States are running discounts. Besides that, in multiple countries it also has policies that waive shipping when purchases reach a certain amount—for example, 100 euros in Europe, 90 pounds in the UK, 150 Canadian dollars in Canada, and so on.

Patagonia’s Canadian website is running discounts

There are also people questioning the details: where does this 15-yuan pricing come from? Shipping with SF Express doesn’t cost 15 yuan, right? And if you add one more item you charge an extra 5 yuan—how exactly was that determined? When a merchant makes consumers feel uncomfortable, consumers naturally have a stronger motivation to carefully算 (calculate) things out with the merchant.

Resistance has already started as well. In addition to high-vote comments saying “stop buying Patagonia, the most eco-friendly brand,” some people are thinking about how to “get back at them,” saying things like “from now on I’ll only order to bundle with your products.” Even if consumers place an order and immediately return it, because e-commerce platforms charge by order, the merchant still has to pay for the promotion and operating costs generated.

So it can be said that even such a small eco-campaign is now driving a deeper brand crisis for Patagonia China.

Can Patagonia represent the Earth?

If we look at the brand’s positioning itself, this was originally a very “smart” marketing strategy: on the one hand, it strengthens the brand’s positioning; on the other hand, it can also convert costs into the brand’s value proposition.

Patagonia was named by Fortune as “the coolest company on this planet,” and was founded in 1973 by environmentalist Yvon Chouinard. Since 1998, Patagonia has donated 1% of its sales revenue to environmental organizations—continuing to this day. In 2018, Patagonia changed the company’s mission to: “Use business to save our home planet.”

In 2022, the founder transferred all Patagonia ownership, valued at around $3 billion, to trusts and nonprofit organizations: “From now on, the Earth is our only shareholder.”

Yvon Chouinard’s open letter

Image source: Patagonia official website

Patagonia’s users are mostly also environmental supporters, but these users aren’t opposing paying for environmental protection—they’re opposing the fact that the activism hasn’t been carried out fairly and transparently.

Regarding where the money for return shipping goes, the activity page says that the return shipping fee paid on top will be “delivered to the Earth.”

There’s an implied premise in all of this, likely that “the Earth is our only shareholder.” The issue is that although Patagonia’s shareholders are nonprofits now, the company itself is still operated as a business—especially in China, where the operating rights are held by an agency company.

Instead of using such an abstract phrase as “delivered to the Earth,” it would be better to tell users directly where this operating money goes—specifically which environmental project it was donated to.

Otherwise, it’s hard for users not to interpret it as, “You’re using my money to build your persona.”

Also, in the comments section, some users point out that this “Earth Usage Fee” is unique to the Chinese market—other regions don’t have this campaign.

The official Patagonia listing shows the return rules: if you choose to return it by the original route, nearly $7.00 in return shipping fees will be deducted from the refund; if you choose to transfer the refund into Patagonia merchandise points (instead of refunding to the original payment method), Patagonia will waive the $7 return shipping fee.

Another reason users’ emotions were inflamed is that Patagonia has long been questioned for having “price discrimination” across domestic and international markets.

According to Jiemian News, Patagonia’s China-area agent, Zeng Weigang, previously said that based on average data for 2025, Patagonia’s pricing in mainland China is about 22.3% higher than in the United States.

One reason is that China-market pricing stacks on costs like import tariffs. Another reason is the difference between tax systems in China and the U.S. Specifically, China’s listed prices already include 13% VAT. The U.S. uses a system separating price and taxes, and at checkout an additional sales tax is collected on top of the listed price. “If you add that part of the tax in, Patagonia’s domestic pricing is basically aligned with that of the U.S.”

Since last year Patagonia’s official account launched this issue has been highly discussed in the comment section: why do other markets have seasonal promotions, while the Tmall store basically doesn’t run any? Although there are explanations from brand agents, not participating in big promotions does, objectively, result in Chinese-market selling prices being higher than abroad.

For users, the globally first-ever “Earth Usage Fee” sounds more like a marketing concept—someone wants to charge me on behalf of the Earth, because this fee is collected compulsorily rather than voluntarily.

And for environmentally conscious users, what they want to see is the brand’s environmental commitments and incentives to get people involved in protecting the Earth—not having the Earth used to “morally coerce” them.

Values can be advocated, but they can’t affect operational capability

In the apparel industry, the return problem has sparked a lot of controversy in recent years. From merchants issuing collective statements and protests, to logistics industry leaders stepping in to apply pressure; to consumer complaints surging, e-commerce platform rules being adjusted, and intervention by national regulatory authorities—at its core, it’s about balancing interests between buyers and sellers.

Patagonia entered the China market in 2006, with Shanghai Batta Outdoor Products Co., Ltd. serving as the sole authorized dealer for the overall operations in mainland China.

Compared with other outdoor brands such as The North Face, Columbia, Arc’teryx, etc., which often have hundreds of stores in China, Patagonia currently has more than twenty stores combined online and offline, with online being the core stronghold.

In practice, offline stores are limited and frequently out of stock, making it difficult for consumers to try on in-store—this is also one of the reasons Patagonia’s return rate is high.

Introducing the “Earth Usage Fee” initiative aligns with Patagonia’s company mission, and it also effectively rallies consumers who recognize the brand’s value and are willing to use and repair products over the long term.

Promoting clothing reuse is one of Patagonia’s eco labels

Image source: Batta Story

But Chinese consumers aren’t the same as consumers in Europe and the U.S.

Right now, the apparel industry’s high return rate is shaped by our unique market structure: it stems from the service support that won consumer trust during the period when e-commerce was rapidly growing, and to a large extent it protected consumers’ rights when channels were expanding.

However, when consumer spending cools and more e-commerce scenarios appear—such as livestream shopping—after-sales disputes become even more complicated. For example, some involve disputes over platform rules, and others are a tug-of-war after impulsive purchases, and so on.

Over the past two years, brands have started emphasizing profit and store performance.

In May last year, Uniqlo—which did the most comprehensive “online-offline integration”—implemented a new policy: products ordered online and then purchased online are no longer eligible for returns at offline stores. This was also based on considerations of competitive pressure and improving store efficiency.

At the time, Uniqlo’s move also sparked controversy, but the backlash and criticism it generated were far less than what Patagonia faced this time. Because Uniqlo only announced changes to return rules; at the end of the day, it was a business action and didn’t attach any meaning to values.

Patagonia has never carried out large-scale marketing campaigns. The brand mainly relies on word of mouth and social media communication.

As the company expands into other countries and cultures, this model faces even more challenges. Especially since the brand premium it relies on is supported by an “extreme” environmental story. It’s still hard to say how well and how widely Chinese consumers understand and identify with it.

Moreover, competition in China’s outdoor market has updated several rounds. Patagonia has been stuck in the middle, squeezed between pressures: from above, brands with stronger professional positioning are pressing down; from below, brands with better value for money and wider use scenarios are hitting them. Since Patagonia is already considered “priced on the high side,” charging separately for a single link very easily triggers consumer resistance.

For a value-selling brand like Patagonia, the earlier rounds of experiences where consumers were moved and then felt like the brand was on a “roller coaster” are also a reminder. Consumers indeed are willing to pay for emotions, but emotions come quickly and also fade quickly—the real test for the brand is still overall strength.

And there are still many real-world pitfalls that haven’t been addressed yet; don’t rush to value-ify it.