Holdfast Collective

🇺🇸 United States

Holdfast Collective is a U.S. social‑welfare nonprofit dedicated to advancing environmental and social causes. It was established as part of an ownership‑purpose structure in which a purpose trust holds voting control of a company (Patagonia) and Holdfast receives the economic rights, enabling dividends to be deployed for mission over the long term. As a 501(c)(4), it focuses on impact, including policy and advocacy that traditional charities may avoid. Patagonia, the outdoor apparel company founded in 1973 by Yvon Chouinard, has long been recognized as a pioneer in corporate responsibility and environmental stewardship. In 2022, Patagonia executed one of the most radical governance experiments in modern corporate history. Rather than selling the company, going public, or transferring it to heirs, Chouinard restructured Patagonia’s ownership to embed its mission into its corporate DNA and ensure profits would serve environmental causes. This restructuring created two interlocking entities: the Patagonia Purpose Trust (PPT) and the Holdfast Collective. Understanding the roles and governance rights of these organizations reveals how Patagonia has attempted to institutionalize both profit and purpose in perpetuity. The Patagonia Purpose Trust is a specially designed trust that holds 100% of Patagonia’s voting stock. Although these shares account for only around 2% of the company’s total equity value, they carry decisive control over the company’s governance. The trust is legally bound to protect Patagonia’s values — its mission of “saving our home planet,” its commitments to fair labor, and its environmental activism. Governance rights include: Electing the board of directors. Ensuring corporate practices align with Patagonia’s mission. Overseeing succession planning for executive leadership. Blocking or preventing corporate actions (e.g., sales, mergers) that could undermine the company’s ethos. Effectively, the PPT acts as a guardian of Patagonia’s purpose. Its governance resembles that of a foundation board more than a typical corporate shareholder. The beneficiaries are not family members or investors but rather the mission itself. The Holdfast Collective, by contrast, holds all of Patagonia’s non-voting stock (around 98% of the equity). Its function is entirely economic: it is the recipient of Patagonia’s annual profits not reinvested in the business. These profits — roughly $100 million annually, depending on performance — flow into Holdfast, which is a nonprofit entity dedicated to addressing climate change and funding environmental causes. Crucially, Holdfast has no governance rights. It cannot influence Patagonia’s strategy, appoint board members, or alter the company’s operations. Its role is strictly downstream: to receive funds and deploy them toward activism, grantmaking, and policy initiatives that combat environmental degradation. The separation of governance rights (in the PPT) and economic rights (in Holdfast) is what makes Patagonia unique. By splitting authority, Chouinard effectively eliminated the traditional shareholder model where financial interest drives decision-making. Investors normally expect governance rights in proportion to their ownership; Patagonia inverted this. The Holdfast Collective receives the lion’s share of profits but cannot alter Patagonia’s governance. Meanwhile, the PPT has the power to ensure the company stays mission-driven but has no beneficiaries who extract financial gain. This structure attempts to solve the problem of “mission drift.” Many socially responsible companies lose their values once they are sold, taken public, or passed to heirs. Patagonia’s trust design ensures that its governance remains insulated from financial pressures, and that profits are funneled into activism rather than private wealth. Patagonia’s governance echoes elements of steward-ownership models seen in Europe, such as the Bosch Foundation in Germany, where voting rights are held in trust to preserve mission while profits support charitable activities. However, Patagonia has amplified this model by creating a nonprofit (Holdfast) that functions as a perpetual grantmaker.

Some Numbers About Holdfast Collective

Founding Date
2022
Unique Entity Identifier
***********
D-U-N-S® Number
**-***-****
Ownership Type
Non-Profit Organization
NAICS Code
******
UKSIC Code
*****

About (Holdfast Collective)

Holdfast Collective is a U.S. social‑welfare nonprofit dedicated to advancing environmental and social causes. It was established as part of an ownership‑purpose structure in which a purpose trust holds voting control of a company (Patagonia) and Holdfast receives the economic rights, enabling dividends to be deployed for mission over the long term. As a 501(c)(4), it focuses on impact, including policy and advocacy that traditional charities may avoid.

Patagonia, the outdoor apparel company founded in 1973 by Yvon Chouinard, has long been recognized as a pioneer in corporate responsibility and environmental stewardship. In 2022, Patagonia executed one of the most radical governance experiments in modern corporate history. Rather than selling the company, going public, or transferring it to heirs, Chouinard restructured Patagonia’s ownership to embed its mission into its corporate DNA and ensure profits would serve environmental causes. This restructuring created two interlocking entities: the Patagonia Purpose Trust (PPT) and the Holdfast Collective. Understanding the roles and governance rights of these organizations reveals how Patagonia has attempted to institutionalize both profit and purpose in perpetuity.

The Patagonia Purpose Trust is a specially designed trust that holds 100% of Patagonia’s voting stock. Although these shares account for only around 2% of the company’s total equity value, they carry decisive control over the company’s governance. The trust is legally bound to protect Patagonia’s values — its mission of “saving our home planet,” its commitments to fair labor, and its environmental activism.

Governance rights include:

Electing the board of directors.

Ensuring corporate practices align with Patagonia’s mission.

Overseeing succession planning for executive leadership.

Blocking or preventing corporate actions (e.g., sales, mergers) that could undermine the company’s ethos.

Effectively, the PPT acts as a guardian of Patagonia’s purpose. Its governance resembles that of a foundation board more than a typical corporate shareholder. The beneficiaries are not family members or investors but rather the mission itself.

The Holdfast Collective, by contrast, holds all of Patagonia’s non-voting stock (around 98% of the equity). Its function is entirely economic: it is the recipient of Patagonia’s annual profits not reinvested in the business. These profits — roughly $100 million annually, depending on performance — flow into Holdfast, which is a nonprofit entity dedicated to addressing climate change and funding environmental causes.

Crucially, Holdfast has no governance rights. It cannot influence Patagonia’s strategy, appoint board members, or alter the company’s operations. Its role is strictly downstream: to receive funds and deploy them toward activism, grantmaking, and policy initiatives that combat environmental degradation.

The separation of governance rights (in the PPT) and economic rights (in Holdfast) is what makes Patagonia unique. By splitting authority, Chouinard effectively eliminated the traditional shareholder model where financial interest drives decision-making. Investors normally expect governance rights in proportion to their ownership; Patagonia inverted this. The Holdfast Collective receives the lion’s share of profits but cannot alter Patagonia’s governance. Meanwhile, the PPT has the power to ensure the company stays mission-driven but has no beneficiaries who extract financial gain.

This structure attempts to solve the problem of “mission drift.” Many socially responsible companies lose their values once they are sold, taken public, or passed to heirs. Patagonia’s trust design ensures that its governance remains insulated from financial pressures, and that profits are funneled into activism rather than private wealth.

Patagonia’s governance echoes elements of steward-ownership models seen in Europe, such as the Bosch Foundation in Germany, where voting rights are held in trust to preserve mission while profits support charitable activities. However, Patagonia has amplified this model by creating a nonprofit (Holdfast) that functions as a perpetual grantmaker.