After over 15 years of intensive effort, the outdoor industry is finally phasing out PFAS—chemicals once seen as essential for making water- and stain-resistant gear. Brands like Patagonia and Fjällräven have successfully removed PFAS from their collections, despite the material’s durability, low cost, and high performance.
Patagonia’s journey took 15 years of research and trial-and-error, facing challenges like poor alternative materials and supplier resistance. Fjällräven took even earlier steps, starting its transition in 2009, despite being isolated in its mission and facing quality trade-offs. Both brands found that many uses of PFAS were unnecessary—added more out of habit or marketing than true function.
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are extremely persistent in the environment and harmful to human and animal health. They have spread globally, even to remote areas like Antarctica. Yet, thousands of companies are still lobbying for exemptions to upcoming European bans, claiming the chemicals are irreplaceable.
Experts in the outdoor sector strongly disagree. With better alternatives now available—like ePE, a more sustainable waterproof material—the argument that PFAS are essential is losing ground. Still, even PFAS-free products can suffer from cross-contamination during transport or storage.
Critics say most PFAS applications are non-essential. Only a small fraction—like in medical devices—might be justified. For the rest, it’s time to move on. As regulation lags, companies must take responsibility.
Why is this relevant?
This story of the outdoor industry’s move away from PFAS is a powerful example of how environmental responsibility can reshape an entire sector — from product design and supplier relationships to regulatory compliance and brand identity. It reminds ESG professionals that real sustainability often requires long-term commitment, not quick wins.
The shift also illustrates key ESG themes: the need for transparent supply chains, the dangers of chemical pollution, the risks of regulatory lag, and the fine line between green marketing and authentic progress. For companies navigating the road to sustainable operations, this is more than a technical material story — it’s a lesson in strategic leadership, stakeholder alignment, and future-proofing your business.
This is relevant for ESG professionals for several key reasons:
- A real-world example of ESG in action
The transition away from PFAS in the outdoor industry is a concrete case study in how environmental concerns can drive innovation, influence supply chains, and reshape industry standards. It demonstrates that ESG is not just about reporting — it’s about changing how business is done. - Environmental impact and material risk
PFAS are persistent environmental pollutants with severe long-term effects on water, soil, and human health. ESG professionals focused on environmental impact, biodiversity, and pollution control will find this highly relevant when evaluating material risks and sustainability goals under frameworks like GRI, SASB, or CSRD. - Supply chain due diligence
The case highlights how deeply PFAS were embedded in supply chains (even in inks, zippers, and packaging) and how companies like Fjällräven had to work upstream with suppliers to enforce change. This is directly relevant for ESG professionals dealing with Scope 3 emissions, EU supply chain laws, or mandatory due diligence (CSDDD). - Transition risk and regulatory pressure
The story illustrates regulatory pressure as a catalyst—especially with upcoming PFAS bans in the EU and U.S. states. ESG professionals tracking climate and chemical transition risks will see this as a key example of how looming regulation drives corporate adaptation (or resistance through lobbying). - Greenwashing vs. real commitment
The contrast between Patagonia’s well-publicized journey and Fjällräven’s quieter, earlier move exposes how marketing-driven ESG can differ from substantive transformation. For professionals assessing corporate sustainability claims, it’s a reminder to look beyond the messaging. - Financial materiality
The move away from PFAS required R&D, supplier shifts, and higher short-term costs—but is also a long-term investment in brand resilience, regulatory compliance, and consumer trust. ESG professionals concerned with financial materiality and long-term value creation can point to this as a blueprint.