March 24, 2008 - Patagonia is tracking the environmental impact of select products from design to distribution, posting the results - for better or worse - on a microsite dedicated to the subject, Fast Company reports.

The program, which launched quietly last year, has evaluated five products so far. The most surprising findings? Product shipping accounts for just 1% of supply chain energy use, while actual manufacturing sucks up considerably more energy than originally assumed.

"If we had followed environmental chatter and spent all that time shortening our supply chains, it would have had a huge impact on our product quality," says Jill Dumain, the company's director of environmental analysis. "To realize that our conservation efforts needed to be focused elsewhere was really freeing."

Less welcome was the discovery of the toxic chemical perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) in the water-resistant coating of Patagonia's Eco Rain Shell parka. When the findings were published online, many consumers demanded that "Eco" be removed from the jacket's name. (Patagonia expects to phase out PFOA from all of its products this year.)

While Dumain concedes that posting products' eco-footprint online involves some risks - not just from disgruntled customers but also from competitors who might use the information to their advantage - she says those risks are outweighed by benefits such as building brand trust among consumers and sharing best practices within the industry. "Our influence is larger than our impact," says Dumain. "If we're willing to share that information, it becomes exponential."

Find detailed environmental footprint data, along with short videos, on the five Patagonia products here. The company plans to evaluate ten more products and post the results online in the coming year.

Note: Patagonia's eco-footprint project does not include the environmental impact of product packaging. For an article on the methodology of the company's environmental cost calculations, click here (PDF).