Arc'teryx apologizes for Tibet fireworks display as officials review environmental impact
Outdoor brand says the high-altitude show was out of line with its values and will undergo an external assessment amid online backlash and government scrutiny
Arc'teryx, the Canadian outdoor apparel maker, apologized Friday for a fireworks display staged in Tibet that drew criticism over its potential ecological impact. The high-altitude spectacle, part of a promotional campaign, occurred on Sept. 19 in the Shigatse region of Tibet, at elevations above 5,000 meters, and was designed by Chinese pyrotechnic artist Cai Guo Qiang. The event, titled Rising Dragon, unfolded above foothills that are considered sacred by many in the region and drew swift online backlash.
Arc'teryx said it used entirely biodegradable materials for the display and will work with an external agency to assess the project's environmental footprint. The company emphasized that the spectacle was intended to raise awareness of mountain culture but said it was "out of line with Arc'teryx's values." The brand added that it would review the collaboration and its oversight processes to understand how the project was approved and executed.
Arc'teryx, founded in 1989, has grown into a prominent name in high-end mountaineering gear and operates more than 150 shops worldwide. It is owned by Anta Sports, a Hong Kong-listed fitness equipment company. The brand partnered with Cai Guo Qiang, whose body of work includes large-scale outdoor pyrotechnics and gunpowder paintings, to stage Rising Dragon in Tibet, a daytime display conducted at altitudes that highlight the region’s rugged terrain and mountaineering culture. Cai, 67, has faced criticism for his role in some projects but has also been acclaimed for his influence in contemporary Chinese art. He has previously overseen fireworks for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
The display’s location in Tibet—an area tightly controlled by Beijing since its incorporation in the 1950s—prompted questions about how and why the project received approval. Critics argued that such a pyrotechnic spectacle could disrupt fragile ecosystems and disturb wildlife, particularly in a region where the mountains are sacred to Tibetan Buddhists. Online commentators questioned the appropriateness of marketing activities that rely on fireworks in a high-altitude environment and called for accountability should environmental harm arise.
Reaction to Arc'teryx’s apology ranged from cautious acceptance to calls for more substantial remedies. A top comment on the company’s post said the apology alone could not absolve long-term environmental costs and urged the firm to take responsibility for any ongoing impact. Others questioned the breadth of the internal review, asking how such a project could receive multi-party approval. In response, Arc'teryx said it would engage with both external stakeholders and authorities to better understand the incident and prevent recurrence.
Cai Guo Qiang, who designed the Rising Dragon show, issued an apology for his involvement and said he would work with local authorities to support ecological recovery in the area. His role in the project has reignited debate about the responsibilities of artists and brands when public art intersects with sensitive environments. Cai’s past work includes high-profile firework displays and gunpowder-based art, and he is often described as a pioneer in large-scale, temporary installations.
Officials in China have said they are reviewing the project’s approval process, though details about the scope or timeline of the investigation have not been publicly disclosed. Tibet’s landscape is a delicate balance of cultural heritage and ecological preservation, and the controversy surrounding the Arc'teryx campaign underscores broader tensions between commercial marketing and environmental stewardship in fragile ecosystems.
As the investigation unfolds, Arc'teryx has reiterated its commitment to learning from the incident. The company said it remains dedicated to engaging with outdoor communities, conservation groups, and regulatory authorities to ensure its promotional efforts align with its stated values and environmental responsibilities. The incident serves as a reminder to brands operating in sensitive regions that marketing initiatives can quickly provoke scrutiny when they intersect with sacred spaces and vulnerable habitats. The outcome of the review could influence how Arc'teryx approaches high-visibility campaigns in the future and may inform industry discussions about best practices for environmental impact assessments in high-risk environments. 
Looking ahead, observers will watch how the company communicates its lessons learned and whether any formal changes to its oversight processes accompany the ongoing investigation. The archipelago of questions surrounding the event—environmental risk, cultural sensitivity, artistic responsibility, and corporate accountability—will likely shape how brands weigh spectacle against sustainability in future campaigns. Arc'teryx’s next steps will be closely watched by industry stakeholders and conservation groups alike as they determine whether the marketing strategy can coexist with a principled stance on protecting high-altitude ecosystems.
