>
The consequences could reverberate for generations. Benefits like paid leave and child care affect not only caregivers’ ability to manage work-life balance but their lifetime earning potential: Studies have repeatedly shown that having access to paid leave and child care leaves women free to rack up the promotions and raises that enable them to support themselves and their families.

I really never thought about it like that. >

Well, they mean "That especially matters to mothers" even though they wrote "That especially matters to women". So it isn't as groundbreaking as the headline seems. >

Good policies by Patagonia. Something’s of note for consideration in Patagonia’s policies. 
The paid leave and non-site specific benefits are offered to everyone. The child care benefit is only offered at HQ (Ventura, CA). This means that it’s a benefit to about 300-400 employees out of an estimated 3000. Great benefit, but the cost of having the daycare center is much less than it would be for providing a subsidy to employees for childcare. 
From a business perspective this is a smart idea for longevity of senior employees and strategic planners. The cost is salaries of 4-8 FTE (mid level), real estate space, child center supplies, and certification. Estimated total cost of about $350k-$500k a year. Less if there are fewer employees actively using it. A subsidy to cover all employees would cost $36M/yr. 
That analysis is why many businesses do not offer child care (subsidy or service) for mid level and entry level employees. $350k-$500k per year is the salaries of 3-4 senior employees. Skills that are hard to acquire and team cohesion can still be lost with a new person. For mid level and entry level employees this is the cost of 10+ and in jobs with 36 months expected prior to turnover.