I thought it was really interesting and really gave a different side to the whole perspective.
thought I would share.
Toms Shoes not the right fit?
Tom’s shoes founder Blake Mycoskie distributing shoes to children in Argentina. (Photo courtesy of smithsonianmag.com)
By Sean Poole
Contributor
Toms Shoes was founded on the “one-for-one” premise. With every pair of shoes you purchase, Toms will give a pair to a child in need. Unfortunately, this type of giving doesn’t help people or improve economies — it hurts them.
Most of us desire to assist people in need. Whether this desire comes from our Christian faith, human sympathy, a front-page article about Kenya’s famine or a “motivational speech” delivered by Bono, the desire to help out, globally, is an increasingly popular trend in youth culture.
Social entrepreneurship has become one common outlet for this trend. For-profit companies are seeking more and more to combat social ills and injustice through business models that value revenue-building and societal improvement. These ideas are having a profound impact in the business world. Bono and Bobby Shriver’s Red Campaign and Patagonia’s “One Percent for the Planet” are two examples of well-established business models that sell a product based on its worth to the consumer and to the global society as well. Toms hurts local economies by perpetuating negative social norms and stigmas that contribute to poverty — and it does this by introducing an artificial supply of shoes into a nation’s economy.
When Toms Shoes founder Blake Mycoskie and his organization Friends of Toms conducts a “shoe drop” in Argentina or another developing nation, the well-meaning gesture inundates the local market with thousands of shoes. This year, 300,000 pairs of shoes are going to be distributed in developing nations — putting any local supplier of shoes out of business, as every kid without shoes now has a pair for free. Adding this artificial supply into the economy lowers demand drastically and hurts local businesses and suppliers.
It is true that some of these kids cannot afford shoes, but the issue is much more complex than the one Friends of Toms is willing to be involved in. Solving issues of poverty takes a long-term commitment to communities and involves more work than just giving shoes away.
While the image of a 22-year-old white college student placing shoes on the brown feet of an impoverished child may seem heart-warming, scenes like these perpetuate stereotypes in the West that dissuade corporate investors from doing business with African and South American entrepreneurs and encourage a paternalistic perspective that many westerners have toward “poorer” nations. These images also perpetuate the stereotype in parts of southern Africa and South America that the United States and the United Nations (and its army of westerners) will give them the food, clothing and care needed to survive — discouraging people in developing nations from finding their niche in local economies and limiting the ways they can provide for themselves and their families.
Toms may be moving in the right direction, however. In Ethiopia and India, Toms has begun to outfit victims in the early stage of Podoconiosis, a prevalent foot infection in the area, with shoes that can prevent further infection of the foot.
We need to be responsible in how we go about addressing the problems of the world. When we address the symptoms of poverty globally, such as children without shoes, we neglect the often-nuanced and complicated problems that cause these symptoms. Instead of seeking quick fixes and addressing problems independently of one another, we need to develop holistic solutions and long-term commitments to empower local visionaries who understand the crises facing their region.
If you’re wearing Toms shoes and you feel attacked personally, this is not my intention. I’m not a trained economist or expert in development. I just think that it is important to understand the impact our decisions make on others and I want to begin a dialogue that addresses these issues.
So try to get your money back on those shoes because, while looking only slightly cooler than Crocs, they can inflict immeasurable damage on local economies.
