"Oh, so you're like TOMS Shoes?!" This is the response I often get when I tell people about the work I do with Sseko.
So I figured it was about time I did a post about TOMS Shoes.... For those of you who aren't familiar with
TOMS, they are a shoe company that has a "one for one" policy: every time you buy a pair of shoes, they give a pair to a child in need. Sounds great, right? Style
and a cause?.... I thought so too, when I first heard of TOMS. I bought a pair. Wore them proudly and spread the word. I even applied to be a summer intern with them (just fyi, I made it half-way through the selection process, but had to drop out because of another internship offer I accepted... so don't worry, this is not coming from disgruntled, rejected place). However, the more I learned about social business, economic development, and giving... the more I realize that I have some pretty serious issues with the TOMS business model.
Here's the first: what happens to local shoes salesmen in the places that TOMS drops shoes? The issue in these developing economies isn't access to shoes. There are shoes available in local shops in all of these countries. This issue is that parents can't afford to buy them for their kids. So shouldn't the solution to be helping the parents provide for their kids? I believe that some like providing vocational training or employment opportunities would do much more for the communities than free shoes. In fact, free shoes can be harmful to local economies. Who would buy shoes from a local salesman when they get them for free from TOMS?
{side note} Zambia is a classic example of the "free stuff" issue- they used to have a growing clothing manufacturing industry, but since the country started allowing containers of free second hand clothes to enter the country, all of the industry progress that had been made was shut down. Years later, there are now no textile or clothing manufacturers in the country. "The skills, the infrastructure and the capital of an entire industry are now virtually extinct" (quote from an
interesting article). The country now has an abundance of low-priced, second hand clothes... but at what price? Maybe they can buy a 1998 Chicago Bulls Championship t-shirt for 50 cents, but what about all those potential jobs lost with the exit of a clothing manufacturing sector? ... I'm not saying that the impact of TOMS is this severe, but this is just an example of how giving things away can do more harm than good.
The second issue I take with TOMS is the issue of dignity. Since living in Uganda, I've come to realize how important it is for people to know that they have value, that they are capable, that they are people just like you and me. That's not the message I get though when I see well-off trendy white 20-somethings putting shoes on the feet of brown and black little kids. To me, this image just furthers the expectation that the white man will come in to save the day. This is a mindset that our company has tried to battle while working in Uganda. We try to preach the message that we believe in our girls, and that they are helping us just as much as we are helping them.
This conversation isn't new to the social-business scene.... but for those of you who aren't involved in that sector and are just the average consumer, my intention with this topic is to challenge the way you think about what you buy, and even to question the companies that appear to have a good cause. And I hope you don't get discouraged in this process. There are fantastic companies out there that making an amazing social impact on the world.
And with all my criticisms, I would like to say that I still believe that TOMS has good intentions... But I'd love to see them make some changes to their model, so they can be part of a movement that is truly allowing consumers to change the world we live in.