The trouble with TOMS

If you’re reading this, it’s likely that you or someone you know owns a pair of TOMS shoes.

The company, launched by entrepreneur Blake Mycoskie in 2006, quickly became known for its innovative “One for One” business model, in which the company provides one pair of shoes “to a child in need” for every pair bought by consumers.

However, a recent investigation of the company by journalist Amy Costello, as well as photos and videos on the TOMS website, reveal that not all children who receive TOMS actually need them but, in fact, already have shoes of their own.

This brings to the forefront several issues central to humanitarian work, including working for versus working with the poor, sustainable versus short-term giving and what it means to empower and give a voice to the poor and other historically marginalized communities.

The TOMS “One for One” business model is based on what consumers and donors want. It is not based on the needs and priorities of the people and communities receiving the shoes.

Donors and consumers would like to give shoes to people who don’t have them, but how can we know that a need for shoes is the top priority of these impoverished communities if we haven’t asked them? What about food, clothing, education and local economy?

Research has shown that the TOMS business model can, in fact, harm local economies where shoes are available. Toms is telling these impoverished communities, “What you need is shoes,” without even asking if they need shoes — and making a lot of money in the process.

This model is a Band-Aid solution; it deals only with one particular symptom — that is, shoelessness — of the larger problem at hand, which is poverty.

An example of a more sustainable solution is microfinance. Microfinance has its own problems, but it empowers those who are historically powerless. It doesn’t give handouts; it provides opportunities.

What’s more, TOMS has been in the media in the past year for its extensive partnerships with evangelical Christian organizations around the globe.

This is not problematic in principle, but in practice, it has led to a disproportionate percentage of shoe donations going to children in Christian schools. TOMS partner organizations can decide where to distribute the shoes, which often leaves out the very poorest members of a community.

Moreover, TOMS is supposed to be a nonpolitical, nonreligious business and prohibits any shoe distribution associated with religious ideology or proselytizing. It aims to serve children in need regardless of their religious beliefs.

If you’re going to give your money to what you believe is an honest cause, please do your research first.

­— ccleahy@indiana.edu