How can I help the world? Such simple words, but when placed together as a question the possibilities become endless. Whether it is teaching in underdeveloped nations, providing financial support for medical relief or simply bringing attention to major issues, all of these methods serve a larger goal of advancing human development around the globe. The American people pride themselves on participating in the most recent developmental movements. Subsequently, we have witnessed the transformation of American culture. Businesses are now trying to accommodate a sudden rush towards “philanthropy.” Although they work for a selfless cause, providing “friendly” products has been an excellent marketing tactic. We as consumers must look past the novelty of their products because the way we spend our next paychecks may adversely affect a state’s growth.
Beginning college was an enlightening experience. Walking on campus for the first time I was shocked at the amount of little blue tags on the back of peoples’ sneakers and the amount of signs that identified this new brand of coffee I never heard of. What was the big deal with wearing “toms” shoes and drinking “fair trade” coffee? Fearful of being an ignorant freshman I had to research what these new products were.
TOMS shoes is a company that donates a pair of shoes to a poor child in a third world country for every purchase made (TOMS Shoes). What a great idea I thought! First, a customer would get a pair of trendy, comfortable shoes that you could show off to all your friends. Second, customers could wear them around feeling great because they know people are looking at their feet thinking, “Oh look they have TOMS, what a great citizen they are!” And third, customers are helping a poor child which obviously plays a large role in developing poor states (Kevin).
Fair Trade sells coffee from international farms to our people, the difference from other companies is that products that bear the “Fair Trade” logo come from farmers and workers who are provided just wages (Fair Trade USA). But how does this nonprofit manage to provide appropriate compensation to their workers? Fair Trade skips the middle man and makes deals with the coffee farmers directly. By establishing a set payment of about $1.55 per lb. the farmer makes about ten percent more than the local market price (Fieser). So who would not want to be a part of helping farmers in developing countries build sustainable businesses that positively influence their communities?
After discovering the amazing work these two organizations accomplish I understood what people on campus were doing. I ordered my first pair of TOMS, helped a child in Haiti get his own pair of sneakers, and began drinking my Fair Trade coffee. I was a part of this new movement. I would be a part of the solution. I would help international countries develop into livable striving nations. Such foolishness, the truth is I was possibly more naïve now than when I first stepped onto campus. Although these two organizations work to develop underprivileged nations they do not solve problems, they only create new ones.
Beginning with TOMS’ approach giving stuff away does not work. By doing so we create a sense of dependency and it is not easily reproducible. Imagine we provide two thousand children in Haiti with new sneakers. Those sneakers will last about two years until they are completely mangled. What are these kids to do now? When TOMS is sending their shoes to other nations, who is to help these Haitian children get shoes? It is an amazing goal to be working towards saving these children from diseases caused by walking around barefooted. However are the repercussions from lack of support worth providing two thousand children shoes for only two years? We also have to remember that dumping shoes in these underdeveloped nations has an affect on their local economies. Frazer has said that, "Used-clothing imports are found to have a negative impact on apparel production in Africa, explaining roughly 40% of the decline in production and 50% of the decline in employment over the period 1981–2000." Fifty percent decline in employment because people donated clothing! Think about it when these shoes are placed in small villages, what are the local shoemakers like those depicted in A Day Without Dignity a montage of photographs taken by Don D’Souza in Kpandai. These people lose their jobs and their only form of income; we essentially make them worse off than before.
Fair Trade claims to avoid this issue because they stimulate international economies by providing appropriate wages to workers. If we take another look at the wages Fair Trade pays we see that they provide 1.55 per lb organic coffee, almost ten percent more than the market price. Which at first sounds amazing, consumers need to know that these workers need to pay Fair Trade cooperative fees, government taxes and the expenses of farming. By the end of this process a person is left with approximately 50¢ per pound. By the end of a year the farmers pocket around half of the minimum wage in Guatemala (Ezra Fieser)!
Rather than allowing these organizations to continually bandage old problems and create new ones we should look to edit their plans to ensure development. For example rather than TOMS dropping shoes off in villages they should take some of their profits and either teach locals to make shoes or donate funds into a local shoe manufacturer. By doing this they boost the economy, help people learn an efficient skill, and avoid focusing in on these people as just a problem. The Fair Trade movement could also look to edit their approach by making their cooperative fees cheaper, and attempting to get larger corporations to take on this method. The idea is to spread Fair Trade other fields of market, because if this can be done then free trade will begin to provide more appropriate wages.
Neither of these approaches are perfect nor do they expand developmental aid as efficiently as possible. However, these two organizations do manage to do something amazing and that is that they make people aware. To have research on the affects that these organizations have on international markets is a great thing, because that means scholars are working together to identify flaws. These flaws essentially make room for solutions that will undoubtedly be a source for ideal developmental methods. I am not stating that purchasing these products is a bad thing, however it is important that consumers purchase these items because they want to not because they think they have done a good deed. If consumers truly want to get involved they must know development does not happen through a market trend they are caused by people providing resources to the citizens of third world nations so they may develop through their own means.
Works Cited
Annonymous. Fair Trade Products USA. Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.
Avc. "A Day Without Dignity – Photos from Don « Untapped Markets .ca." Untapped Markets .ca. Untapped Markets, 5 Apr. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.
Fieser, Ezra. "Fair Trade: What Price for Good Coffee? - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. TIME, 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.
Frazer, G. (2008), Used-Clothing Donations and Apparel Production in Africa. The Economic Journal, 118: 1764–1784. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02190.x
Jon. "TOMS Shoes and A Day Without Dignity « Hands Wide Open." Hands Wide Open. Word Press, 5 Apr. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.
"Official Store - TOMS Shoes - A Pair of New Shoes is Given to a Child in Need With Every Pair Purchased - One for One - TOMSshoes.com." Official Store - TOMS Shoes - A Pair of New Shoes is Given to a Child in Need With Every Pair Purchased - One for One - TOMSshoes.com. 2 Aug. 2009
Wadhams, Nick. "Is Foreign Aid Bad for Africa? Shirt Charity Spurs Debate - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. TIME, 12 May 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.
Frank, this was a very interesting post as I did not know the whole story of TOMS shoes. You also make very good points about the companies’ approaches to development. In your research, did you find any other companies that are taking this approach, but their way of reaching these set goals has been better planned out? And, as citizens and consumers, what can we do to try to improve the approaches?
ReplyDeleteGreat post Frank! I really agree with point that you make that these companies may have good intentions, but their efforts are just giving these developing countries new problems. This also goes along with Ethan's recent post stating how a lack of innovation in developing countries is keeping them in a cycle of hand-me-down technology from developed countries. So do you think that micro funding organizations such as Kiva would provide better solutions to a developing country rather than a company just giving out free products?
ReplyDeleteEven though the intentions are right, I agree that these types of processes are basically circumventing the core of the problem. It is one thing to provide help/basic necessities (such as shoes with TOMS), but it is another to provide them with skills which will help individuals and their communities more in the long run. Temporary aid maybe great now, but efforts need to be shifted towards promotion of skills. Frank, I like your point of how Fair Trade is a good concept, but its roots of operation could be used elsewhere in various sectors in order to further benefit more people in lower economic brackets around the world. Overall, these examples serve as evidence that it is necessary to ultimately combat certain issues at their sources.
ReplyDeleteHey Frank,
ReplyDeleteI really liked this post, I have heard some negative things about Tom's shoes, but I hadn't thought about the negative effects of giving children in Haiti a free pair of shoes. This sounds like such a great idea at first glance, but I now see what you were saying about the effects on Haitian show makers. Do you think the Tom's shoe company thought of this approach and decided against it for market value? I could see how giving a child a free pair of shoes would appeal to our emotions better than promising to teach business owners new skills. The marketing concept is fairly simple and easy to accomplish. It surely doesn't take much time to ship crates of shoes. Or do you believe that they really think this is a good way to help poor communities, and are just unaware of these kinds of consequences?
Frank,
ReplyDeleteI have a similar response to your post as I did with Julia’s blog about R2P. I think that the intentions of TOMS is obviously a positive one, but the main issue is that TOMS do not come from within the country. As you pointed out, this is not a long-term situation, which will create dependency.
Instead of just giving shoes away, companies like TOMS should also help teach these countries that they dub “in need,” how to create businesses and be entrepreneurs like the TOMS Company itself. This way, instead of becoming reliant on a foreign body, the members of the country will have more of the tools to develop their own society in a lasting way.
I never really considered the negative effects that an organization such as TOMS could have. Is TOMS doing anything to rethink their mission and revaluate what they are doing to see if there is a different way to benefit these nations without having negative long-term effects? I think that if TOMS does change its goal, the whole concept behind why people buy these shoes also changes. The idea that someone with poorer living conditions is receiving the same pair of shoes as you really leaves us with the incentive to buy these shoes. If the mission of TOMS changes do you think it will also change our incentive to support the cause?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi everyone body I am so glad you enjoyed my blog post and I will try to answer every question in this single response. To start with Shannon I actually did come across several companies that are going about this method in the very same way, however whether they are appropriate methods is in the eye of the beholder. For example one that I remember was a group of yoga studios were sending yoga mats to Haiti after the earthquake. At first this seems really foolish because why would they need yoga mats?! But in fact the studios felt it was a good incentive because they offered a surface to sleep on and they could waterproof tents which was very interesting. Another company was sending 100s of t-shirts which I find no useful alternative. So it really depends on the product and the uses they can offer. One company that I thought was the best was one that did a one to one method with soap, but instead of giving away soap they taught people how to make their own.
ReplyDeleteBut if normal citizens really want to get involved the best consensus that I came across was to donate funds for the construction of infrastructure. For example a concrete lavatory is possibly very helpful for hygiene and will last years longer than a pair of shoes. Knowing that structures provide more benefits it would be ideal to see these companies shifting their aid towards those kind of projects.
As for the idea if TOMS plans on shifting the idea of the one for one model, I do not see that happening anytime soon because they have even just released an eyeglass wear line that follows the exact same model. If TOMS was in anyway concerned with how they are conducting their development aid they would have shifted methods a while ago, we need to remember although TOMS is recently popular they have been in existence for about 4 to 5 years now, and they have kept their plans the same. I feel it is just a very clever marketing tactic that is working for them right now.
I hope that answered all of the questions! If i forgot one let me know please!