TOMS

i had a friend in Turkey working in social entrepreneurship. and i didn't and still don't know much about it, but i nonetheless found the phrase repulsive. entrepreneurship- that's the way McDonalds and Boeing and Microsoft started. investment bankers and insurance companies use that word. entrepreneurship is the start of fashionable consumption, that big waste bin of generated desire through advertising. social entrepreneurship is a glamed up version of the same model. instead of selling clothing linked to the arbitrary criteria of fashionable consumption, social entrepreneurs make products socially fashionable. selling products with guilt-free cards. in an age when we are aware of our limited world resources and of the dire poverty of 2/3 of the world's population, social entrepreneurs spin consumption as social justice.

Bono's product red is the best example of social entrepreneurship done wrong- his advertising dollars spent on the project far outmatch his contributions to fighting AIDS and poverty, making the project bloated and inefficient.

but Bono's company has been well critiqued. i haven't read much about TOMS or about the movement of social entrepreneurship itself (although, admittedly, i've only started looking into it). instead of continuing to flog Bono (and he does deserve a good floggin), i want to give 4 reasons to dislike TOMS. we'll start by checking out their "Movement" official philosophy:

OUR MOVEMENT

One for One

TOMS Shoes was founded on a simple premise: With every pair you purchase, TOMS will give a pair of new shoes to a child in need. One for One. Using the purchasing power of individuals to benefit the greater good is what we're all about.
Our Story

In 2006 an American traveler, Blake Mycoskie, befriended children in Argentina and found they had no shoes to protect their feet. Wanting to help, he created TOMS Shoes, a company that would match every pair of shoes purchased with a pair of new shoes given to a child in need. One for One. Blake returned to Argentina with a group of family, friends and staff later that year with 10,000 pairs of shoes made possible by caring TOMS customers.

Since our beginning, TOMS has given over 140,000* pairs of shoes to children in need through the One for One model. Because of your support, TOMS plans to give over 300,000 pairs of shoes to children in need around the world in 2009.

Our ongoing community events and Shoe Drop Tours allow TOMS supporters and enthusiasts to be part of our One for One movement. Join us.
Why shoes?

Most children in developing countries grow up barefoot. Whether at play, doing chores or just getting around, these children are at risk.

Walking is often the primary mode of transportation in developing countries. Children can walk for miles to get food, water, shelter and medical help. Wearing shoes literally enables them to walk distances that aren't possible barefoot.

Wearing shoes prevents feet from getting cuts and sores on unsafe roads and from contaminated soil. Not only are these injuries painful, they also are dangerous when wounds become infected. The leading cause of disease in developing countries is soil-transmitted parasites which penetrate the skin through open sores. Wearing shoes can prevent this and the risk of amputation.

Many times children can't attend school barefoot because shoes are a required part of their uniform. If they don't have shoes, they don't go to school. If they don't receive an education, they don't have the opportunity to realize their potential.

There is one simple solution...SHOES.

Of the planet's six billion people, four billion live in conditions inconceivable to many. Lets take a step towards a better tomorrow.

Reasons to Dislike TOMS from an ethical perspective:
!1. The model is inefficient in achieving the "movement's" mission goals. These cheaply made shoes can cost around 60 dollars. what can you do with 60 dollars to aide children in Argentina, Ethiopia, and South Africa? a lot. a lot more than give one pair of cheap canvas shoes. if consumers really wanted to help starving children, they should realize immediately that they could do more with 60 dollars then buy themselves another pair of shoes. A dated business weekly article says TOMS earned 4.6 million since its launch and has donated 115,000 shoes. (the math: 40 per shoe, 80 per pair). that looks like lots of waste and lots of profit for TOMS. "Using the purchasing power of individuals to benefit the greater good is what we're all about." that's good business and really bad activism.

!2. There is no reflection on the root causes of poverty and suffering in the countries TOMS is supposed to be helping. The only problems mentioned above in the mission statement are the ones directly related to the product: "There is one simple solution... SHOES." No question not leading to shoes is asked. Why are those children in poverty in the first place? Why is their soil contaminated and their roads unsafe as the mission statement claims? The answers to those questions are not because the population lacks TOMS shoes, and so they are not asked. And so, the "movement" is clearly about selling shoes first, not about solving problems.

!3. Deception! Deception! what is TOMS and similar social entrepreneurial companies if not a more deceptive way to sell products then the standard advertising schemes?

!4. Capitalism is the base of TOMS and all for-profit social entrepreneurs (the for profit, non-profit distinction seems extremely important and i think it should always be made, but, then again, if it is non-profit then why use the unsexy term "entrepreneur" and all the filth associated with it in the first place?). if the root problems of Argentina, South Africa, and Ethiopia (the places where TOMS has been giving shoes to great fanfare and photo-ops) were examined then slavery, racism, colonialism, and capitalism would top the list. when you do your social activism via TOMS or other social entrepreneurs, any thought leading to these root causes is cut off by more capitalism (capitalism which, via some social critics, is the root cause for slavery, racism, and colonialism). the message is buy and be happy that you're solving all the world's problems. that's a deal for 60 bucks. pretty convenient, 100% deception.

footnote: i don't hate TOMS, the idea, anyone that buys them, or people that support this sort of thing. the founder says he puts into charity what others put into advertising. the charity becomes his advertising, getting him free representation in forbes, business week, with president clinton, and so on. that's fine and fine to buy the shoes if you know what you're doing. you aren't taking part in a social movement. you're buying fashionable philanthropy, but maybe that's better than plain fashion. i've listed my problems with the idea above and argue that these problems might outweigh the social good of a few thousand donated shoes. i fear that people buy the shoes and their interaction with struggling populations stops. i fear that we are coming to an age when consumption is the only viable reaction we have to injustice, and i know that that is a dead end.