Saturday, October 29, 2011

Possible Solutions?

So what could TOMS do to be a more sustainable company? Are there any realistic solutions?

It's difficult to come up with viable solutions because it would require TOMS to stop production, in order to help wean us off of our addiction to consumerism. But then, TOMS would no longer exist and that's the antithesis of what a company desires.

A possible solution for TOMS is for them to only do domestic shoe drops. TOMS does some shoe drops in the United States and they could focus on improving equity in the states. There's no need to travel far distances because people in need are people in need and Mycoskie's objectives in the shoe drops will still be reached (the objectives can be found in my earlier post "Not the end of the line"). Then, they would lower their carbon footprint by not flying as far and can use the extra money they save on plane tickets to send to local organizations in developing countries, such as Ethiopia, to help improve their infrastructure. This doesn't reduce our consumption addiction but it could alleviate the poverty in the countries they're sending aid to by promoting the development of their local industries.

I don't foresee a silver bullet solution to the overconsumption problem we face as a society, but this proposed solution is a step in the right direction. As long as we continue to live in a capitalistic society, I feel as though our need to buy material goods will continue to exist. Thus, the sustainability of TOMS is a small aspect of the larger picture of what is needed to make a significant change in living environmentally friendly while developing economically. Although we are a long ways away, at least the supply chain of TOMS shoes can be considered environmentally friendly. It's a small step in the right direction which is more than what can be said about other products.

Friday, October 28, 2011

In the Grand Scheme of Things

Sure, TOMS shoes can be viewed as an environmentally friendly company if we were to look at just the commodity chain analysis of a TOMS shoes. But, if we look at the larger scope of purchasing a pair of TOMS shoes, a different picture is portrayed.

The United States is a consumption addict. We are using up more of the world' natural resources per capita and in the process trashing the world because of it. Annie Leonard explains


Unfortunately, TOMS is not doing anything proactive to curb our addiction. Instead, they are encouraging it by perpetuating our addiction into a form of "heroic shopping", where people buy items that claim to better the lives of others and therefore, become a "hero" through shopping. Because, when we buy a pair of TOMS shoes, we're just not buying a comfy, hip pair of shoes, but buying into a humanitarian ethic. Slavoj Zizek calls it our "cultural capitalism", our tendency to merge our consumption addiction with our feeling of obligation to do something for others. We buy redemption for being only a consumerist by buying a product that also is said to do good, either for the environment or for others.

You can watch Zizek's spiel on cultural capitalism here.


This just feeds into our consumerism because we no longer feel guilty for buying a product. Thus, TOMS shoes and their one-for-one campaign prolongs the problem they are trying to solve in 3 ways.

1. By encouraging consumption, we are not going to get over our addiction for products and will continue to degrade the environment. We're covering up our consumption problem as philanthropic. Every pair of shoes purchased (21.5lbs of carbon dioxide) adds up and contributes to global warming. The impoverished situation that the kids without shoes are in is worsened by the environmental consequences of our consumption.

2. The charitable act continues to leave them in the same situation of poverty they are in, except now, their feet are comfortable and they are less likely to get podoconiosis. I agree that the disease debilitates communities by making it difficult for people to walk and travel, which impedes them from effectively accomplishing their daily tasks. However, even without podoconiosis, the people in those communities continue to live in poverty because, there is no established infrastructure that can provide them with a steady income. As Zizek eloquently puts it
If you just operate the child [give him/her a pair of shoes], then they live a little bit better but in the same situation which produced them.
3. This form of charity reinforces relations of inequality inherent in donor-recipient exchanges. As Lisa Ann Richey and Stefano Ponte wrote in Brand Aid: Shopping Well to Save the World, this consumerist act allows us to feel close to the suffering individuals but it also replicates the power divide that exists between the developed and developing nations, the haves' and the have nots'. Thus, there's less of a desire to help the developing nations prosper.

Mathis Wackernagel and Willliam Rees in Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth defines sustainability as "living in material comfort and peacefully with each other within the means of nature" (32). They argue that
Sustainable development therefore depends both on reducing ecological destruction (mainly by limiting the material and energy throughout of the human economy) and on improving the material quality of life of the world's poor (by freeing up the ecological space needed for further growth in developing countries and ensuring that the benefits flow where they are most needed) (32).
So, in the grand scheme of things, TOMS does not promote environmental sustainability insofar as they  are perpetuating our consumption addiction and prolong the poverty existent in the developing nations they give aid to.

But can we really blame TOMS? They are after all a company that wouldn't exist if it didn't capitalize on our cultural capitalism...

Thursday, October 27, 2011

TOMS and the Environment

Not taking into account any of the information I was not provided with, TOMS seems to be a pretty sustainable company. Totaling a carbon footprint of ~21.5lbs of carbon dioxide per shoe, it's a lot more eco-friendly than Nike and still achieves a 2 on Timberland's Green Index scale.

Moreover,TOMS has a sustainability team located in Santa Monica aimed at making TOMS more environmentally friendly and the office has implemented eco-friendly activities such as biking/carpooling to work, participating in beach cleanups, and planting trees downtown.


These are small scale initiatives that don't offset any of the carbon emissions they emit from their shoe-drops, but at least they recognize the importance and are doing something about it. Right?

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Making TOMS shoes' production chain public for the world to see

To promote the awareness of the importance of our products' supply chain and carbon footprints, the following information from my previous posts have been translated into a visual map form and uploaded onto Sourcemap. Sourcemap is a
crowd-sourced directory of product supply chains and carbon footprints... dedicated to providing free and open-source tools for sharing the information needed to understand the impact of our choices.


To check out other supply chains produced by other individuals/corporations/non-profits, you can go to http://www.sourcemap.com/

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Not the end of the line: What happens after consumption

We've concluded that TOMS shoes are an environmentally friendly shoe choice. But buying a TOMS shoe is not like buying any type of shoe. The commodity chain goes one step further as a pair of shoes also goes to a child who needs one. So, how does this occur?

Well, as mentioned in my earlier post, the production of these so-called, giveaway shoes, are produced in Argentina and Ethiopia, which are areas where a lot of the shoes go.

Areas where TOMS shoes are donated
http://www.toms.com/our-movement-where
Thus, the environmental impact of these giveaway shoes couldn't be any greater than an individual in the United States purchasing one. It would be significantly less since the giveaway shoes use local materials and travel shorter distances.

Yet, according to Blake Mycoskie (owner of TOMS), every 2 weeks, 15 volunteers are flown to Argentina (and sometimes, to Ethiopia and South Africa) to participate in a shoe drop, which is what their shoe donation process is called.
 we take 15 volunteers every two weeks to Argentina, and then sometimes even to Ethiopia in South Africa, to help us give away these shoes. We have a whole team of people for whom their sole job at TOMS is to review applications, to book travel, to organize these trips.
This seems highly impractical in an environmental sense, and it is. An average of 4,356lbs of Carbon Dioxide is emitted in each trip from Los Angeles to Buenos Aires.


This number was obtained from 3 Carbon Footprint Calculators: The Carbon Footprint, The Carbon Fund, and TerraPass. The Carbon Footprint is an English based environmental management firm that consults corporations on reducing their carbon emissions. The Carbon Fund is the leading non-profit provider of carbon offsets and climate solutions in the United States. TerraPass is an environmental for-profit that funds projects that reduce greenhouse gase emissions. These 3 very distinct institutions were chosen in calculating the average carbon dioxide emissions to mitigate any bias there could have been within their carbon footprint calculators.

Over the course of a year, that would be around 850 Tons of Carbon Dioxide emitted. That, according to the EPA, would be equivalent to...

- Providing energy for 67 homes for 1 year
- Using 86,447 gallons of gasoline
- .0002 coal fired power plants running for 1 year

But remember, this assuming that
- They really go every 2 weeks - 26 times a year
- They don't travel to Ethiopia or South Africa, which are farther away
- They only travel from Santa Monica (There is another TOMS headquarters in Seoul, South Korea and they, too, participate in shoe drops)

So then, how much carbon dioxide would each shoe really be emitting?

According to TOMS Giving Report (which can be downloaded on their website), they have given away 1 million pairs of shoes by 2010 through their one-for-one campaign. Starting in 2006, that means every year, they would have given away around 200,000 shoes/year. And if each year they contribute 850 Tons of carbon dioxide, it would mean that each donated shoe contributes 8.5lbs of carbon dioxide.

TOMS is contributing an extra 8.5lbs of carbon dioxide through their shoe drops. That's an extra 65% of their carbon dioxide emissions.

Why would TOMS do this?


Mycoskie has 2 main reasons.
1. We believe that the child gets as much satisfaction and joy out of the personal one-on-one interaction with someone from the first world as they do from the actual shoes.
2. Because we believe that it is not just that we’re helping these people get shoes. But we're also about helping people in the first world have a quality, safe, life-changing experience in the idea of giving.
Does the humanitarian aspect of TOMS outweigh its responsibility to Mother Earth? I'll take a closer look in a later post...stay tuned.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Total Carbon Footprint of TOMS Shoes

So, transportation did not have a significant carbon footprint, but what about for the entire production process?

According to research done by Nike on the sustainability of their shoes, shipping to their distribution centers only accounts for 7% of their carbon emissions.


Since transportation to the distribution center, which accounts for 7% of the total carbon footprint of shoe production, produced .795 lbs of carbon dioxide, TOMS shoes would have a carbon footprint of around 11.36 lbs per shoe. Getting the shoes shipped to my front steps then would have a total carbon footprint of ~13lbs of carbon dioxide per shoe.

Distribution of Carbon Emissions within the Production Chain of TOMS shoes

How does this compare to the carbon footprint of other companies' shoe production?

Compared to Nike, TOMS shoes emits 3 times less carbon dioxide than a pair of Nike's, which produces ~42lbs of carbon dioxide. This is most likely associated with the fact that
1. Nike has many more factories and places from which they manufacture and acquire their materials. Thus, their shoes travel longer distances.
2. Nike utilizes both ocean and air freight transportation. Since air travel produces more carbon dioxide per mile than ocean transportation, using both for transport would increase their carbon emissions.

Compared to Timberland, TOMS shoes is also found to be environmentally friendly. Timberland created a Green Index scale from a software program called GaBI to calculate a pair of their shoes' climate impact.  The program inputed greenhouse gas emissions produced from raw material acquisition, the factory's energy use, and the finished product. The emissions were then translated into a Green Index. A 0 is equivalent to less than 2.49kg (5.49lbs) of carbon dioxide emissions and a 1 is 10kg (22lbs) of carbon dioxide emissions. From there, every unit of increase on the Green Index scale represents a 10kg increase of carbon dioxide emissions with 10 representing any emissions 100kg or more. 13.22lbs of carbon dioxide converts to ~6kg of carbon dioxide. Thus, TOMS shoes would be a 1 on Timberland's Green Index scale illustrating its relatively low environmental impact.

Overall, TOMS shoes appear to be an environmentally friendly choice for those in the lookout for a new pair of shoes.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Carbon Footprint of TOMS shoes Transportation

From understanding where the shoes are produced, we can now determine the carbon footprint of its transport.

Disclaimer: The results will be a bit skewed as I was not able to obtain all the information necessary. Mainly, I wasn't able to find out where all the materials came from nor where exactly in China the shoes were made.

From what I was able to find, I calculated the carbon footprint of TOMS shoes as if I purchased it from where I currently reside: Providence, RI

In calculating the carbon footprint, I used the shipping emissions factor from the Carbon Fund, the nation's leading non-profit provider of carbon offsets and climate solutions. The emission factors the Carbon Fund used were obtained from the EPA's Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol. The EPA, in calculating carbon emissions included the carbon dioxide equivalency for methane and nitrous oxide, 2 common greenhouse gases with significant global warming potentials.

Part 1: Transporting the shoes from the factory to the US warehouse

From China to Valencia, CA

Distance: 6862.759miles
Method of Transport: Boat
Weight of each shoe: 2.2lbs (used the shipping weight of a pair of shoes from Amazon.com)


Part 2: Transporting the shoes from the warehouse to my residence

Valencia, CA to Providence, RI
Distance: 2584.141miles
Method of Transport: Truck
Carbon footprint of Truck: .654lbs Carbon Dioxide per Ton per mile


Total Carbon Footprint to get 1 pair of TOMS shoes to Providence = 2.655 lbs of Carbon Dioxide


That doesn't sound all that bad considering that 1 gallon of gasoline emits ~20 lbs of carbon dioxide. Most people use more than a gallon of gas commuting to/from work each day.  Even if you don't drive or commute much, in an average day, a person living in Providence, RI would consume 22.95lbs of carbon dioxide from electricity and heating. Since people wear shoes for quite some time (I go through a pair around every 2yrs), it seems as though the carbon impact is minimal. That amounts to ~.00364lbs of carbon dioxide used per day from wearing TOMS shoes.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Where are TOMS shoes produced??

Now that we've uncovered how the shoes are made, we must find out where it's made.

So....where or where are you made, TOMS?

Guess; you won't be amazed. CHINA!!!

...at least that's true for the TOMS shoes that we as consumers purchase. For the shoes that are given away through their one-for-one campaign, production occurs in Argentina and Ethiopia. This information comes from another chat session I had with a TOMS representative.

After the shoes are produced in China, it's shipped to their warehouse in Valencia, CA, where it is then distributed to various parts of the United States.

All this information comes from a web chat conversation with a TOMS employee. You can read it at the bottom.

Map of production centers and travelling distances

Conversation with TOMS employee about TOMS shoe production

Saturday, October 15, 2011

What's in a TOMS shoe??

TOMS shoes are created with 4 materials: canvas, EVA, dye, and an adhesive. This information comes to us from Blake Mycoskie, owner of TOMS, and a fellow blogger who asked a TOMS employee via chat session.

Components of a TOMS shoe


So, what are the environmental impacts of each material?

1. Canvas
- According to a report on shoe production by Southern India's Investment Expansion Process and TOMS, canvas minimally impacts the environment.
The production of canvas shoes does not have adverse effect on environment. By - products of the process are the cuttings and trimmings of canvas linings, rubber sole, etc. These can easily by collected, stored in containers and disposed of together with solid waste of the plant. 
- Being organic, the cotton used in the canvas also has a smaller environmental impact in terms of pesticide/insecticide use.
- However, a lot of water is diverted to cotton fields and have negatively impacted the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan.
water diversion has reduced the Aral Sea to 60% its original surface area-- some 11,000 square miles once under water are now dry and saline, and villages once dependent on fishing are now stranded miles from the shore.
2. EVA Rubber Composite
- This is a composition of ethylene and vinyl acetate.
- There are small, quick emissions into the air and water supply from production and is energy intensive.
Fugitive emissions to air, water and intense energy consumption are the main environmental impacts associated with the production, use, and disposal of EVA.  The largest impact associated with the production of a plastic like EVA is the improper disposal of plastic goods by consumers (17-18). 
- The carbon dioxide emissions into the air is ~1.81lbs/kg of EVA. Compared to other materials that are commonly used to produce shoe soles, this is quite environmentally friendly. Other materials, such as PVC, Rubber, and plastic, produce 6.8lbs, 6.3lbs, and 7.3lbs of carbon dioxide/kg of the respective material.

3. Adhesive Glue
- The TOMS representative could not tell me what type of adhesive was used. (The online chat conversation I had with the TOMS rep can be found at the end of this post.) But typical shoe adhesives, such as the kinds Timerland Shoes uses, release Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere.  The main VOC's released, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and trichloroethane (TCA) are considered Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. These VOCs are thought to cause cancer, birth defects, and neurological damages. TCA is also known to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, the "good" ozone layer that protects life on Earth from the sun's ultraviolet rays.

4. AZO and Lead Free Dyes
- AZOs are inorganic chemical compounds that produce red, orange and yellow dyes. They, along with lead, are carcinogenic and the chemical/metal can produce negative health consequences.
some azo-based dyes (Azo dye group III A1 and A2) shed carcinogenic aryl amines as the garments are worn (they contain metallic elements) creating health risks, according to the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment.
Conclusion
- It seems as though the materials used are relatively safer and more environmentally friendly than regular shoes. Besides the adhesives and EVA, there aren't any materials that are known to be significantly harmful to the environment. Considering that traditional shoes utilize the same adhesives and EVA, but also use conventional cotton (which employs a lot of pesticides) and leather (which is energy intensive and have indirect environmental impacts as the material comes from a cow), TOMS shoes seem to be an environmentally friendly alternative to the more conventional shoes available on the market.
- One thing to note, though, is that the materials are shipped from all over the world and therefore, transportation may be a major environmental consequence of TOMS shoes. Unfortunately, TOMS could not provide me with any information about where exactly in the world the materials are gathered from. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. TOMS does state, though, that they
employ fair trade practices, although there are currently no official fair trade standards for footwear manufacturing.
But what could the dependent clause possibly mean? Did they create their own standard for what is "fair trade"? Why did they say that no fair trade standards for footwear manufacturing exist? There are plenty of other fair trade organizations, such as the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) and Fair Trade International (FLO International), that TOMS could use as a guide for fair trade practices. This, and their inability to tell me where exactly they got their products from, suggests some questionable trading policies. Maybe I'm just being a skeptic, but companies' ability to hide the origins of the products they are selling to us has been a reoccurring issue that needs to be solved in order to mitigate climate change and also promote human rights.

Conversation with TOMS employee over the materials within their shoes

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Midterm Project - Secret Lives of Stuff

Hello TOMS shoes.

It's not much of a surprise seeing TOMS shoes all over Brown campus. What student wouldn't want a snazzy looking pair of shoes that not only looks hip but also gives a pair to a child without one?

But are these humanitarian shoes really that great? Such forms of humanitarianism, known as in-kind donations, have been criticized as being dead aid, a form of aid that doesn't help and in some cases, ends up causing more harm.

Niharika Jain, writer for the Harvard Crimson, states that TOMS shoes have the unintended consequences of hurting the local community financially and socially.

Apparently, this isn’t uncommon in philanthropy. Several acknowledged instances can be found where in-kind donations have disrupted local markets in developing countries. A 2008study found that used-clothing imports to Africa explained 50 percent of the fall in employment in that sector from 1981-2000. After the Haiti earthquake, an influx of foreign food aid—particularly donations of rice—hurt rice farmers’ livelihoods. Oxfam has also found that secondhand clothing imports to nations like Senegal and Ghana have likely hurt local industries and contributed to unemployment. The Oxfam report quotes the General Secretary of the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation on the job losses: “Unable to compete [with secondhand clothing imports], local businesses are collapsing, leaving hundreds of thousands of workers jobless.”
Although TOMS likely has good intentions, its donation strategy may negatively impact the communities it seeks to support. Like the litany of organizations that donate shoes, clothes, and other items to developing countries, TOMS may be undermining the development of local businesses. And while making in-kind donations benefits consumers in the short run, stifling local industry and increasing unemployment in this way will intensify poverty in the long-term.

Good Intentions Are Not Enough also criticizes TOMS for their ineffective philanthropy.


So, TOMS' humanitarianism is disputable. But, are they at least considerate of their ecological footprint? As a supporter of the well-being of kids in developing nations, they ought to be insofar as the people in the areas TOMS gives aid to are the ones most negatively affected by our actions concerning the environment. J. Timmons Roberts states
those who are least responsible for the problem [climate change] are suffering the worst impacts of climate change, with the least capacity to address those impacts (777).
Moreover, the long-term negative impacts in their livelihoods caused by climate change grossly outweigh the short-term benefit of having a pair of shoes. To truly help those that TOMS is giving their shoes to, they ought to be produced in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Follow me on a journey through the secret life of TOMS and let's investigate the environmental aspect of TOMS shoes and its significance their humanitarian values.