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.
No comments:
Post a Comment