Deep in a third-world country, a destitute, impoverished boy kicks up dust with his bare feet, wearily wandering the streets of his tattered town, unaware that across the globe, footwear retailers are rejoicing at his plight.
Six years ago, a man named Blake Mycoskie started a philanthropic business donating shoes to needy children, inspired by a trip to Argentina and motivated by health hazards linked to unprotected feet. Since then, TOMS has become more than a charity; it is now a full-fledged fashion trend sported by adults, children, and everyone in between. “One for one”—the concept that purchasing a pair of TOMS provides a poor child with a pair of his or her own—is a sweet, innovative idea that makes buyers feel good about themselves, giving these charming, dolma-like shoes an edge over competitors like Vans or Keds. The TOMS movement was brilliant—revolutionary, really. Most importantly, it was genuine. There is a story behind the company’s beginning, and a person to tell this story. This brings me to the cause of my distress: corporations that twist charity from its pure form into yet another petty business competition. “I can help more barefoot children than you.”
To be specific, Skechers’ recent launch of their BOBS footwear line strikes me as mildly disturbing. Partnered with the nonprofit Shoes4Soles, Skechers follows a similar setup to that of TOMS, only it is not “One for One”, but TWO for one. If that doesn’t make potential consumers feel like total saints, BOBS are also ten dollars cheaper than TOMS. Yes, donating to those in need is admirable, and I doubt the third-world recipients care that the only reason they aren’t barefoot is because Skechers wants to win. The fact that their feet are shielded from grime and disease is what really matters. But I still find myself wondering if it can still be called charity when it is backed by murky motives. Where is Skechers’ story of inspiration? Their website offers only a brief description of their cause, implying that their primary concern lies in their shoes’ sales. Maybe Skechers has always been secretly devastated by struggling barefoot children, or maybe they “thrive on fashion, design without limits and aim to succeed”, as their corporate overview declares.
While by no means am I saying it is morally wrong to purchase BOBS shoes, I do take issue with the lack of creativity, compassion, and dignity involved in the development of this fashion line, and it saddens me that perhaps the most effective way to end poverty is through corporate competition rather than good old-fashioned generosity. In the spirit of Skechers, I will leave you with a concern that is not entirely my own but is still worth contemplating. However, I’m willing to admit it was Jack Johnson, not I, who first lyrically wondered,
Â
“Where’d all the good people go?”
Â
http://businessthatcares.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-not-do-business-philanthropy-like.html
Â
http://www.soles4souls.org/friends/partners.html
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOMS_Shoes#Background
Â
http://skx.com/