Month: January 2013

During the first week or so of this class, we watched a great video about TOMS Shoes, highlighting the essentials of their buy one, give one campaign. Interestingly, I read an article last term as part of the required readings for SOCI 430B: Perspectives on Global Citizenship, which questioned the sustainability and effectiveness of this particular campaign.

http://whereamiwearing.com/2011/04/toms-shoes/

Essentially, the article, written by Kelsey Zimmerman, makes note that the charity element of the campaign, in which a pair of shoes is given to someone in need in a third world country, doesn’t necessarily alleviate the heart of the matter: poverty. Is the act of giving a pair of shoes to an impoverished person going to fix poverty? Probably not. What’s the alternative then? Well, instead of giving a pair of shoes away, TOMS should invest in employing workers in these third world nations, that way, workers can make a decent wage, and improve their quality of life. Interesting. This actually makes sense. However, part of me doesn’t want to believe him, because I’ve grown to appreciate the mission of the TOMS brand. TOMS must employ local workers in these countries right? Well they do, in China, which wasn’t at the top of my list of countries in need of an economic boost.

Kelsey mentions another footwear business, SoleRebels, which is based in Ethiopia, employs locals, and pays 300% more than similar employers in the country. All of the materials used to make the footwear is sourced locally (within a 60 mile radius of the city).

Ultimately, Kelsey doesn’t just say “TOMS is bad.” He actually commends them for doing things that no other for-profit business would ever think of doing. Instead, he makes suggestions as to what could be improved in the business model, and encourages consumers to seek more information about their purchases. I totally agree with the latter. If we, as consumers, are going to pride ourselves in making sustainable choices, and mindfully purchase products that have a story, we need to take the necessary steps to ensure that we know the nitty gritty details of the story we are telling.

Have you ever been to a restaurant in Vancouver and seen this symbol on the menu?

Well, this symbol indicates that the restaurant uses Ocean Wise seafood. The Vancouver Aquarium initiated the Ocean Wise program to educate consumers about sustainable seafood, and works in conjunction with restaurants and food suppliers to make environment-minded decisions with regards to menu planning and sourcing.

This got me thinking about Vancouver’s deep affinity for sustainable and locally sourced food. When it comes to food-related purchasing decisions, consumers are more mindful about where their food is actually coming from, with the general belief that local=good. To meet this concern, most restaurants will make an effort to indicate when their products are sustainable and locally sourced, as it often increases the customer’s willingness to spend. It’s not uncommon to find the name of the farm certain protein was raised on, prefacing particular menu items (eg: “Fraser Valley” Duck, “Pemberton Meadows” Beef) to have a greater appeal to consumers who appreciate some sort of narrative with their main course.

Is this type of information important? Definitely. We need to know where our food comes from, and come to terms with the reality that most foods aren’t cultivated the way we think they are ( just watch this). With this type of information, we are able to make more informed decisions about what we’re eating. Is it necessary though? Some would argue that it is, while others, understandably, care more about flavor and value than sustainability. So the next time you go out for dinner, keep an eye out for local/sustainable choices! Hopefully you don’t sit next to these guys…

A few weeks ago I watched an episode of Dragon’s Den that featured Ten Tree Apparel, a new, yet extremely successful company that has incorporated sustainability into their business model. The Regina-based company, which was started by three recent university graduates, has addressed the growing environmental concern of deforestation. In conjunction with WeForest, Ten Tree plants 10 trees for every apparel item sold. Trees are planted across Canada, as well as in foreign countries such as Ethiopia, Haiti, and the Philippines, to match existing species of local forests.

Watch: Ten Tree on Dragon’s Den

This pitch particularly stood out for me because it showed the conflicting opinions of the dragons/investors with regards to business and sustainability. Typically, the dragons and presenting business owners argue over the valuation of a business, or the equity at stake. In this case, we see the extremely successul dragons debating over the sustainable business model and profit margins driven up by local sourcing. On one hand, Kevin O’Leary articulates somewhat of an archaic, profit-focused opinion on the business, akin to insights from Milton Friedman. He’s hard-pressed to think that sustainability is anything but a mere trend in today’s market that will eventually fade. On the other hand, the remaining dragons, particularly Arlene Dickinson, advocate the importance of sustainability in forward-thinking businesses, keeping in mind the three aspects of the triple bottom line discussed in class (People, Planet, Profit). They are keen on supporting these types of businesses that act as stewards in the interest of the environment. This dialogue is a great example of how sustainability and marketing are related, and touches on a consumer’s growing willingness to spend on sustainable products. Watching this pitch definitely reminded me of similar successful BOGO companies like TOMS and WeWOOD. Ultimately, Ten Tree made a deal with dragons Bruce Croxon and Arlene, who is often considered the marketing maven of Dragon’s Den.