In looking at how SoleRebels benefits socially as opposed to Toms Shoes, my position would lean significantly towards SoleRebels than to Toms.
The ‘one for one’ business model does impose a threat to local businesses such as stated in fastcoexist.com, “As Time recently noted, an increasing number of foreign aid practitioners and agencies are recognizing that charitable gifts from abroad can distort developing markets and undermine local businesses by creating an entirely unsustainable aid-based economy.”, which clearly indicate the irony in the business model. It could not be denied that the ‘one for one’ business model still is a really effective marketing strategy for Toms’ sale. However in the social cause side of it, the underlying irony of the strategy does impose the effectivity in terms of its social benefits.
On the other hand, SoleRebels has been around the shoe market since 2004, promoting its value as a Fairtrade-certified company, as well as their social cause in helping the local economy of Ethiopia. SoleRebels provides job opportunities for the local population, promotes the Ethiopian culture, supports the supplier by being FairTrade-certified, which significantly shows how SoleRebels is really in it for the social cause. They explicitly state that the purpose of their business plan is to support trade in Africa and Ethiopia, “Africa and Ethiopia in particular desperately needs more trade and not aid or charity.“. This statement in a way criticizes the ‘one for one’ business plan.
In conclusion, SoleRebels’ business plan is more effective in terms of creating social impact as opposed to Toms’ ‘one for one’ business plan which could lead to unintended consequences.
Source:
http://www.solerebels.com/pages/solerebels-101
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/one-one-business-model-social-impact-avoiding-unintended-consequences/
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-one-model-three-ways-to-save-toms-shoes
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1987628%2C00.html