Inspiration from my Comm class a couple days ago about social entrepreneurship really got me thinking about a company I found a connection with from the show Dragon’s Den. The popular show involves starting up entrepreneurs showcasing their product or business to a panel of judges that are willing to invest. After watching people dreams and aspirations get torn apart by the judges, finally a promising group came out with the clothing company, 10 Tree Apparel. What made them different was that for every item the sold, the promised to plant 10 trees. At the time I had no idea what a “ social entrepreneurship” meant but I idea behind the company I found to be incredible simple yet a great idea. The judges were fighting with each other while trying to persuade the guys that created One Tree Apparel to do business with them. It was obvious that they thought it was a great idea. What shook me was the fact that the founders of the company were having a hard time choosing either, Jim, who was offering to take production to china or Arlene who wanted to keep it in the country and using it to help promote the eco-friendliness of the company. Wouldn’t it be an obvious choice to keep production in the country?! You might save more money in china but you are also shipping your product around the world causing pollution. I can’t believe they would even consider it an option because off the sole reason they started the company, to help the plant. Also, as I think in the mind of a social entrepreneur, why don’t you employ troubled teens or people with disability that prevents them from getting work, to help plant your trees. Hmmm giving jobs and also teaching about being environmentally friendly. That sound like pretty good idea to me.
One reply on “10 Tree Apparel”
Hello, I am from Regina and this company is not being as transparent as they appear. They come from an exceptionally wealthy business background, and although that is not cause for concern in itself, I feel it can be established that this endeavour is “business as usual.” The cost they pay to avoid being “dishonest” is minuscule compared to their profit margins. But, that is not my beef. I suggest that issue is “net” effect. Given that tree planting companies are typically contracted by the forestry industry to plant X number of trees in clear-cuts and areas requiring forestation if ten trees provides either seedlings of absorbs the cost for a large tree planting firm on a portion of their total contracted plant the actual number of trees planted does not experience a net increase, essentially they pay a small portion of the larger companies expenses in order to justify their marketing claim- the indeed 10 trees are planted. What would be required (in theory) for them to create a net environmental improvement is go above and beyond the already contracted tree counts, spearhead new and innovative environmental practices, or support environmental action groups who actually require funding to meet environmental objectives. I am not privy to their entire operation so I cannot comment on precisely where they contribute their funds but I do know if you want to make an stronger impact – skip the t-shirt and find a charity and donate to them directly. You were correct in noticing they struggled with making the decision to manufacture overseas or not. Given how much this marketing schtick works- I’d say O’leary missed the boat on this one. I enjoyed reading your post.