Ever since studying international economics in high school senior year, I’ve always been a believer in “trade for aid” policies rather than “aid” only or even “aid, not trade”. Hence, I am opposed to one-for-one programs in general.

While it’s true that Fair Trade doesn’t work for technically complex industries as Warby Parker’s eyeglasses, it still works fantastically for loads of other products such as shoes, clothing, or food items– which are arguably more necessary to human survival.

As stated in the preparation articles, the disruption of local economies is a huge problem with one-to-one programs. I fully agree with this statement; ruining the livelihoods of some to benefit others makes no sense, and is counterproductive in the long run as dependencies on giveaways form. The effects of one-for-one programs are almost akin to that of dumping, which the WTO prohibits.

Still, I am not completely against corporate giveaways in developing countries; the trick is figuring out how, when, and what to give to maximize productivity over time. Figuratively speaking, it is impossible to teach people to fish if they are starving and have no energy. So, the best option there would be to feed them first, and then gradually do other things to help that society become productive and wealthy.

With regards to that, I think Lauren Walters (mentioned in this article) is doing a good job with its giveaway model. By purchasing the raw materials for its donated meals from local sources, 2 Degrees is injecting money into the local economy, invigorating the flow of money instead of stagnating it like traditional one-for-one programs do. Hungry people become less hungry, and they also make more money that they can invest in productivity with.

In the end, even though I doubt the effectiveness of one-for-one, I still commend firms like Tom’s for taking the initiative to help people and solve poverty. After all, there are tons of firms that do not even think about contributing to society to begin with.