“I am opposed to the ‘one for one’ business model because…”
While the ‘one for one’ business model is certainly altruistic, and at first glance appears to be a noble cause, there is overwhelming evidence in support of the contrary. The benefit of this form of social entrepreneurship is best described in an analogy from the article “When you give away something free, you’re giving away a band aid. You’re not addressing deeper causes”. This analogy showcases one of the core issues in charity and social work, by giving away food and other products we make only a difference in the short term.
In my mind, the key to success in social work is to enable sustainable prosperity, and this can only be done by helping the needy to create for themselves. Already Muhammad Yunus has sparked the microfinance movement that seeks to do just that, enable those without the resources to create for themselves. This is vastly different than the ‘one for one’ business model, because it address the bigger issue, or in the same analogy as referenced before, it heals the wound beneath the band-aid.
This is not to say that there is no place for the ‘one for one’ business model, because there are certain products where there is a real benefit because the local economy cannot produce the products on their own, an example being Sir Richard’s Condom Company, that utilizes a one-for-one business model to distribute condoms to those who can’t get them. This means that if a company is truly trying to make a change, they need to be tactical in how they are charitable. This won’t always happen though, because the ‘one for one’ business model is extremely marketable, and therefore I think it ends up being the fallback method of promoting social change in businesses.
In conclusion, the ‘one for one’ business model does not make a real difference in promoting sustainable development, however there are specific instances where it creates viable and advantageous social value.
