by: Tyler Chiu
11/17/2015
Pictured is a TOM’s advertisement promoting its one for one campaign. A simple glance over industry analysis of TOM’s model demonstrates that the model is at best unproductive. In light of this criticism, the company has reconfigured its approach on charity. (TOM’s)
Social enterprise has endured heavy skepticism in recent years to say the least, with its ethos and underlying motives coming into question in a multitude of cases that include TOM’s shoes buy-one give-one model among a plethora of others. Business and non-profit critics will readily associate social enterprise with dark, ulterior motives, arguing that initiatives like these afford governments justification for inaction. They postulate that initiatives such as TOM’s provide little to no impact on real social issues, only focusing on peripheral issues that only serve to gain the corporation’s marketability. In addition, they argue that social enterprises merely serve as a “bandage” for a temporary problem; they fail to address the incessant and acute fundamental issues that long persist after the quote on quote bandage as fallen off.
The supposition that TOM’s has built an exceedingly flawed and inefficient business “one for one” model is undoubtedly true. Economics professor Bill Easterly of the New York University is one of many who has gone to the most extreme of lengths, commenting that “TOM’s is the worst charity in development.” The founder of TOM’s itself, Blake Mycoskie, has even acknowledged the company’s harshest critics on record in an attempt to recover TOM’s tarnished reputation. Thus, it has been immeasurably facile to jump to render the one for one model as effectively ineffective. Nevertheless, this notion is not completely true and deeper analysis into another one for one initiatives demonstrates that this model can and does indeed succeed, warranting agreement and support.
Andrew Hall and Jeremy Bryant co-founded Mealshare in hopes of directly alleviating hunger in Canada. As of 11/17/2015, Mealshare has “shared” almost 500,000 meals, a substantial milestone for a nonprofit from humble beginnings.
One does not need to look further than this country to come across an initiative that has engendered a respectable degree of success. Mealshare is a Canadian hunger-alleviation program that has thus far been devoid of any medium of criticism. A non-profit organization, the program enables consumers to feed a needy individual within Canada upon the undertaking of dining out at a partner restaurant. A dollar is donated from every meal from the respective restaurant and directly assists charities and shelters whom feed the marginalized population. What is then biggest difference between the two one for one models? The answer lies in the type of corporation that each company has chosen to designate itself with. While Mealshare is unequivocally a non-profit, TOM’s designation is one of a for-profit organization.
The difference between the designations provides an explanation into the viability of one for one models. In the words of Mealshare co-founder Andrew Hall, Mealshare has been effective in its own respect because of its ability to build relationships with restaurants and charities effortlessly, thanks to its “nonprofit” association. On the other hand, TOM’s has been immensely incapable of creating substantial social value through its initiative, notwithstanding adopting a similar model. This can be strongly attributed to its bottom-line desire to garner more customers and revenue as a for profit organization by making customers “feel good” following a purchase of a pair of shoes, often neglecting the intricate details that a successful social enterprise would typically attend to. All in all, a one for one model has the potential to succeed and thus warrants cautioned agreement and support. This success is completely dependent on the mediums and methodology that the company chooses to tackle the social issue(s) at hand.