http://www.shoesvbuy.com

Once I wanted to buy a pair of casual shoes. I considered a lot of brands and chose TOMS finally because of its “One for One” model. At that time, I believed that it is a direct way to help the poor people. However, after careful consideration and much thought now, I cannot totally agree with its model. TOMS grows faster and become an internationally well-known brand with this model, though the model has some potential problems that most consumers (including me) may not consider.

The “One for One” model is giving one pair of shoes for the poor person when a consumer is buying one pair of shoes. It does a little to solve the root of poverty. A poor person can get a pair of shoes from this model one time, but what can they get after the shoes become tattered? They still need to wait for TOMS’ donation and TOMS can sell more products and earn more profits. The root cause of poverty has not changed. Instead of giving one fish, teaching a person how to fish is more important.

Furthermore, the model may even destroy the local business for less people would buy shoes and more people would loss their jobs. Consequently, the population in poverty level would be larger and larger. Social enterprise should give back to society while TOMS does not make a healthy “return”.

http://mylifeasannie.com/2011/04/

To solve this problem and enable TOMS to grow in future, TOMS should make another decision to help the poor. For example, TOMS can establish some factories in those poor countries and increase their employment rate. Providing them more educational opportunity is also a positive method to help them have better economic situation. The “One for One” model is a direct model and most consumers may believe that it is great at first. But after deep consideration, consumers will realize and refuse to buy TOMS’ product.

Reference

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/one-one-business-model-social-impact-avoiding-unintended-consequences/

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-10-08/toms-shoes-rethinks-its-buy-one-give-one-model-helping-needy

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-says-canada-will-not-airlift-refugees-without-proper-security-screening-1.3219359

The most shocking news at present must be the attack which happened in Paris. Following the attack, the decision of Trudeau, accepting 25000 refugees, has been a hot discussion for the public. As Marcus wrote in her blog about Europe, sharing the responsibility to help refugees is always associated with politics. But business in today’s society has enough power to assist the government to help refugees to fit in the new environment.

Marcus’ analysis can be utilized in Canada too. Accepting refugees is not the only task for Canada. There are numerous potential problems for accepting them. Government, business and some charity organizations should work together in order to turn the challenges into opportunities. Only when refugees fit in the new country successfully, can social, political and economic risk be reduced.

Considering the aging population in Canada, most refugees who come in Canada are willing to work can be an antidote to the community. More than 100,000 refugees are qualified for university. Some of them can be educated in Canada and then be employees of Canadian companies. Furthermore, companies who employ refugees may be considered as a social enterprise. Providing jobs for refugees is a unique value proposition for companies to show that they are taking the social responsibility. The public will be appreciative because the companies reduce the social risk.

In conclusion, focusing on the benefit of companies, helping refugees can bring some positive effect. Additionally, Canadian business should be involved early in the integration planning so that they can shape the policy of refugees instead of complaining of the policy of government in the future.

Reference

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/25/syrian-refugee-crisis-and-higher-education

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/statistics-canada-seniors-1.3248295

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/china-ends-one-child/2225922.html

One- child policy was a strict policy for Chinese families, which allow one family can only have one child since 1979. It helped China to control her population efficiently while it also infringed the right of Chinese citizens. The public and experts have argued the pros and cons of the policy for a long time because many people were not satisfied with it. However, it releases in recent, which lead tons of comments from all over the world. Most medias think that it is too late to release. Browsing my friend—Phyllis’s Blog, I found that we have some similar opinion.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1873987/china-abandon-three-decade-old-one-child-policy-driving

Although the policy helps China to control her booming population in that generation, it caused a lot of problems in nowadays. China is facing an aging population and a lack of working-age recently so our country needs more young people. However, the release may not as effective as the government thinks. The young in our generation do not highly desire to have more than one child because of the different custom and high burden of child- bearing. My parents want to get more children because they are familiar with a large family with many children liked their childhood, while we are not. Also, as Phyllis’s mention, Chinese human resource market is competitive and supporting our parents without searching help from siblings is stressful. The young generation may not have enough money to breed two children.

Furthermore, ignoring the voice of the young generation and considering the environmental sustainability, the government should solve the problem of shortage of resources in the future. More population means more demand for products. Does our country have enough resource to support more population and be environmental friendly? In my opinion, government should not only release the one child policy. Meanwhile, the government should have more policy to encourage the young and plan to cushion the resource shortage which may happen in future.

Reference 

http://time.com/4098745/china-one-child-policy-rights/

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/china-ends-one-child/2225922.html