November 15, 2024

You’re the Boss Blog: Questioning the TOMS Shoes Model for Social Enterprise

Fashioning Change

A social entrepreneur tries to change the way people shop.

After visiting Argentina and seeing the impact of poverty on some of its children, Blake Mycoskie was inspired to create a philanthropic “for-profit business that was sustainable and not reliant on donations.” The result was Toms Shoes, which promised that for every pair of shoes it sold, it would give away another pair to a child in need.

Since its founding in 2006, Toms has given more than 2 million pairs of shoes to children living in poverty in more than 51 countries. And it now has a line of eyewear that offers the same promise. The organization Mr. Mycoskie created has become a well-known example of a company that is based on business principles but also gives back.

It is also responsible for getting lots of Gen X and Gen Y entrepreneurs to think about business in a different way and for globalizing the buy-one, give-one model that is now so popular. In fact, there are many buy-one, give-one companies that have taken inspiration from Toms, and many of them apply to sell through my company, Fashioning Change. As you can see from our roster of brands, however, only two such companies have met our criteria, which we call our Promise of 5. In fact, if Toms Shoes were to apply to Fashioning Change to sell shoes through our site — it has not done so — it would not make the cut.

It’s for this reason that we have begun to question whether the buy-one, give-one model is the best choice for aspiring social entrepreneurs.

The tenets that drive Toms Shoes’s model are spelled out on the company’s Web site.

  • Identify Communities That Need Shoes
    Together, we find communities that will benefit most from Toms shoes due to economic, health and educational needs, and where local businesses will not be negatively affected.
  • Give Shoes That Fit
    Our Giving Partners order the sizes children in their community need. …
  • Help Our Shoes Have a Bigger Impact 
    Children who are given Toms shoes receive them as part of larger health and education programs run by our Giving Partners. …
  • Give Children Shoes As They Grow
    Children grow fast! Toms works to give shoes to children in need throughout their childhood. …
  • Provide Feedback and Help Us Improve
    We rely on our incredible Giving Partners to provide feedback on shoes’ fit and durability, the giving process and the needs of the community. …

It would be hard to fault an organization that helps people and children get the things they need to survive and even thrive. But while Toms has done an amazing job of providing children with shoes, I wonder if it couldn’t do more to solve the underlying problem that inspired Mr. Mycoskie to create Toms in the first place.

Here’s my concern: Rather than solve the root cause of why children don’t have shoes, Toms has created a business model that actually needs poor children without shoes in order to sell its shoes. Those children are an essential part of the company’s marketing.

The root cause of poverty in many developing countries is a lack of access to fair-paying, sustainable employment. Imagine the positive impact Toms could have if it were to use every decision in its supply chain to address the causes of poverty. Before writing this post, I contacted Toms to see what the company had to say about the pros and cons of the buy-one, give-one business model.

Eventually, I was connected with the company’s chief giving officer, Sebastian Fries, who acknowledged that there were aspects of the Toms approach that could still be improved. When I asked Mr. Fries whether Toms might be perpetuating the poverty of the children who get free shoes, he responded that Toms is “not in the business of poverty alleviation.”

Interestingly, though, that does seem to be the business Toms is in when it comes to selling eyewear. The company’s eyewear contributes to the employment of nurses and doctors that in turn provide sight-giving support and surgeries so that people can become employable, create a sustainable living and get themselves out of poverty. What this contrast told me is that Toms is very good at public relations and marketing and recognizes that it could be doing more.

At Fashioning Change, we understand that every decision that goes into manufacturing a product — the materials, the factory, the packaging, the method of distribution — can produce social empowerment. That’s why we work with companies who are committed to doing things right every step of the way. Based on my conversations with Toms, it is clear to me that the company has a huge opportunity to share the lessons it has learned with the many Gen X and Gen Y entrepreneurs it has inspired.

In fact, I was told that Toms is now trying a program in Ethiopia in which it manufactures in one of the communities where it gives away shoes. The company has plans to do the same in Kenya and India. I asked what percentage of Toms shoes might be made in these factories, but I was told the number was not yet known. I also asked about plans to manufacture in the United States and was told that the United States did not have factories that could fill the company’s needs. I strongly disagree, but that is a topic for another post.

In any case, I think Toms may be evolving in the right direction. What started as philanthropy may now be moving toward what I think of as a real social enterprise — a business that creates systemic solutions to social issues through the use of business principles. One of the many wonderful things about Toms and many other “do good” companies is that we all share an intention to make the world a better place. And we’re all learning as we go.

What do you think? Is the buy-one, give-one model right for social entrepreneurs?

Adriana Herrera is chief executive of Fashioning Change. You can e-mail her at adrianah@fashioningchange.com, and you can follow her on Twitter at @Adriana_Herrera.

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/questioning-the-toms-shoes-model-for-social-enterprise/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Austrian Group Plans Court Challenge to Facebook’s Privacy Policies

BERLIN — An Austrian student group said Tuesday it planned to challenge Facebook’s privacy policies in Irish court in coming months, alleging that the social networking giant had failed, despite repeated requests and formal complaints made by its members, to adapt its privacy policy to the restrictions of European data protection law.

The group, called Europe vs. Facebook, said it would begin collecting donations to challenge Facebook’s privacy policy in Ireland, where the company’s European business is based. Max Schrems, an Austrian law student at the University of Vienna who organized the effort, said that Facebook has no interest in adapting its service to meet stricter European privacy requirements.

“We have been pursing this for more than a year with Facebook, but the company has done only about 10 percent of what we had asked them to do,” said Mr. Schrems, 25. “Therefore, we are preparing to go to court.”

Two Facebook spokeswomen did not immediately respond to email requests for comment.

Mr. Schrems’ group, which he said is made up of about 10 students at the University of Vienna, filed 22 complaints in 2010 with the Office of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, which is the European regulator responsible for Facebook.

As a result of those complaints, the regulator conducted a public audit of Facebook’s privacy policies. In September it announced an agreement with the company that, among other changes, required Facebook to shorten how long it retains consumer data, and to refrain from building a photo archive on individuals without their prior consent.

But Mr. Schrems, in an interview, said Facebook was still violating European law in many areas, including a requirement that Facebook provide users upon request with a full copy of all the data the company has collected on them. Mr. Schrems, a Facebook user since 2007, said he requested his own summary file from Facebook in 2010.

The company, based in Palo Alto, California, responded by creating a self-service tool for users to extract the data, which Mr. Schrems said only supplied him with information going back to 2010. In addition, Facebook’s privacy policy, which users are required to agree to before they can use the service, is too broad and violates European law, he alleged.

“It is basically a collection of American legalese, which is intentionally vague and gives the company adequate leeway to do basically anything they want with your data,” Mr. Schrems said.

Thilo Weichert, the data protection supervisor for the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, which has also brought legal action against Facebook, said he supported the Austrian student group’s efforts.

“Facebook’s policy is much too vague and broad and does not conform with German or European law,” Mr. Weichert said in an interview. “We think that European privacy officials need to take common action on this.”

Mr. Weichert in August 2011 issued an administrative order that barred businesses in the state, which is located along Germany’s northern border with Denmark, from using Facebook’s social plug-ins such as the Like button and Fan pages. The rationale for the order: those applications collect information on users without their consent by inserting cookies, or small bits of software that track individual computers, on a user’s web browser.

In November of last year, Mr. Weichert sued several local business organizations, including the state’s own Industrie- und Handelskammer, the equivalent of the local chamber of commerce, for creating their own fan pages on Facebook. The chamber and businesses that have not been identified, have challenged that suit, which is pending in court in Kiel.

The privacy policies of Facebook, Google and some other U.S. web companies have come under increasing criticism in Europe.

European and national laws increasingly demand that consumers first give their explicit, prior consent before their data can be used for target-advertising purposes. In October, the French privacy regulator, CNIL, released a critical analysis of the new consolidated privacy policy that Google adopted earlier this year, which combines information on individuals from the range of Google’s services. CNIL said the policy did not adhere to many aspects of European law.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/technology/austrian-group-plans-court-challenge-to-facebooks-privacy-policies.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

CME Curtails Charitable Giving After MF Global Collapse

Investigators are still searching for hundreds of millions of dollars of customer money that CME says was improperly siphoned off in the brokerage firm’s final days to meet its escalating liquidity needs.

Last month, the CME Group said it would give former MF Global customers the entire $50 million held by the CME Trust, which was originally intended to help traders caught out by a broker default but which in recent years has been a mainstay of the CME’s charitable giving.

“CME Group will continue to honor some previous trust commitments going forward, even after the $50 million is paid out,” said a CME spokeswoman, Laurie Bischel. “Though the CME Trust will be used to help customers of MF Global, CME Group remains committed to our communities and will continue to provide support to charitable organizations as possible through our other programs and corporate foundations.”

She declined to specify the level of future grants, and it was unclear if other programs could partly or fully make up the loss of the trust’s contributions. The firm’s charitable giving has gone up and down through the years.

The CME Trust was established in 1969 to provide financial assistance to customers if a brokerage became insolvent.

Federal rules requiring brokers to keep client money separate from their own made the prospect of customers actually losing money in a broker default seem so remote that in 2005 the CME’s board voted to turn the trust into a charitable foundation.

In 2008, after giving millions of dollars to local institutions, the trust began the CME Group Foundation with a $16 million grant, and pledged to make annual donations to support grant-making. The foundation has become the CME’s biggest charitable giver, contributing more than $6 million last year alone.

But on Oct. 31, the day MF Global filed for bankruptcy, the firm’s executives made what regulators have since said was a shocking disclosure: that money had been moved from customer accounts to MF Global’s accounts, and was now missing. In mid-November, the CME board voted to turn the CME Trust back to its original purpose.

The CME Group operates the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange, and only its own customers will be eligible for reimbursements.

Money is to be paid out only after the bankruptcy trustee determines that client money is really gone. The CME’s executive chairman, Terrence A. Duffy, this month estimated the shortfall at $700 million to $900 million.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e1688dacc55ffc162c4e543caf46d5b4