Summary—p1nk123456

“Do Tom’s Shoes Really Help People?”

It seems counterintuitive that giving shoes to those in need does more harm to then good. As unlikely as that seems, that is what is happening in Ethiopia.

In 2006, the company Tom’s started as a buy-one-give-one charitable shoe company. The point of the company is that for every pair of canvas sneakers, wedges, and now sunglasses, a pair of shoes will go to an underprivileged child along with funding for relief efforts. The idea of the company is outstanding, but in actuality, it isn’t helping as many people as predicted. The supposed Ethiopian beneficiaries dispute the company’s claim that providing shoes eliminates a barrier to education since students cannot enter school without shoes. Instead of providing shoes to children barred from school for lack of shoes, the company distributes shoes in classrooms to students who already have them. The point of the charity is to provide shoes to children that do not already have them.

Another issue is that the Tom’s rarely provide work for the local shoe industry in Ethiopia. In a country with little work and failing industries, the locals need job opportunities rather than handouts. The hope was that if shoes were becoming available, jobs would also become available for local workers, but only the opposite has happened. Buy-one-give-one companies are competing with local businesses, not improving or helping them, which is counterproductive.

2 thoughts on “Summary—p1nk123456”

  1. You’ve done a wonderful job of identifying the two most egregious failures of the company, WhatsGoodie.

    You squander a bit of clarity by attributing different opinions to several individuals, which confuses readers especially in the way you phrase your reporting.

    The author states when speaking to Tom’s employees, the shoes promote education, since children without shows are barred from entering school. However, when speaking to a representative of Ethiopian giving partner, they stated that the shows are given in school, where children already have shoes. The point is to provide shoes to children that do not already have them.

    A streamlined version:

    The supposed Ethiopian beneficiaries dispute the company’s claim that providing shoes eliminates a barrier to education. Instead of providing shoes to children barred from school for lack of shoes, the company distributes shoes in classrooms to students who already have them.

    Granted, that’s 2nd-draft criticism applied to your first draft, but offering it here and now may benefit your next assignment.

    Can you apply the same process to your third paragraph, eliminating the confusion about the Ethiopian shoe industry? You mention it three times (and local business once), and could do more with fewer mentions.

    [Is there a local shoe industry at all? Was there? Did Toms drive it out of business? The answer is hard to find here. Or is the question a different one: why doesn’t Toms build a local shoe business instead, hiring locally, letting the Ethiopians benefit from the partnership?]

    Too much critique?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s