TOMS: An Ethics Case Study in Volunteerism

As many of you know, Prior to PC service I was in charge of training and recruiting volunteers at a university. In these programs, I would challenge my students to grapple with several ethical, social, or moral issues that arise during volunteer service.

Joe and I just had an experience that fits directly into these categories…

Setting the Stage (Hook):

One day, our custodian stopped by and measured my shoe size. I was confused and asked if we were buying shoes. She said, “No. These shoes are free. We will just take this size and get the shoes.” I was confused, but she left before I could ask more questions. I found out later that day that I had been included on an order for a free pair of TOMS shoes… I had many feelings about this and it prompted many questions about ethics, sustainability, and volunteerism.

((If you are currently thinking, “What? Why? Just take the shoes,” I would challenge you to explore these questions and to fight the urge to find the “right answer.” The beauty about these issues is that there is no absolute right answer. That is why I love this work so much! ))

TOMS "One for One" Shoes

Context:

If you are not familiar with the TOMS “One for One” program, I will provide a quick summary. TOMS shoes are made very simply with a flat, rubber bottom, thick canvas, and either some elastic or a few holes for laces. They are fairly popular and the cost reflects this. Many folks justify this cost because TOMS has a “One for One” promise, which: for each pair sold in the developed world, one new (though much lower quality) pair is donated to a person in the “developing” world.

Rural South Africa would be classified as “developing.” Many children go to school barefoot. Learners’ uniforms are often held together, literally, by a thread. Electricity and water are not always reliable. Unemployment rate in Kwa-Zulu Natal is 45%. Many families are suffering from the effects of HIV/AIDS. Financial struggles abound. A new pair of shoes that the family doesn’t need to figure out how to pay for? That is a blessing.

The Dilemma(s):

As you can assume from the “Setting the Stage” section, TOMS uses the school system to help deliver these shoes to children. Schools are able to record the desired sizes and place an order for the shoes needed. I found out that the shoes are from TOMS because a teacher asked me to help compile the desired sizes for the order form.

Dilemma 1: There are roughly 430-ish students, educators, and volunteers associated with my school. The order form had over 500 shoes. When discussing this with others, some responded to this number difference as “taking advantage” of the system.

Personal Thoughts: The majority of the extra shoes went to family or other community members connected to the students. My question is: if the shoes are being given to someone who needs them, does it matter if they are physically at this one, specific school? Personally, I do not have issue with this; though I will admit that it felt a little yucky when I initially looked at the numbers.

Dilemma 2: Some teachers are still wearing their TOMS shoes from the last order. Again, this elicited some knee-jerk reaction of “taking advantage” of the system.

Personal Thoughts: These shoes are of very poor quality. One person says that he is able to tell where he has walked because the rubber flakes off so easily. The old pair is probably about worn thin.

My personal feeling: Those with worn-out shoes—even worn-out TOMS—are the target recipients. So, I do not see this as a departure from their mission. Is it sustainable? Evidently not. Is there a long-term benefit? Perhaps no. Is there a reasonable/justifiable, temporary benefit received by the community? I think so. Would it have a slightly longer lasting impact if they donated shoes of the same quality as those available for purchase? Definitely. I imagine that TOMS is aware of these issues. They have since developed other programs that have more potential for sustainability than the “One for One” shoe program.

Dilemma 3:  To accept the TOMS shoes, or to not accept the shoes? That is the question.

To Not Accept The Shoes:

I am not the intended recipient of these shoes. The buyers in the US didn’t think to themselves, “Hey, I really want to buy these shoes for that volunteer who willingly chose to live in rural Africa.” I chose to be here. This is temporary for me. Although I cannot afford new shoes on my living allowance, the fact remains that I have enough financial access and privilege to get new shoes on my own accord. Shoot, if I was that fed up with my situation, I could always just go home. Not to mention that I had enough financial security in the US that I brought all the shoes I could need with me.

To think of it another way … Although I may be living at the same standard as my community, it would be completely immoral and inappropriate for me to seek need-based grants that are available to those in my community. Perhaps these shoes are a form of those need-based grants?

To Accept the Shoes:

When I tried to explain to my other teachers why I shouldn’t receive the shoes, they were bothered by my protests. I am a part of their community now, why was I trying to differentiate myself from them? In volunteerism, we talk about serving “with, beside and for” the community.  Am I unnecessarily setting myself apart from them? Is my white-US-financial privilege causing me to take an “us vs. them” approach in my service—that someone “like me” can’t possibly be in a position of need?

Conclusion:

At the end of the day, Joe and I have each received and accepted one pair of shoes. I predict that one of two things will happen: I will either give the shoes to someone in my community or start to use them, with a vow to buy a pair of TOMS when I return to the US as a way to atone.