What Matters: A new model for philanthropy

Previous: Design meets development in Rwanda

Next: Incubating innovation in social enterprises

A new model for philanthropy

2 December 2011

I never meant to get into the shoe business, and would have said you were crazy if you told me five years ago that’s what I’d be doing today. The idea to start TOMS came during a trip to Argentina back in 2006. I met some volunteers who were holding a shoe drive to collect used or slightly worn shoes for children in the community. One of the volunteers explained that many kids lacked shoes, an absence that not only complicated every aspect of their lives but also exposed them to a wide range of diseases. I spent a few days traveling from village to village, witnessing the real effects of being shoeless: the blisters, the sores, the infections—all the result of the children not being able to protect their feet from the ground. I wanted to do something about it. But what?

Like many would-be philanthropists, my first thought was to tackle the problem head on: I could start my own shoe-based charity, but instead of soliciting shoe donations, I would ask friends and family to donate money to buy the right type of shoes for these children on a regular basis. But, of course, this arrangement would last only as long as I could find donors. That was the traditional model of philanthropy: identify a cause and initiate a never ending hunt for donors. I wanted something more sustainable. These kids needed more than occasional shoe donations from strangers—they needed a constant, reliable flow.

Then I began to look for solutions in the world I already knew— business and entrepreneurship. An idea hit me: Why not create a for-profit business to help provide shoes for these children? It was a simple concept that I call One for One: Sell a pair of shoes today; give a pair of shoes tomorrow. And that’s when TOMS was born.

So far, Toms has given more than two million pairs of new shoes to children in need and recently launched its second One for One product, TOMS Eyewear. TOMS is only one example of a new breed of company that is succeeding at this volatile moment in capitalism. In this fast-paced and constantly mutating world, it is easier than ever to seize the day; but in order to do so, you must play by a new set of rules—because increasingly, the tried-and-true tenets of success are just tried, and not true.

What we’ve found is that TOMS succeeded precisely because we have created a new model. Business and philanthropy are no longer mutually exclusive. We’ve been able to find a sustainable way to give in the areas we serve. Through a simple purchase, a consumer is making a direct impact on someone’s life around the globe. There are no formulas or percentages. It’s simple. You buy something today and help someone tomorrow. One for One.

The giving component of TOMS makes our shoes and eyewear more than a product. They’re a part of a story, a mission, and a movement anyone can join. That, it turns out, is a compelling proposition.

Comment [3]

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what you think. Please include your full name with your comment. Comments may be edited.

Agree when referring to your text: “Business and philanthropy are no longer mutually exclusive. We’ve been able to find a sustainable way to give in the areas we serve. “
This seems to fit my contribution to sustainability in business after reducing the concept of sustainability to its structural elements.  The reduction of the concept of “Sustainability” in search for the structure of the concept, resulted in 4 structural stakeholder elements which I called
the 4 C’s of :

Conservation : Conserving natural and cultural environmental resources used for business production
Community : Enhancing benefits for host communities at local business operations
Customer : Ensuring ethical consumption by customers
Company : Managing the long term financial sustainability of the business

I added numbers to each C for distinction purposes. Conservation – C1, Community – C2, Customer – C3 and Company – C4.

When compared to the usual, John Elkington, “triple bottom line” mindset, the Customer – C3, appears as the fourth element

We apply this in the management of our family businesses feeling good about our limted but measureable contribution to sustainability.

Thank you for your inspirational thoughts and actions

Posted 6 December 2011, 03:00 by Daniel du Toit
This is an innovative breakthrough to sustain charitable giving to needy communities. I hope these shoes are made in the USA to showcase the spirit of giving and sharing, characteristic of America.

Posted 6 December 2011, 01:08 by Roseanne Woo
I think this is great. It is true that philanthropy and business are not exclusive they are mutual inclusive and one cannot do without the other. In here you have gone down to the most basic fundamental and engaged for the benefit of both yourself and the needy children you give to.

The giving spurs the business. I believe when business is created this way it lasts longer and its effects on the environment, is good. You are making shoes and it is good business. I wonder what your answer would be, if I asked you what you are making shoes for? the answer I suspect would be to give to the needy children.

This is an inspiration and big organisations should take to this and maybe, just maybe we can be truly effective philanthropists rather that the big business “GIVING” has become.

Than you.

Posted 5 December 2011, 15:39 by Wilson Magaya

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: Design meets development in Rwanda

Next: Incubating innovation in social enterprises

Send an e-mail to let us know how we can make our site better.

Social Innovation: A What Matters Special Report: In Print January 2012 click here to request a free copy

The Stanford Social Innovation Review is written for and by social change leaders in the nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Sample articles of particular interest to readers of What Matters are available below.

Revitalizing Struggling Cities
by Ben Hecht. Living Cities is working with five US municipalities to develop an ecosystem for solving urban problems.
Picking Green Tech's Winners and Losers
by Clayton M. Christensen, Shuman Talukdar, Richard Alton, and Michael B. Horn. Unless clean tech follows well-established rules of innovation and commercialization, the industry’s promise to provide sustainable sources of energy will fail.