When most people purchase their first pair of $50 canvas covered TOMS, they feel good about it because they know another pair will be delivered to a child in need in a third world country.

Since the company began in 2006, it has increased in popularity so much that it is hard to go into a college classroom without spotting a pair of TOMS on someone’s feet.

But while TOMS is a well-intentioned company that does help children in need, its flaws outweigh its benefits.

Of course, children who don’t have the means to own shoes deserve to own a pair, since walking around barefoot is dangerous and makes children more susceptible to disease.

But most don’t realize that once given a pair of shoes, the children recipients must be given shoes for life. By wearing a pair of shoes, the kids lose the strong calluses that they have built up on their feet.

I own a pair of TOMS, and I know how flimsy they are. Within a month of constantly wearing them, a hole could easily form where the toe is.

They don’t even offer that much support on the arch. If the shoes were to break, or the children grow out of them, then they would be in more danger than they were in the first place.

TOMS does claim it has a policy of “shoes for life.” For now at least, it is keeping up with that policy. But is it really worth the risk? TOMS is a relatively new company that has spread in popularity. As with every new fashion trend, it will someday come to an end.  I’d like to be optimistic and say that as long as TOMS is a charitable company, people will always buy from them. However, this just isn’t the case. Another economic lapse could hit the U.S. and Europe, or a new charity could become the item of focus. What will TOMS do when it isn’t selling any shoes and it has all of these children that it has promise shoes for?

Will all of these children be forced to go back to a life of not only bare feet, but soft and un-callused ones, too?

Another thing most people don’t think about when they buy a pair of TOMS is how it hurts the local shoe vendors in these third world countries.

Most of the recipients of the shoes are those who absolutely cannot afford them and will never be able to in the future, but there are some who might be able to buy them in the future who receive the free handouts.

That only hurts the local merchants whose sole business is to sell shoes. Instead of producing shoes on their own, why doesn’t TOMS work with local shoe vendors and factories to distribute the shoes that are already in place to those in need?

That way, a whole shipment of free shoe products into the country doesn’t ruin the country’s own shoe industry. But then the question of sustainability still remains.  TOMS needs to figure out a way to ensure that it has enough resources to supply shoes for life before handing out shoes.

Perhaps that means only handing out shoes if they have enough money raised and set aside to sustain that person for life.

B