One-for-One Companies: Helpful or Harmful?

Main Article Content

Grace Alden Taylor


One-for-one companies, such as TOMS and Warby Parker, have become a common occurrence in the marketplace. These companies promise to donate a good or service for every product purchased. To date, millions of products have been donated worldwide. This paper seeks to analyze the positive and negative impacts of the one-for-one model on both the one-for-one company and the people receiving product donations. A specific focus of the paper is to determine whether the one-for-one model is helpful or harmful to companies and beneficiaries. To gather information, I contacted sixteen one-for-one companies and asked for reports, gathered preliminary research completed by news outlets such as Forbes and the New York Times, and analyzed academic research. The study finds that the one-for-one model can be both helpful and harmful, depending on the conditions in which the giving is done. For example, if there is an immediate need for a good that cannot be produced in the beneficiary country, then a donation would be beneficial. However, if a donation such as shoes ultimately takes away jobs and reduces the market in the beneficiary country, then it causes more harm and long-term damage than it prevents. As this model becomes more common, it is important that consumers know the impact of their purchases on the beneficiaries and the companies know the benefits and repercussions of their actions.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Taylor, G. A. (2018). One-for-One Companies: Helpful or Harmful?. IU Journal of Undergraduate Research, 4(1), 63–72.
Applied Sciences
Author Biography

Grace Alden Taylor, Indiana University Bloomington

Nonprofit Management with Honors Notation in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Spanish in the College of Arts and Sciences 


Better World Books. (2017a). “Great prices on new and used books.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Better World Books. (2017b). “Partners.” Retrieved November 06, 2017 from

Bixbee. (2017). Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Blundin, C. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: Fallacies and flaws. Johnson & Wales University, Providence, RI.

Bombas. (2017). “Giving back.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Chandler, D. B., & Werther, W. B. (2014). Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders, globalization, and sustainable value creation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cone, C. (2012). Executive summary: Goodpurpose 2012 [PDF]. Edelman.

Crespin, R. (2012, April 12). Corporate Sustainability Is Itself Unsustainable. Retrieved December 10, 2017, from

Figs. (2017a). “Our Story.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Figs. (2017b). “Threads for Threads.”Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Flandez, R. (2011, March 20). How giving helped one business grow. Retrieved from

Freytas-Tamura, K. (2017, October 12). For dignity and development, East Africa curbs used clothes imports. New York Times. Retrieved November 6, 2017.

Herrera, A. (2013, March 19). Questioning the TOMS shoes model for social enterprise. New York Times.

Horoszowski, M. (2016, February 07). 64% of CEOs are increasing investment in corporate social responsibility in 2016 - Here’s why.

Jazner, C., & Weinstein, L. (2015, November 17). The buy-one-give-one model might make you feel good, but it doesn’t make the world better. Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Joyner, A. (2017, June 18). Beyond buy-one-give-one retail. Retrieved November 05, 2017, from

Kuota (2017). Our Cause. Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Marquis, C., & Park, A. (2014). Inside the buy-one give-one model [PDF]. Stanford: Stanford Social Innovation Review.

McPhee, W. (2014). A new sustainability model: engaging the entire firm. Journal of Business Strategy, 35(2), 4-12. doi:10.1108/jbs-11-2013-0106

Moon, J. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Connor, C. (2014, August 20). Bain deal makes TOMS shoes founder Blake Mycoskie a $300 million man. Retrieved November 05, 2017, from

One World Play Project. (2017). “Our giving.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Out of Print Clothing. (2017). “Mission & Impact.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Pettinger, T. (2017). Infant Industry Argument. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from

Ponte, S., & Richey, L. A. (2014). Buying into development? Brand Aid forms of cause-related marketing. Third World Quarterly, 35(1), 65-87. doi:10.1080/01436597.2014.868985

Ponte, S., Richey, L. A., & Baab, M. (2009). Bonos Product (RED) Initiative: corporate social responsibility that solves the problems of ‘distant others’. Third World Quarterly, 30(2), 301-317. doi:10.1080/01436590802681074

Project 7. (2017). “Project 7’s Mission.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Reed, R. (2017, March 22). One-for-None: Aid dependency and the “TOMS Model”. Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Rogers, F. (2017, Fall). View/Review: The pros & cons of corporate social responsibility. Retrieved November 5, 2017, from

Roma. (2017). “FAQ about Roma Boots.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Schawbel, D. (2016, December 23). Neil Blumenthal: What he’s learned from the success of Warby Parker. Retrieved November 05, 2017, from

Singer, J. (2016, February 23). Give a little, get a lot. Or not. Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Smile Squared. (2017). “Shared Smiles.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

State Bags. (2017). “Give Back Pack.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Soapbox Soaps. (2017). “Soapbox.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Spaulding, A., Fernandez, S., & Sawayda, J. (2011). TOMS: One for One Movement [PDF]. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

The Economist. (2016, November 05). “Free two shoes.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2008). Executives say corporate citizenship can boost profits over time, according to new intelligence unit report [Press release]. This bar saves. (2017). “Our Cause.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Timmerman, K. (2011, April 06). The problem with TOMS shoes & its critics. Retrieved from

TOMS. (2017a) “What we give.” Retrieved October 02, 2017 from TOMS. (2017b). “Where we give.” Retrieved October 03, 2017 from

TOMS. (2017c). “Giving Water.” Retrieved October 03, 2017 from

TOMS. (2017d). “Shoe giving partners.” Retrieved November 05, 2017 from TOMS. (2017e). “Blake Mycoskie.” Retrieved December 10, 2017 from

TOMS Giving Report [PDF]. (2013). TOMS Shoes.

Torres, A. (2013, Winter). TOMS Shoes: Philanthropic capitalism [PDF]. San Diego: University of California San Diego.

Twice as Warm. (2017). “How We Give.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Utley, T. (2017, February 08). Meet Bombas, the social impact company that gave 2 million pairs of socks to the homeless. Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Vogel, D. (2008, October 16). CSR doesn’t pay [Web blog]. Retrieved

W, C. (2014, October 27). Putting the boot in development. Retrieved November 05, 2017, from

Warby Parker. (2017). “Buy a pair, give a pair.” Retrieved November 05, 2017, from Watkins, T. (2012, January 20). How Oblierté, the anti-TOMS, makes shoes and jobs in Africa. Retrieved from

WeWood. (2017). “A tree story.” Retrieved November 06, 2017, from

Wharton. (2015, February 16). “The one-for-one business model: Avoiding unintended consequences.” Knowledge@Wharton. Retrieved from

Wydick, B., Katz, E., & Janet, B. (2014). Do in-kind transfers damage local markets? The case of TOMS shoe donations in El Salvador. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 6(3), 249-267. doi:10.1080/19439342.2014.919012

Youde, J. (2009). Ethical consumerism or reified neoliberalism? Product (RED) and private funding for public goods. New Political Science,31(2), 201-220. doi:10.1080/07393140902872369