Do today’s philanthropists hurt more than they help? 10-11

Do today’s philanthropists hurt more than they help?

As philanthropy enters a second golden age, real social change is getting lost in the hype of market-based giving.

In one of his short stories, “Counterfeit Money,” Charles Baudelaire describes a fictional encounter between two friends who come across a beggar in the street.

In this short piece, the narrator and friend offer the beggar spare change, but the friend offers a much larger coin. The narrator commends him for his generosity. The friend accepts the compliment and then adds, once they’re out of earshot of the beggar, “It was a counterfeit coin.”

The narrator is astounded. Not only has his friend duped the beggar on purpose, what’s worse, he feels self-congratulatory for his gift. His satisfaction lies in the fact that the beggar doesn’t realize that he has been duped. The narrator sees that his friend’s “aim had been to do a good deed while at the same time making a good deal; to earn forty cents and the heart of God; to win paradise economically; in short to pick up gratis the certificate of a charitable man.”

Baudelaire’s story was written in the latter half of the 19th century, a time when industrialists such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller Sr. began channelling their vast fortunes into some of the greatest acts of philanthropy ever known. From Carnegie’s spending on public libraries to Rockefeller’s investment in biomedical advances, their giving helped to shift charity from the dispensing of alms in a largely unsystematic manner to a business in itself, overseen by paid philanthropic advisors.

Many did not feel grateful for the robber barons’ generosity, however. In his essay, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism,” Oscar Wilde berated the tendency of benefactors to use their charity as a bulwark against redistributive demands.

“The best among the poor,” Wilde wrote, “are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so … Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it.”

As philanthropy enters a second golden period, with the gifts from benefactors such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett rivaling those offered toward the end of the gilded age, sceptics are starting to ask: Are Wilde’s and Baudelaire’s concerns still relevant? Are today’s philanthropists knowingly dispensing “false coins?” Are they trying to “pick up gratis the certificate of a charitable man?”

In most cases, the answer is a firm no. Charity is dispensed in good faith, with empathy toward close and distant strangers. And yet, at the same time, a new trend is growing: philanthrocapitalism, a more muscular philanthropy that seeks to combine profits with poverty alleviation. The effort to do a good deed while at the same time making a good deal is the driving impetus behind the new philanthropy. Another question Baudelaire raised still lingers: Who benefits more from charitable acts, the giver or the receiver?

At the forefront of the new philanthropy is the effective altruism movement, something upheld as radically different from earlier philanthropic approaches through a purportedly novel emphasis on measuring the results of giving. A pioneer in the movement is Peter Singer, the controversial bioethicist who has praised Buffett and Gates for being “the most effective altruists in history.”

His praise rests on the magnitude of their giving rather than evidence of their effectiveness. It’s true that in dollar terms, their generosity is jaw-dropping. Joel Fleishman points out in The Foundation that Buffett’s 2006 announcement of a gift of $31 billion to the Gates Foundation represented, in 2006 dollars, more than Rockefeller Sr. and Carnegie gave away combined.

But as a proportion of the overall U.S. Gross Domestic Product, the size of today’s foundations pales next to their predecessors. The Ford Foundation’s endowment in the early 1960s represented more than double the share of U.S. GDP in comparison to the Gates Foundation 50 years later. Ever since the 1970s, overall charitable giving in the U.S. “as a share of GDP has rarely strayed far from 2 percent,”Suzanne Perry points out in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “despite the huge growth in the number of charities and fundraisers and periodic crusades to encourage greater giving.”

Corporations have become far stingier. Mark Kramer and Michael Porter pointed out in the early 2000s that corporate philanthropy as a proportion of corporate profits dropped since the 1980s. Since then it’s sunk even further, from 2.1% of pretax profits in the mid-1980s to 0.8% in 2013.

Singer’s presumption that Buffett and Gates are any more effective than earlier philanthropists isn’t backed by data. Some of the Gates Foundation’s work has led to measurable gains. Vaccination rates are rising; global child mortality has fallen—the foundation’s work in global health has contributed to these gains. But in comparison to government donors, Gates Foundation grants are a small drop in the global health landscape: The U.S. government has committed over $65 billion to global HIV/AIDs programs alone. That’s double the amount of overall giving by the Gates Foundation toward U.S. education, global health, and global agriculture since its inception.

To date, there has been far more hype than hard evidence about effective altruism’s achievements; its progress often seems to be measured and underpinned by self-sustaining feedback loops. Donors privilege what critics see as low-hanging fruit: aid projects where measuring the effect is relatively easy to do.

We hear a lot about the positive effects of different programs, such as the benefits of deworming efforts worldwide that were once thought to have contributed dramatically to education attainment in developing nations, until a recent review from independent health research group Cochrane cast doubt on that link. Far less attention is paid to counterfactuals, such as the cost to welfare programs when tax revenue is lost as a result of philanthropists receiving lucrative tax exemptions for pet projects.

Today’s philanthropy enthusiasts are never short on hyperbole. An organizer of a recent effective altruism conference at Google’s Quad campus in Mountain View reportedly averred that “effective altruism could be the last social movement we ever need.” But it’s clear that rises in global giving over the past 10 years have not made a dent in reducing economic inequality in rich nations such as the United States or Britain.

Individual philanthropic foundations have grown at a fast clip in the U.S. over the past 15 years: In that span, the number of individual foundations has doubled from about 40,000 to over 85,000. But this surge hasn’t helped alleviate extreme poverty. A 2012 report from the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan points out that within the U.S., “the prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011.”

One of the biggest ironies facing 19th-century philanthropy was the question of whether growing charity simply exacerbated economic inequality by thwarting demands for better wages and the right to unionize.

Carnegie published his first “Wealth” essay, in which he urged the rich to share their spoils, just a few years before the Homestead battle of 1892, one of the bloodiest labor standoffs in U.S. history, where he brutally stamped out burgeoning union efforts even while liberally dispensing charity to his workers. “Paradoxically,” David Nasaw, Carnegie’s biographer, has pointed out, “Carnegie … became, if anything, more ruthless in pursuit of profits once he had determined that those profits would be distributed during his lifetime.”

“In remonstrating that only the millionaire could be trusted to dispense his millions, and that whatever that millionaire thought ‘best’ was best,” Nasaw adds, “Carnegie was promulgating a profoundly antidemocratic gospel, almost feudal in its paternalism.”

Effective altruists insist that private charity is the best means for improving livelihoods. ‘Today’s philanthrocapitalists see a world full of big problems that they, and perhaps only they, can and must put right,’ Matthew Bishop and Michael Green write inPhilanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World, a book that’s become something of a bible for the new philanthropists.

In contrast to claims of novelty, the results-oriented approach of today’s donors is little different than Carnegie or Rockefeller, who were both outspoken about the need to give away their money in an efficient and effective manner.

And just as in Carnegie’s day, philanthropy is often upheld as justification for gross profiteering.

“I donated a total of $5,000,000 to various causes recently. Looking forward to telling you all about it,” Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who was vilified for raising the price of Daraprim by 5,000%, tweeted in mid-September.

This is a prime example of philanthrocapitalism in action: the use of philanthropy to thwart attention to business practices that hamper access to life-saving medicines. And much like in Carnegie’s time, many aren’t buying it.

View at the original source

Conscious Capitalism is not CSR 07-11

Conscious Capitalism is not CSR

Many people think that Conscious Capitalism and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are very much branches of the same tree. On first glance, many of the activities undertaken by conscious businesses and corporations adopting CSR appear similar.  However, dig a little under the surface and you’ll soon realise that there are significant differences between the two.

According  to the Conscious Capitalist Institute, “Conscious Capitalism is a philosophy based on the belief that a more complex form of capitalism is emerging that holds the potential for enhancing corporate performance while simultaneously continuing to advance the quality of life for billions of people”.

OK, certainly an impressive aspiration, but how does the Conscious Capitalism philosophy have practical applications in running a business?

At its heart, Conscious Capitalism is a business model where interests of all major stakeholders (employees, customers, suppliers, communities, investors and the environment) are served, and the ultimate aim is to maximise shared value for all (not just maximising the value for one group, ie shareholders). Conscious capitalism is embedded in the core structure of a business which, in turns, influences leadership, decision making, business strategy, processes, recruitment and performance management, customers service practices, and so on.

Corporate Social Responsibility, on the other hand, is a term that describes the way a corporation takes into account the financial, environmental and social impacts generated by the business. Philip Kotler defines CSR as a “commitment to improve community well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources”. For example, businesses may engage in CSR activities to go beyond minimum regulatory standards or expectations of environmental groups or social welfare advocates so that they may seen as good “corporate citizens”.

One way to think about the differences between Conscious Capitalism and CSR is that Conscious Capitalism is the engine that drives the car while CSR is an optional extra (especially if you’re running a business with a “conventional economic” engine). Decisions that drive the engine of a conscious business are based on the philosophy’s four pillars (see below), whereas the practice of CSR is often subordinated to the primary goal of a corporation – that is, to maximise the financial return to shareholders.

Indeed, the key difference between the two terms can be found in Kotler’s definition above. CSR is clearly a “discretionary business practice”, which is markedly different to the approach of conscious businesses where creating value for all stakeholders (not just shareholders) is intrinsic to the success of their businesses. Thus, “doing good” and creating shared value is part of the operating model and DNA of all conscious businesses.   So for a conscious business the term “CSR” is superfluous – by its very nature, a conscious business embeds its financial, environmental and social impacts as part of “business as usual”.

John Mackey, Co-Founder of Whole Foods Market, describes the four pillars of Conscious Capitalism as:

“higher purpose, stakeholder integration, conscious leadership, and conscious culture and management. The four are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. The tenets are foundational; they are not tactics or strategies. They represent the essential elements of an integrated business philosophy that must be understood holistically to be effectively manifested. Higher purpose and core values are central to a conscious business and all the other tenets connect back to these foundational ideas.”

A charged often levelled at CSR is that it is “added on” to a business as a way to improve a company’s public image often through public relations, marketing, philanthropy, donations or corporate support (time and/or money) to a community organisation or public cause. This has led many observers to discredit CSR as a form of “greenwash”, and in some cases the charges have stuck.

According to a  TIME magazine article: “This will not surprise anyone familiar with Enron, the once-high-flying energy company whose bosses were not only responsible for one of the great acts of corporate fraud in history but also an almost unprecedented level of corporate philanthropy in the years leading up to their unmasking. Likewise, just two years before the Deepwater Horizon fiasco knocked the stuffing out of British Petroleum in 2010, CEO Tony Hayward announced that the firm’s safety record was among the industry’s best, reflecting a culture of conscientiousness meant to satisfy internal and external stakeholders. Alas, not everyone was listening, especially those tasked with preventing deep-water rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from blowing up.”

Conscious capitalism is a more integrated, cohesive and impactful approach to business than CSR. As Professor Raj Sisodia, Founder of the Conscious Capitalism Institute, states: “Innumerable companies today have a CSR department or have at least nominated a CSR expert, because it is in vogue at the moment and not necessarily because it fits with their inner attitude and the company culture. Often companies study the negative effects of their industry and then invest a lot of money to mitigate these negative effects instead of creating a new business model, so that these negative effects don’t occur to begin with. Many corporations have a significant investment in CSR without integrating it into the existing business model. Conscious Capitalism is solid business management and not just a CSR department.”

View at the original source

Why Corporate Social Responsibility Isn’t a Piece of Cake 07-10

Why Corporate Social Responsibility Isn’t a Piece of Cake

Although corporations can play important roles in addressing some of society’s problems, it’s naïve to think that corporate social responsibility can turn the corporate landscape into a win-win wonderland.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) isn’t a piece of cake. It is fraught with contradictions, subject to political challenges and demands deep commitment. So let’s stop sugarcoating it. Relying on the familiar clichés — “doing well by doing good,” finding “win-win solutions” and being a “good corporate citizen” — accomplishes little in the bigger scheme of things. In fact, these platitudes sometimes encourage corporate social irresponsibility.

In nutrition, eating cake can leave you unsatisfied after the sugar hit has worn off. Although we don’t want readers to finish this article feeling unsatisfied, we also don’t want people to think there’s a simple recipe for responsible corporate behavior. We begin by critiquing four common recipes for CSR. We call them “let them eat cake,” “icing on the cake,” “everyone gets a slice of the cake,” and “having your cake and eating it too.” We find none of them adequate, however, and believe managers should instead focus their attention on the bread and butter of responsible corporate behavior.

1. Let Them Eat Cake

University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman famously denounced CSR as a “fundamentally subversive doctrine,” arguing more than 40 years ago that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” Friedman’s argument was elegant, influential — and flawed, predicated on a black-and-white world that is artificially compartmentalized: Social consequences are conveniently excluded from economic decisions, so long as markets are competitive and rules are clear.

Sadly, too many companies cause significant harm while playing by the rules of the game. We all know about the criminal cases of corruption in the marketplace, exemplified by convicted swindler Bernard Madoff. Far more damaging may well be the legal corruption embodied in practices that benefit a few corporations but harm the wider society. One blatant instance came to light during the subprime mortgage crisis and its aftermath, but such market manipulation is hardly isolated. An article in The New York Times in July 2013 described a more recent example: a scheme by investment bank Goldman Sachs and others in which 1,500-pound bars of aluminum were shuffled between warehouses, enabling the companies involved to earn billions of dollars at the expense of consumers. Goldman Sachs apparently broke no laws in these transactions: It was merely operating within the rules of the game.

Precisely the problem. Yet, although companies often don’t act in the public’s interest, economists keep telling us to trust the marketplace.

2. The Icing On the Cake

Too often, CSR is about public relations exercises more focused on corporate image than corporate behavior. If the company is “the cake,” then what is the value of icing it with CSR — either on top, with pronouncements by the CEO, or around the edges, with philanthropic activities disconnected from the operations? These actions just play into the hands of critics, who accuse companies of “window-dressing” or “greenwashing.” Corporate philanthropy, increasingly commonplace since the end of World War II, became a proxy for good corporate citizenship. Communities, schools, hospitals and other institutions have benefited — and we hope will continue to do so. But as many people have noted, such activities accomplish little in addressing the broader, systemic issues.

Corporate social responsibility initiatives: Here to stay?

While neither author has ever eaten a sweet and sour cake, both of us have encountered companies whose lofty pronouncements belie their actions. For example, BP launched its “Beyond Petroleum” campaign in 2000, and for a while it earned the company high rankings on CSR and ethical indices. Then, with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP’s rankings came crashing down. When icing covers the cake, you can’t tell what’s inside. But CSR can only hide irresponsible behavior for so long.

3. Everyone Deserves a Slice of the Cake

The stakeholder view that sees the corporation as a social institution responsible to everyone affected by its actions — employees, customers, local communities and shareholders — offers a more enlightened approach: Everyone deserves a slice of the cake.

In 1981, the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs of leading American companies, declared in its “Statement on Corporate Responsibility”:

Balancing the shareholder’s expectations of maximum return against other priorities is one of the fundamental problems confronting corporate management. … giving enlightened consideration to balancing the legitimate claims of all its constituents, a corporation will best serve the interest of the shareholders.

Then, in 1997, the group reversed its position. In its “Statement on Corporate Governance,” it claimed:

The notion that the [corporate] board must somehow balance the interests of stockholders against the interests of other stakeholders fundamentally misconstrues the role of directors. It is, moreover, an unworkable notion because it would leave the board with no criterion for resolving conflicts between interests of stockholders and of other stakeholders or among different groups of stakeholders.

No criterion? How about judgment?

Then the pendulum swung back again. In 2012, the Business Roundtable issued its “Principles of Corporate Governance”:

[I]t is the responsibility of the corporation to deal with its employees, customers, suppliers, and other constituencies in a fair and equitable manner and to exemplify the highest standards of corporate citizenship.

But by then, it seems to have been too late. Although the economic pie may be getting bigger in the aggregate, for most people the slices have been getting smaller.

4. Having Your Cake and Eating it Too

The most popular recipe these days among managers, policymakers and many academics is the idea that companies can do well by doing good — that they can become more profitable by engaging in CSR. Sometimes referred to as “the business case for CSR,” this view holds that it pays to be good. This notion is certainly appealing, and yes, it can pay to be good — sometimes. But three decades of research have produced surprisingly little overall support for this claim. As University of California Berkeley professor David Vogel argued in his book The Market For Virtue, the market for CSR is limited: “CSR is best understood as a niche rather than a generic strategy.”

And how about companies that do well by doing bad? We question the belief that corporate social responsibility will compensate for the corporate social irresponsibility we now see around us. Green retailing will not make up for greedy polluting any more than overt charity will compensate for covert lobbying. In a similar vein, how likely is it that the business case for CSR will provide sufficient incentive for profitable but irresponsible companies to rethink their business models? Although we should encourage companies to “do well by doing good,” let’s not pretend that a desire to do good will turn the corporate landscape into a win-win wonderland.

Of course, the same companies can act both well and badly. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., for example, has given attention to greening even as its labor practices have been the subject of criticism. Similarly, Toyota Motor Corp.’s leadership role in hybrid cars has clashed head-on with some of its lobbying positions. In its 2008 sustainability report, for example, Toyota described how it planned to lead the way “toward the goal of achieving sustainable mobility.” But in late 2007, the company was criticized for working with Detroit’s Big Three automakers to lobby the U.S. Senate not to tighten auto fuel economy standards.

An extension of the “do well by doing good” recipe holds that since governments aren’t able to make much headway in solving our most pressing social problems, it’s incumbent upon business to lead the way. But the primary role of business is to supply us with goods and services, not to assume the responsibilities of government. Although corporations can help to address such problems, they have their own natural agendas, which plainly are not social.

The Bread and Butter of Social Responsibility

In his landmark 19th century study of the United States, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville described the genius of American society as “self-interest rightly understood.” These days, thanks to the mantra of shareholder value and blind belief in the sanctity of markets, we see a great deal of self-interest fatefully misunderstood. Many people in the United States want bread, not cake. Delivering the bread demands responsible leadership at all levels — in government, business and throughout society. Without socially responsible institutions, the health and vitality of society will decline.

So let’s stop the sugarcoating and concentrate on the substance: the bread and butter of responsible corporate behavior. Here are several changes that need to be considered, within and beyond our private institutions.

Fostering Ethical Judgment Within the Enterprise

Company leaders face countless difficult choices, many of them in gray areas. Having the right policies and procedures in place is necessary for fostering responsible behaviors, but it is not sufficient. Having the right norms in place is often more important. Companies are social institutions, not just economic ones. Indeed, the economic and social aspects of many decisions are often difficult to distinguish. Workplaces need to be infused with strong values that reject corruption. Ethical issues have to be openly discussed at all levels of the corporation. These issues may not be black and white, but the process for addressing them should be.

Rethinking Compensation and Financing

Corporate boards, policymakers, academics and business leaders need to devote considerable effort to eliminating the conditions that discourage responsible leadership. We have no more need for a cult of shareholder value than we do for frenetic stock markets that drive huge compensation packages for executives. (How can CEOs who are paid hundreds of times what employees earn truly be considered leaders?) Such pay practices undermine the ability of executives to build sustainable enterprises — socially, environmentally and often even economically as well.

Of course, this problem has been debated for years, yet it continues to get worse. It is not, however, a lost cause; there are other, often-effective ways to finance and structure successful enterprises. For example, the Tata Group, headquartered in Mumbai, India, is a publicly traded conglomerate with more than 100 operating companies controlled by family trusts. Mondragon Corporation, a federation of worker cooperatives with headquarters in Spain’s Basque region, answers to its more than 70,000 workers rather than the stock market. Both companies are highly regarded for the economic and social value that they create, not to mention the insights into effective management that they provide.

Acknowledging the Benefits of Regulation

Responsible enterprises view government regulation as a necessary component of a well-functioning market system. While corporate resistance to some government regulatory efforts may be warranted, knee-jerk rejection of all regulation is counterproductive. In a classic 1968 article, “Why Business Always Loses,” Harvard Business School professor Theodore Levitt argued that, starting in the late 19th century, American business had repeatedly “placed itself in the unedifying role of contending against legislation which the general public has viewed as liberating, progressive, and necessary” — including child labor laws and other measures that ultimately proved good for business. In Canada prior to the 2008 financial crisis, banks lobbied the government to relax restrictions on financial sector mergers. The government held firm, however, and Canada’s regulatory framework helped protect its banks during the financial crisis.

Holding Corporate Lobbyists to Account

Corporate advocacy and lobbying may be a fact of political life … but not inevitably to the extent that it is now practiced in the United States. Under communism, the state co-opted the enterprises; under unfettered capitalism, enterprises are now co-opting the state. Citizens have the right to make their voices heard, but the role of private money in public elections now constitutes a menace to democracy in the United States, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010, which sanctioned unlimited corporate and union spending for political advocacy. In response, some companies voluntarily disclose their political spending to shareholders, and there are moves afoot to require transparency, which can only help.

Enabling the “Plural Sector”

Will corporations and governments lead us towards resolving the world’s most pressing problems, such as global warming, the degradation of our physical environments, poverty and inequality? Too many companies are waiting for the business case and too many governments have become co-opted or overwhelmed by private interests. A succession of failed conferences on global warming prompted former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to ask in 2013, “What now?” His answer: “If governments are unwilling to lead when leadership is required, people must. We need a global grass-roots movement that tackles climate change and its fallout.” Annan saw opportunity in civil society and what is commonly known as the third sector, but which might better be called the plural sector, so that it can be seen to take its place alongside those called public and private. If there is going to be serious change, it may have to start in the plural sector, with its activist nongovernmental organizations, social movements and social initiatives.

Social Responsibility Across Society

Reform will only happen when governments, businesses, NGOs and other associations of the plural sector join forces. In recent years, we have seen the rise of partnerships on issues such as carbon pricing, corruption and human rights. Some of these collaborations have undoubtedly involved some “icing on the cake,” but many have been able to pool expertise, to experiment with solutions and gradually establish consensus for change.

For example, recent attempts to rid global supply chains of conflict minerals such as tin, tungsten and gold — leading drivers of humanitarian crises and armed conflict in parts of Africa — have involved a web of NGO advocacy, government regulations, multi-stakeholder initiatives and cross-industry coalitions. These require considerable investments of time and effort, and the payoff isn’t always clear or the results certain. But if we are to make meaningful progress in building socially responsible societies, we shall need a great deal more of such spirited and creative collaboration.

Reproduced from MIT Sloan Management Reveiw

This Guy Invented Shoes That Grow Five Sizes In Five Years For Kids In Developing Countries 05-02

 Shoes That Grow Five Sizes In Five Years For Kids In Developing Countries

“I had no idea how important shoes were,” founder Kenton Lee told BuzzFeed News.

Kenton Lee was working at an orphanage in Kenya when he noticed a little girl with the ends of her shoes cut off and her toes sticking out. It was then that he came up with the idea for The Shoe That Grows.

“For years the idea of these growing shoes wouldn’t leave my mind,” he told BuzzFeed News.

The first step was starting Because International with a few friends in 2006, a nonprofit devoted to “working with and helping those in extreme poverty,” their site says.

Kenton Lee

Proof of Concept

 

Lee and his team at first tried to give the idea to companies like Nike, Crocs, and Toms, to no avail. Eventually they found a “shoe development company” called Proof of Concept who agreed to help them with the design.

The shoe is made out of a high quality soft leather on top, and extremely durable rubber soles similar material to a tire, Lee said. They expand through a simple system of buckles, snaps, and pegs.

Proof of Concept

Because International

 

The shoes are predicted to last a minimum of five years, and expand five sizes in that time. The small size will fit preschoolers through fifth graders, while the large will fit fifth through ninth graders.

Via theshoethatgrows.org

“I had no idea how important shoes were before I went to Kenya,” Lee said. “But kids, especially in urban areas, can get infections from cuts and scrapes on their feet from going barefoot, and contract diseases that cause them to miss school.”

The 30-year-old, who started a church in Idaho with his wife, said he wanted to put these kids in the best possible position to succeed in their lives.

“If I can provide a kid with protection so they stay healthy and keep going to school, I’ll have done my part.”

Because International / Via becauseinternational.org

The shoes cost $10 a pair, and each pair goes into a “duffle bag” that can fit 50 pairs of shoes. Once one organization’s duffle bag is full, Because International ships it to the organization that flies with them to one of seven countries.

Donors can either buy shoes to distribute themselves, or buy a pair of shoes and choose one of five American nonprofit organizations to distribute them to orphanages and churches around the world.

Because International

Because International

 

So far about 2,500 children across seven countries are wearing the shoes, including in Ghana, Haiti, Peru, Colombia, and Kenya.

“We have about 500 left of our first order, currently being stored in a room in my house where my son sometimes chews on them,” said Lee, referring to his 11-month-old son (he also has another one the way). He said they have an order of 3,000 more pairs coming in July for people to donate.

The Shoe That Grows / Via theshoethatgrows.org

“We considered making even larger ones for teenagers,” Lee added, “but we were told that they didn’t want to wear ‘charity shoes,’ they wanted to wear something cooler.”

He said he’s now being flooded with requests, mostly from Americans, to make adult-sized versions.

View at the original source