Points of Analysis - Transnational corporations today are increasingly focused on how they are perceived as socially responsible

• “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an important focus of attention among companies. A recent McKinsey global survey shows that 76% of executives believe that CSR contributes positively to long-term shareholder value, and 55% of executives agree that sustainability helps their companies build a strong reputation” (Torelli)
• “Although private enterprise argues that intensive natural-resource development is a "wise use" of nature, most ecological movements claim existing industrial technologies are really an "unwise abuse" of nature.” (Luke 175)
• “These measures are not taken only to preserve nature, mollify green consumers, or respect Mother Earth; they also must enhance corporate profits, national productivity, and state power. The "e-factor" is not simply ecology - it also is efficiency, excellence, education, em- powerment, enforcement, and economics. As long as realizing eco- logical changes in business means implementing an alternative array of instrumentally rational policies, like implementing lower-cost methods of energy use, supply management, labor utilization, cor- porate communication, product generation, and pollution abate- ment in the marketplace, sustainable development will enhance the world economy. Gore's stewardship of sustainable development is not strictly ecological, but his green geopolitics cultivate the mythologies of being deeply environmental or ecologically responsible.” (Luke 181)
• “Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for?” (“Dignity”)
• Robyn: TOMS has become a successful company because of its brand messaging and socially conscious mission statement. A pair of TOMS can be viewed as “merely a symbol to the public that their owner is a charitable person” (Hoye). People are buying these shoes so that they can feel good about themselves without risking their own position of power. The “One for one” mission statement is a marketing ploy to sell as many shoes as possible. While founder Blake Mycoskie professes good intentions in donating shoes to children in other countries, the company is still a for profit agency. Doing good is not the primary motivation of companies that appear social conscious. As previously mentioned, TOMS shoes do more damage than good when they are donated. If TOMS wanted to make a greater difference, they could manufacture all their shoes in the countries that they donate to, and then buy other shoes from local vendors there for children. The problem with their current philosophy is that “giving you a pair of shoes would sure be nice if you didn’t have a pair. But a job that allows parents to send their kids to school could change your family tree forever” (Kelsey). Therefore the message that the TOMS company projects creates a false hope for the consumer.
• Kiera: Lee Valley Tools is a Canadian business (not publically traded) specializing in tools and gifts for woodworking and gardening. The company is family-owned. The founder, Leonard Lee, is a recipient of the Order of Canada. He founded the company in 1978, in Ottawa, Ontario. Over the next ten years, the company opened several more stores (Toronto, Vancouver) and started manufacturing its own line of tools (starting with the Veritas Dovetail Marker in 1982). Since then, it has continued opening stores, manufacturing more diverse tools, and selling through mail order and the Internet. 
• Nick: Although Apple does not strive to appear socially responsible, it most definitely strives to not appear as socially irresponsible. It sees the media assurance that the workers involved in making its products live a reasonable life not as a personal duty, but a marketing necessity. The company is connected to too broad a network of suppliers and intermediaries to even begin enforcing a baseline quality of life, and thus concentrates on giving the impression that it does only in the consumer sphere, as that maximizes profits, minimizing loss. The rhetoric involved with Apple’s decision to use aluminum casing in its products was a perfect example of this. Marketed as being an environmentally conscientious decision, my research showed it to be anything but (and likely done equally for the sake of device appearance). In reality, Aluminum is a far from an environmentally friendly material. One has to first strip mine vast tracts of land in order to get at the base ore, destroying the surface foliage that often never recovers. Next, they need to separate the aluminum from the ore by means of huge expenditures of electrical energy, often coming from coal fuelled power plants. As one has to burn the coal in order to run the turbines responsible for producing the electricity, air pollution gets added on to aluminum’s environmental damage. Finally, milling aluminum into a design usable for Apple products introduces particulate matter into the air, further worsening the already bad air pollution factor coming from coal power plants. Aluminum destroys land and life, but is marketed as being friendly for the environment- talk about one hell of a spin- and people buy into it! Marketing at its finest.
• Shauna: In my research, I have found that many clothing companies like to keep the production of their clothes relatively secret, unless they are known to use organic cotton production which relies on natural process of the ecosystem and does not use toxic pesticides (Organic Trade Association). There are a lot of questionable practices surrounding cotton production and there are many clothing companies known to secretly use these questionable ways of acquiring cotton in order to save funds. As long as the customer is happy, it seems that the company does not feel socially responsible. Almost every year, The International Labour Rights Forum creates the “Sweatshop Hall of Shame” which is a list of companies that have been discovered to use sweatshop labour or use companies that violates human rights. In 2010, three companies in particular – Gymboree, Haynes, and LL Bean – were discovered to have been using cotton from Uzbekistan in their products. Uzbekistan cotton is known for its abusive labour practices (International Labor Rights Forum). Instead of using machines to pick cotton in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan’s government uses children. Every autumn, state officials shut down the schools and send students to the cotton fields. Tens of thousands of children, some as young as seven, are forced to undertake weeks of arduous labour for little or no financial reward. Children who fail to pick their target amount of cotton are reportedly punished with detentions and are told that their grades will suffer. Children who refuse to take part can face academic expulsion (Environmental Justice Foundation). As of May 2011, all three companies (Gymboree, Haynes, and LL Bean) have now all announced that they will discontinue the use of Uzbekistan cotton until they stop using abusive farming techniques. The companies announced their ‘stand against child labour’ after over three thousand people sent in letters asking the company to stop. (Kloer). It seems funny that these companies only stopped buying cotton from Uzbekistan because it was giving their products a bad reputation in the eyes of their customers. Many clothing companies only accept responsibility of condoning human rights violations when they are forced to by their own customers. This is just one case using only Child Labour as the subject. There are still many human right violations going on in the cotton production and manufacturing industry, such as the use of Sweatshops in China, underpaid farmers in India and Uzbekistan, and cotton farmer suicides in India. There are a few examples of companies who take it upon themselves to become more environmentally friendly. In 1996, Patagonia, a manufacturer and distributor of clothing gear for outdoor sports decided to use only organically grown cotton for their cotton products. The corporation said, “One day it became very clear to us that one of the primary materials that goes into our line of outdoor clothing products, cotton. . . may be the most environmentally damaging fibre available”(Chouinard, 118). This is an example of a company taking their own social responsibilities and deciding to help the environment by going organic even though they were aware of the risks organically grown cotton had (118). 

Points of Analysis - The products that we consume on a regular basis are produced all around the world

The products that we consume on a regular basis are produced all around the world, but we fail to recognize this connection and are oblivious to the way that these products are produced. This does not however change what we consume, and often people are fine with unethical modes of production as long as it is “not in my backyard.”

• “To contemplate one’s kettle and suddenly realize, first, that one is the beneficiary of an unimaginably vast and complex social whole and, second (a point further emphasized elsewhere in the novel), that this means benefiting from the daily labor of the kettle- and electricity-producing workers, much of it unpleasant and underremunerated, is not entirely outside everyday experience. What seems special about the passage is a third realization: that this moment of consciousness will not be converted into action.” (Robbins 85)
• “It’s fine if I know it’s happening, as long as it’s not happening right here” (Robbins 91)

·         Robyn: I currently own four pairs of TOMS, and plan on purchasing more in the near future for winter. When I buy these shoes, I do not think of where they come from or how they are produced. TOMS company mission statement and website presents a global message with its “One for One” philosophy. When buying these shoes online, the site states that the company will “match every pair of shoes purchased with a pair of new shoes given to a child in need” (One for One Movement). There is this sense that in purchasing these shoes, you will positively impacting another part of the world. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, while TOMS says that their shoes are produced in Ethiopia, Argentina, and China, the shoes that we receive in North America have been made in China. While TOMS states that its manufacturing standards adhere to human rights, founder Blake Mycoskie has stated that there are no specific fair trade standards for shoe manufacturing (Gordon). TOMS factories are audited by a company called Intertek, but when I clicked on the link provided on their website, it simply lead to the company site, rather than a full report. This leads me to believe that the way that TOMS shoes are produced in China is not as ethical as they want the consumer to believe. Secondly, there is a sense that in buying these shoes, the consumer will have a positive impact on the world. The video “A Day Without Dignity” refutes this assumption, as it demonstrates that by giving shoes to these places we are creating larger problems (“A Day Without Dignity”). There are shoes available for purchase in these countries, and by simply giving away shoes we are hindering the shoe seller’s ability to make a living. Also, the shoes that TOMS donates will eventually break, and then the children will no longer have adapted to walking barefoot. The consumer is clearly unaware of these issues when purchasing TOMS.

·         Kiera: A key point of my research was tracing the actual trade route of the Premium Ceylon tea from Sri Lanka.

ü  From Dimbula, Sri Lanka, and its districts, embracing plantations from around 3,500 to 5,000 feet above the sea level.

ü To Sri Lanka Ports Authority, #19, Chaithya Road, Colombo (twenty-ninth busiest port in the world).

ü  By Container Ship through the Indian Ocean to the Andaman Sea.

ü  Through the Andaman Sea and the Strait of Malacca past Singapore (second busiest port in the world, the first is Shanghai) to the South China Sea.

ü  Through the South China Sea (past Hong Kong, third busiest port in the world) to the Pacific Ocean.

ü  Through the Pacific Ocean to the Port of Vancouver, BC, (fiftieth busiest port in the world)

ü  By Rail to Ottawa, ON

ü  Lee Valley Tools store at 900 Morrison Avenue, Ottawa, ON, where I order the tea via their web site.

ü  To United Parcel Service, the Ottawa, ON, station.

ü  Then to UPS Concord, ON, station.

ü  To UPS Richmond, BC, station.

ü  To UPS Kelowna, BC, station.

ü  Finally to my door, on Baron Road, Kelowna.

• Nick: Global issues as a result of global consumption? There may not be an app for that, but who needs one when the entire product itself is responsible. Repeated constantly throughout my research was evidence that the manufacturing of iPads can be (however indirectly or directly) connected to a huge number of issues worldwide. Starting with environmental damage in almost every major world producer of the ore (which is turned into aluminum), I went on to discover how the refining of those products often had dire ramifications in terms of the health of those workers involved. Lung disease, various types of cancer, blindness and death were all headlines in major locales of bauxite/aluminum production (Jamaica, Australia, India and china just to name a few). The further assemblage of these materials into a final product led to my discovery of sweatshop-like conditions in the factories responsible. Foxconn, the company responsible for assembling all of Apple’s products, has a notorious reputation of working it’s employees literally to death. Long work hours with little pay or escape has led a notorious number of its workers to suicide as their only recourse and the company, upon facing international criticism, reacted to solve the situation only be placing nets between its dormitories. Conditions haven’t changed, the Foxconn ‘campuses’ continue to infringe upon human rights, and workers are still finding ways to kill themselves (strangulation being the new ‘popular’ method). Consumers of the iPad are not informed of this fact, when the purchase the device, and if they do discover it by virtue of further research, media or accident, generally do nothing to solve the problem (Foxconn conditions were the focus of intense media scrutiny, it wasn’t hard to find out what was going on). Why? It’s because of the force behind N.I.M.B.Y. thought. Products like iPads are desirable enough to enable one to ignore the various tragedies involved in their production. The people who are truly affected by iPad production are seen as being so far away, in so alien of locations, that empathy cannot take hold. People talk about how hard these oppressed workers have it, yet do not act upon their words because those people are not their people. Obviously it would be a very different story if we faced the environmental destruction that India and Jamaica do in mining bauxite, or if our workers were dying from noxious chemicals or suicide in our factories as do the ones in China.
• Shauna: In my research, I have found that the growth of cotton is very controversial and the various stages of development are harmful to the environment in many ways. Cotton can be considered one of the worlds dirtiest and most hazardous crop due to its heavy use of insecticides and chemicals. It is also considered to be one of the worlds thirstiest crops. Many of these environment damages are not felt in the countries where cotton is consumed , it is felt in the communities where it is produced (Facts and Figures). “Only 2.4% of the worlds arable land is planted with cotton, yet cotton accounts for 24% of the worlds insecticide market and 11% of the sale of global pesticides” (Chapagain, 192). Pesticides used on cotton crops are hazardous not only to insects but to humans as well. There are four main pesticides used in cotton production:
• Aldicarb, a powerful nerve agent, is one of the most toxic pesticides applied to cotton worldwide and the 2nd most used pesticide in global cotton production. Just one drop of aldicarb, absorbed through the skin, is enough to kill an adult.
• Endosulfan is widely used in cotton production and is the dominant pesticide in the cotton sector in 19 countries. In a single province of Benin, at least 37 people died from endosulfan poisoning in just one cotton season.
• Monocrotophos Despite being withdrawn from the US market in 1989, it is widely used in developing world countries. In 1997, Paraguay’s Ministry of Health and Welfare identified it as being responsible for causing paralysis in children living in cotton growing areas.
• Deltamethrin a nerve agent is applied in over half of the cotton producing countries. Medical analysis in a community in a South African village located on the edge of a major cotton production area found traces of deltamethrin in human breast milk.

(Environmental Justice Foundation)

Much of these hazardous pesticides are a threat to global freshwater resources. “Hazardous pesticides are known to contaminate rivers in USA, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Australia, Greece and West Africa” (Environmental Justice Foundation). In the processing stage of cotton, the average volumes of water use in wet processing (bleaching, dying and printing) are 360m3/ton. About 136m3/ton is in used the cotton textile stage (Chapagain, 193). Perhaps the worst case of water consumption due to the processing of cotton is happening in Uzbekistan. The Aral sea, once the fourth largest body of water, has been reduced to just 15 percent of its formal volume in order to irrigate the 1.47 million hectares of cotton fields in the area. The depletion of this body of water has also caused the disappearance in the sea’s twenty four species of native fish in its waters (Environmental Justice Foundation). There are also many human right violations happening in the cotton producing and manufacturing industry that many consumers are not aware of, as it is ‘not happening in their backyard’. In China, the number one producer of cotton and also the worlds largest importer and consumer of cotton (The Dying Fields), there is evidence of sweatshop labour in the textile production of Cotton. The Pingdingshan Cotton Textile company has been reported to employ workers that only make sixty-five cents and hour and must work two-day shifts in often 100° plus heat. (New York Times).. Even when people hear about the atrocities surrounding the production of cotton, the want and need for simple cotton products outweigh the disasters surrounding its production.

Points of Analysis - The products we consume make us global citizens

The products we consume make us global citizens and link us to other people around the world as items are moved from extraction in one country, to the manufacturing of the object, until we finally take that item home.

• Robyn: TOMS shoes can be viewed as a global product because of the inspiration behind the shoes and because of where they are manufactured. TOMS shoes were inspired by the traditional Argentine shoe “the alpargata” (Jacob). Therefore, in choosing to purchase TOMS, I am linking myself to the Argentinean culture and the tradition that these shoes come from. TOMS are produced in Ethiopia, Argentina, and China (TOMS Manufacturing Practices). These shoes connect me to the people who create them in those countries, and because TOMS donates shoes for every pair that I purchase, I am also linked to children in other parts of the world.
• Kiera: A key point in my research of a specific tea, Premium Ceylon Orange Pekoe Tea, was discovering the tea was packaged in Sri Lanka as loose tea leaves, specifically for Lee Valley Tools Ltd.  The tea tins are packed, batched, and dated on the bottom directly for export.  It is not a raw material shipped out to be packaged and assembled elsewhere.  As the end user of the product I am linked not only to tea growers in Sri Lanka, but to the processing and packaging plant workers as well, who are responsible for the finished product.

ü  “Although tea was first used as a beverage in China nearly 5,000 years ago, the Ceylonese plantations (started in the mid-1800s) quickly became famous for the quality of their Orange Pekoe tea.  Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) has ideal conditions for growing a range of teas, ample rain and good land ranging from sea level (for strong taste) to 6,000 feet, suited to the mild Orange Pekoe greens.  Our tea, grown at about 5,000 feet, has a classic mellow Orange Pekoe taste without the bitterness of low-grown teas.”

–        Lee Valley Tools Ltd. (2002)

ü  “Tea leaves are hand picked from the bushes once each month, only two leaves and a bud from each twig.  The fresh leaves are spread on racks to wilt (losing moisture) for 18 to 24 hours before being rolled into twists to break down the cells.  These twists are spread on tables to ferment for up to 3 hours before the fermentation process is stopped and the flavours locked in by warm air drying.  The twists are broken and the resulting leaf particles are then graded and packed.”

–        Lee Valley Tools Ltd. (2002)

• Nick: In terms of image and function, Apple’s iPad is a global product by definition: just look at its webpage (or its large amount of language settings)! From business, education to more private social relationships, the product is marketed as something that will help bring the world together. The impression is given that owning an iPad basically gives one the tools to talk with anyone, anywhere- that it’s a marriage between phone and computer, a new framework upon which global networks can conjoin. More physically, the iPad represents of the combined efforts of more than a hundred global suppliers. Raw materials like silicon and bauxite are extracted and refined around the world and employ tens of thousands in dozens of countries. The application of those base materials into usable components employs countless more and further widens the global footprint, which is an effect repeated once the assembled product finally ships to end-consumer suppliers. The functions of the iPad are marketed as empowering in how it enables one to talk with extra-nationals, and its form endows one with the ability to hold the combined efforts of a global workforce in the palms of their hands. Your hand touches the same Aluminum that Jamaican, Indian and Australian workers hands touched, you look at the same screen that Chinese and Indian labourers looked at, and you carry with you the same product that Asian shipments carried across international waters- how is that not a global product?
• Shauna: Cotton is one of the world’s oldest known fibres dating back to at least seven thousand years ago. To this day, Cotton is grown in over one hundred countries world wide in the latitudes between 45° North and 35° South and an estimated three hundred and fifty million people are engaged in cotton production either on-farm or in the transportation, storage, bailing, or ginning (Facts and Figures). Just about every person in this world is connected to the use of cotton in one form or another, whether it be the growing, processing, manufacturing, wearing, or using cotton products. When I walk into my closet, over fifty percent of my clothes are made out of cotton. I have towels, cloths, make-up pads, and furniture all containing various amounts of cotton, and each product has been made in a country outside of Canada. Cotton primarily connects us to the rest of the world through our clothing. By buying certain cotton clothes, I am linking myself not only to the processes taken in various parts of the world in order to produce the item, I am linking myself to the world of fashion. Many of us constantly purchase new clothes either to replenish a necessity of our culture (as well as most communities around the world), or to keep up with the latest trends and styles coming from Paris or London. Cotton has been, and continues to be, one of the worlds leading substance in clothing.

Introduction

Our group’s research has focused on the products we consume and our relationship to where they come from. We have thought about the processes of extraction, manufacturing and consumption. Our initial thesis was inspired by the phase “Not in my Backyard,” which Bruce Robbins uses in the article “The Sweatshop Sublime.” Consumers are often oblivious to how products are produced, and as Robbins suggests, have no problem with the existence of sweatshop labour as long as it is not happening in their country or to their neighbour. We recognized from the outset the problematic nature of this discourse, and sought to use our research to explore the so called unknowns of producing products around the world.

In our first meeting, we each identified a product that we were going to research from extraction to consumption that matched our own interests. Shauna chose to examine cotton production and manufacturing, Nick was going to look at Foxconn, which eventually evolved into examining the creation of the Apple IPad, Kiera began to look at the extraction of Orange Pekoe tea in Sri Lanka, and Robyn decided to examine TOMS shoes. While we each have had individual challenges in tracking these produces around the globe, as a group we feel that our research has become balanced as each product’s story focuses on a different part of the creation process. Much of our research was posted on a blog titled Not in My Backyard, and this has allowed us to share ideas and summarize the many sources we have looked at over the past month. (see: http://nimby341.blogspot.com/)

The following points of analysis are five conclusions we have come to through our research. Each is followed by the individual group member’s experience with the product they were researching in relation to the statement. We have chosen to present our research in this way so that each group member can show how they have engaged with the point of analysis.

Bauxite extraction

In this post, I’m going to break down what happens with the construction of every Ipad.

We already know that Foxconn is an international corporation. Previously, I tried to outline how far reaching the company is and touched upon how its nature as an assembler, not a manufacturer, meant that there was an even greater global web of suppliers to Foxconn than of the companies to whom Foxconn supplied. Running through Foxconn are the combined efforts of literally hundreds of businesses, a degree of international transfer that goes relatively unnoticed during the products transfer from Foxconn’s plant to the consumers of Apple products pockets.

To being, let’s break the device down to its components.

Apple does not make the manufacturers of each separate component publically available, but some companies (like chipworks) took enough interest in the device to deconstruct it themselves and publicize their finds, which are briefly summarized below:

-          CPU: 

o   Manufactured by Samsung

-          Memory:

o   Toshiba and Samsung

-          Screen:

o   LG Display

-          Touch Sensor:

o   Wintek, with the hardware responsible for integrating it into the overall system coming from Broadcom and Texas Instruments

-          Case:

o   Catcher Technologies

-          Battery:

o   Simplo Technology and Dynapack International

-          Motion Sensor:

o   STMicroelectronics

-          Audio Driver:

o   Apple

-          Power Management:

o   Linear Technologies

As stated, Apple doesn’t do much in regards to actual hardware development. They do design and conceptualize their products, but the actual manufacturing of the majority of the components is sourced out to other businesses that specialize in those fields. It may sound repetitious, but I want to make this clear because of how fundamental it will be for my arguments later on. As a company, Apple oversees only a small fraction of the effort that goes into making its products: It knows where and how the audio components were made and from material sourced from what location, but it has no idea how companies like Catcher, Samsung and others source their materials and labour. I aim to clarify that.

Let’s start with the case.

One of the major selling features for the iPad as well as apple products in general is their all-aluminum construction. That is to say, most of the Macbook line as well as the iPod, iPhone (in certain models) and iPad all utilize aluminum as the primary material for their chassis. Apple argues that the benefits of using Aluminum are environmental. Opposed to traditional plastics, aluminum is more easily recyclable and ‘cleaner’. It does not need to go to a landfill, and can instead simply be melted down and reformed once it has reached the end of its commercial life. That’s fantastic, but how is aluminum actually refined? This is one question that Apple does not provide an answer to.

Pictured above is a bauxite mine. Bauxite is the main ore from which raw aluminum is extracted and exchanged on the global market. As is evident, the process involved in mining Bauxite is hardly environmentally friendly; Huge areas of land are strip-mined. Furthermore, actually turning bauxite into aluminum requires a large amount of electricity. As coal burning is still the cheapest and most common method used to produce electricity in a number of countries worldwide, smelting electrically-costly aluminum is connected in how it worsens air pollution as a result of increased coal burning to fuel the electrical demands. In way, consumers of products using aluminum are nonetheless connected environmentally to those in countries that produce it. Before I continue, I’d like to show you some numbers showing the biggest Bauxite producers worldwide.

United States NA NA 20,000 40,000

Australia 62,400 63,000 5,800,000 7,900,000

Brazil 24,800 25,000 1,900,000 2,500,000

China 30,000 32,000 700,000 2,300,000

Greece 2,220 2,200 600,000 650,000

Guinea 18,000 18,000 7,400,000 8,600,000

Guyana 1,600 1,600 700,000 900,000

India 19,200 20,000 770,000 1,400,000

Jamaica 14,600 15,000 2,000,000 2,500,000

Kazakhstan 4,800 4,800 360,000 450,000

Russia 6,400 6,400 200,000 250,000

Suriname 4,900 4,500 580,000 600,000

Venezuela 5,900 5,900 320,000 350,000

Vietnam 30 30 2,100,000 5,400,000

Other countries 7,150 6,800 3,200,000 3,800,000

World total (rounded) 202,000 205,000 27,000,000 38,000,000

Bauxite refining is clearly a global business. Likewise, it has become a global ecological issue. The Australian branch of the mining corporation ALCOA recognises the environmental damage of unregulated extraction, and thus enforces strict measures upon its mines working in delicate ecosystems. Communities in India suffer severely as a result of having no companies like ALCOA that are held to a public standard. Jamaica suffers from rampant environmental pollution stemming from bauxite, and the investors in its mines originate from such supposed ecologically conscientious nations as Canada, the U.S and Norway. This being said, how then can apple argue that its usage of aluminum is environmentally conscientious? For a corporation so concerned with public perception, I doubt the reason is a simple oversight. Catcher Technologies, which mills the cases used in apple products, is Apple’s immediate connection to aluminum as an object; who supplied Catcher is either not revealed to Apple (as is likewise for the casual consumer on the Catcher website), or is seen as inconsequential as it’s two degrees of separation away from them. It’s not their problem, but the other guy’s. For our class, this ties somewhat back into Robins’ sweatshop sublime. People,  realizing the vastness of the system they are incorporated in when they consume products, are unable to act in a manner that would improve the overall system. Everything demands equal attention, and the individual is unable to focus and act upon any one issue; there are thousands- All of which are equally demanding! How can the individual be expected to make a choice?

For companies like apple, this realization can perhaps be seen as being anticipated. Maybe Apple tries to tout the environmentally conscientiousness of its aluminum casings because it knows that doing so gives their consumer an answer to the sweatshop sublime. People praise apple for being environmentally safe because apple’s spinning of reality lets the consumer feel as though they have found the answer to their own inaction. They can say that they’ve addressed the global demand for attention when they buy Apple products because, as said by apple, they are doing the global environment a favour

Materials in Toms

I have not had much luck finding further information on TOMS manufacturing processes. As I mentioned at our last meeting, TOMs shoes that we receive in North America are manufactured in China, while many of the shoes that are given to other countries are manufactured in Argentina and Ethiopia. While I think it is a positive that TOMs is setting up factories in the countries where they donate shoes, it is still problematic to me that most of their shoes are made in China. I have no idea what the working conditions are like in their factories, so even though they say that they are regularly audited, I cannot be sure that they are not produced through sweatshop labor.

http://whereamiwearing.com/2011/04/06/toms-shoes/


This blog contemplates the problem of Toms business model. While it is excellent they are doing something to be socially conscious, they are not helping solve the problem of poverty in these countries. As the blog says, " someone giving you a pair of shoes would sure be nice if you didn’t have a pair. But a job that allows parents to send their kids to school could change your family tree forever." 


Now on to the materials in the actual shoes. I think Shauna's research into cotton is helpful for understanding the fabric part of the shoes, as well not all toms are made with cotton, the company uses a variety of different fabrics and it would be difficult to track where each of them is extracted from. Therefore, for my conclusion I would rather just focus on where materials like the ones in the shoes come from, and so Shauna's research is very helpful.


Latex is used as the material for the soles of the shoes. Rubber can be produced naturally or synthetically and that again proposes a problem. But I will be posting tomorrow on the harvesting of rubber in other countries in order to create a fuller picture of where TOMS come from.