Toms shoes number of employees

Case Question

CASE 12

TOMS Shoes in 2016: An Ongoing Dedication to Social Responsibility
Margaret A. Peteraf Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth

Sean Zhang and Meghan L. Cooney Research Assistants, Dartmouth College

While traveling in Argentina in 2006, Blake Mycoskie witnessed the hardships that children without shoes experienced and became committed to making a difference. Rather than focusing on charity work, Mycoskie sought to build an organization capable of sustainable, repeated giving, where children would be guaranteed shoes throughout their childhood. He established Shoes for a Better Tomorrow, better known as TOMS, as a for-profit company based on the premise of the “One for One” Pledge. For every pair of shoes TOMS sold, TOMS would donate a pair to a child in need. By mid-2016, TOMS had given way over 50 million pairs of shoes in over 70 different countries. 1

As a relatively new and privately held company, TOMS experienced consistent and rapid growth despite the global recession that began in 2009. By 2015, TOMS had matured into an organization with nearly 500 employees and almost $400 million in revenues. TOMS shoes could be found in several major retail stores such as Nordstrom, Bloomingdale’s, and Urban Outfitters. In addition to providing shoes for underprivileged children, TOMS also expanded its mission to include restoring vision to those with curable sight-related illnesses by developing a new line of eyewear products. For an overview of how quickly TOMS expanded in its first seven years of business, see Exhibit 1 . 2

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Total Employees

470

450

400

320

250

72

46

33

19

4

Thousands of Pairs of Shoes Sold

25,000

10,000

7,250

2,700

1,300

1,000

230

110

50

10

EXHIBIT 1

TOMS’ Growth in Employees and Sales, 2006–2015

Source: PrivCo, Private Company Financial Report, “TOMS Shoes, Inc.,” created April 18, 2016.

Company Background
While attending Southern Methodist University, Blake Mycoskie founded the first of his six startups, a laundry service company that encompassed seven colleges and staffed over 40 employees. Four startups and a short stint on The Amazing Race later, Mycoskie found himself vacationing in Argentina where he not only learned about the alpargata shoe originally used by local peasants in the 14th century, but also witnessed the extreme poverty in rural Argentina.

Determined to make a difference, Mycoskie believed that providing shoes could more directly impact the children in these rural communities than delivering medicine or food. Aside from protecting children’s feet from infections, parasites, and diseases, shoes were often required for a complete school uniform. In addition, research had shown that shoes were found to significantly increase children’s self-confidence, help them develop into more active community members, and lead them to stay in school. Thus, by ensuring access to shoes, Mycoskie could effectively increase children’s access to education and foster community activism, raising the overall standard of living for people living in poor Argentinian rural areas.

Dedicated to his mission, Mycoskie purchased 250 pairs of alpargatas and returned home to Los Angeles, where he subsequently founded TOMS Shoes. He built the company on the promise of “One for One,” donating a pair of shoes for every pair sold. With an initial investment of $300,000, Mycoskie’s business concept of social entrepreneurship was simple: sell both the shoe and the story behind it. Building on a simple slogan that effectively communicated his goal, Mycoskie championed his personal experiences passionately and established deep and lasting relationships with customers.

Operating from his apartment with three interns he found on Craigslist, Mycoskie quickly sold out his initial inventory and expanded considerably, selling 10,000 pairs of shoes by the end of his first year. With family and friends, Mycoskie ventured back to Argentina, where they hand-delivered 10,000 pairs of shoes to children in need. Because he followed through on his mission statement, Mycoskie was able to subsequently attract investors to support his unique business model and expand his venture significantly.

When TOMS was founded, TOMS operated as the for-profit financial arm while a separate entity titled “Friends of TOMS” focused on charity work and giving. After 2011, operations at Friends of TOMS were absorbed into TOMS’s own operations as TOMS itself matured. In Friends of TOMS’s latest accessible 2011 501(c)(3) filing, assets were reported at less than $130,000. 3 Moreover, as of May 2013, the Friends of TOMS website was discontinued while TOMS also ceased advertising its partnership with Friends of TOMS in marketing campaigns and on its corporate website. The developments suggested that Friends of TOMS became a defunct entity as TOMS incorporated all of its operations under the overarching TOMS brand.

Industry Background
Even though Mycoskie’s vision for his company was a unique one, vying for a position in global footwear manufacturing was a risky and difficult venture. The industry was both stable and mature—one in which large and small companies competed on the basis of price, quality, and service. Competitive pressures came from foreign as well as domestic companies and new entrants needed to fight for access to downstream retailers.

Further, the cost of supplies was forecast to increase between 2013 and 2020. Materials and wages constituted over 70 percent of industry costs—clearly a sizable concern for competitors. Supply purchases included leather, rubber, plastic compounds, foam, nylon, canvas, laces, and so on. While the price of leather rose steadily each year, the price of rubber also began to climb at an average annual rate of 7.6 percent. Wages were expected to increase at a rate of 5.8 percent over a five-year period due to growing awareness of how manufacturers took advantage of cheap, outsourced labor. 4

In order to thrive in the footwear manufacturing industry, firms needed to differentiate their products in a meaningful way. Selling good-quality products at a reasonable price was rarely enough; they needed to target a niche market that desired a certain image. Product innovation and advertising campaigns therefore became the most successful competitive weapons. For example, Clarks adopted a sophisticated design, appealing to a wealthier, more mature customer base. Nike, adidas, and Skechers developed athletic footwear and aggressively marketed their brands to reflect that image. Achieving economies of scale, increasing technical efficiency, and developing a cost-effective distribution system were also essential elements for success.

Despite the presence of established incumbents, global footwear manufacturing was an attractive industry to potential entrants based on the prediction of increased demand and therefore sales revenue. Moreover, the industry offered incumbents one of the highest profit margins in the fashion industry. But because competitors were likely to open new locations and expand their brands in order to discourage competition, new companies’ only option was to attempt to undercut them on cost. Acquiring capital equipment and machinery to manufacture footwear on a large scale was expensive. Moreover, potential entrants also needed to launch costly large-scale marketing campaigns to promote brand awareness. Thus, successful incumbents were traditionally able to maintain an overwhelming portion of the market.

Building the TOMS Brand
Due to its humble beginnings, TOMS struggled to gain a foothold in the footwear industry. While companies like Nike had utilized high-profile athletes like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to establish brand recognition, TOMS had relatively limited financial resources and tried to appeal to a more socially conscious consumer. Luckily, potential buyers enjoyed a rise in disposable income over time as the economy recovered from the recession. As a result, demand for high-quality footwear increased for affluent shoppers, accompanied by a desire to act (and be seen acting) charitably and responsibly.

While walking through the airport one day, Mycoskie encountered a girl wearing TOMS shoes. Mycoskie recounts:

· I asked her about her shoes, and she went on to tell me this amazing story about TOMS and the model that it uses and my personal story. I realized the importance of having a story today is what really separates companies. People don’t just wear our shoes, they tell our story. That’s one of my favorite lessons that I learned early on.

Moving forward, TOMS focused more on selling the story behind the shoe rather than product features or celebrity endorsements. Moreover, rather than relying primarily on mainstream advertising, TOMS emphasized a grassroots approach using social media and word of mouth. With over 3.5 million Facebook “likes” and over 2 million Twitter “followers” in 2016, TOMS’s social media presence eclipsed that of its much larger rivals, Skechers and Clarks. Based on 2016 data, TOMS had fewer “followers” than Nike, and fewer “likes” than both Nike and adidas. However, TOMS had more “followers” and “likes” per dollar of revenue. So when taking company size into account, TOMS also had a greater media presence than the industry’s leading competitors (see Exhibit 2 for more information).

2015 Revenue (Mil. of $)

Facebook “Likes”

“Likes” per Mil. of $ in Revenue

Twitter “Followers”

“Followers” per Mil. of $ in Revenue

TOMS

$ 390

3,522,891

9,033

2,170,000

5,564

Clarks

2,123

1,634,803

770

42,300

20

Skechers

3,150

1,921,582

610

32,700

10

adidas

16,920

23,362,006

1,380

2,650,000

157

Nike

30,700

24,020,024

782

4,070,000

133

EXHIBIT 2

TOMS USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA COMPARED TO SELECTED FOOTWEAR COMPETITORS

TOMS’s success with social media advertising can be attributed to the story crafted and championed by Mycoskie. Industry incumbents generally dedicated a substantial portion of revenue and effort to advertising since they were simply selling a product. TOMS, on the other hand, used its mission to ask customers to buy into a cause, limiting their need to devote resources to brand-building. TOMS lets its charitable work and social media presence generate interest for the company organically. This strategy also increased the likelihood that consumers would place repeat purchases and share the story behind their purchases with family and friends. TOMS’s customers took pride in supporting a grassroots cause instead of a luxury footwear supplier and encouraged others to share in the rewarding act.

A Business Model Dedicated to Socially Responsible Behavior
Traditionally, the content of advertisements for many large apparel companies focused on the attractive aspects of the featured products. TOMS’s advertising, on the other hand, showcased its charitable contributions and the story of its founder Blake Mycoskie. While the CEOs of Nike, adidas, and Clarks rarely appeared in their companies’ advertisements, TOMS ran as many ads with its founder as it did without him, emphasizing the inseparability of the TOMS’s product from Mycoskie’s story. In all of his appearances, Mycoskie was dressed in casual and friendly attire so that customers could easily relate to him and his mission. This advertising method conveyed a small-company feel and encouraged consumers to connect personally with the TOMS brand. It also worked to increase buyer patronage through differentiating the TOMS product from others. Consumers were convinced that every time they purchased a pair of TOMS, they became instruments of the company’s charitable work. Representative advertisements for TOMS Shoes are presented in Exhibit 3

An image of a Toms advertisement Instead of appealing to consumers desire for stylish footwear, TOMS advertisement instead addresses the consumer’s sense of social consciousness by encouraging people to not only provide shoes to a child in need, but to also vote.

Source: TOMS.

EXHIBIT 3

Representative Advertisements for TOMS Shoes Company

As a result (although statistical measures of repeating buying and total product satisfaction among TOMS’s customers were not publicly available), the volume of repeat purchases and buyer enthusiasm likely fueled TOMS’s success in a critical way. One reviewer commented, “This is my third pair of TOMS and I absolutely love them! . . . I can’t wait to buy more” 5 Another wrote, “Just got my 25th pair! Love the color! They . . . are my all-time favorite shoe for comfort, looks & durability. AND they are for a great cause!! Gotta go pick out my next pair.” 6

Virtually all consumer reports on TOMS shoes shared similar themes. Though not cheap, TOMS footwear was priced lower than rivals’ products, and customers overwhelmingly agreed that the value was worth the cost. Reviewers described TOMS as comfortable, true to size, lightweight, and versatile (“go with everything”). The shoes had “cute shapes and patterns” and were made of canvas and rubber that molded to customers’ feet with wear. Because TOMS products were appealing and trendy yet also basic and comfortable, they were immune to changing fashion trends and consistently attracted a variety of consumers.

In addition to offering a high-quality product that people valued, TOMS was able to establish a positive repertoire with its customers through efficient distribution. Maintaining an online shop helped TOMS save money on retail locations but also allowed it to serve a wide geographic range. Further, the company negotiated with well-known retailers like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus to assist in distribution. Through thoughtful planning and structured coordination, TOMS limited operation costs and provided prompt service for its customers.

Giving Partners
As it continued to grow, TOMS sought to improve its operational efficiency by teaming up with “Giving Partners,” nonprofit organizations that helped distribute the shoes that TOMS donated. By teaming up with Giving Partners, TOMS streamlined its charity operations by shifting many of its distributional responsibilities to organizations that were often larger, more resourceful, and able to distribute TOMS shoes more efficiently. Moreover, these organizations possessed more familiarity and experience dealing with the communities that TOMS was interested in helping and could therefore better allocate shoes that suited the needs of children in the area. Giving Partners also provided feedback to help TOMS improve on its giving and distributional efforts.

Each Giving Partner also magnified the impact of TOMS shoes by bundling its distribution with other charity work that the organization specialized in. For example, Partners in Health, a nonprofit organization that spent almost $100 million in 2012 on providing health care for the poor (more than TOMS’s total revenue that year), dispersed thousands of shoes to schoolchildren in Rwanda and Malawi while also screening them for malnutrition. Cooperative giving further strengthened the TOMS brand by association with well-known and highly regarded Giving Partners. Complementary services expanded the scope of TOMS’s mission, enhanced the impact that each pair of TOMS had on a child’s life, and increased the number of goodwill and business opportunities available to TOMS.

In order to ensure quality of service and adherence to its fundamental mission, TOMS maintained five criteria for Giving Partners: 7

· Repeat Giving: Giving partners must be able to work with the same communities in multiyear commitments, regularly providing shoes to the same children as they grow.

· High Impact: Shoes must aid Giving Partners with their existing goals in the areas of health and education, providing children with opportunities they would not have otherwise.

· Considerate of Local Economy: Providing shoes cannot have negative socioeconomic effects on the communities where shoes are given.

· Large Volume Shipments: Giving Partners must be able to accept large shipments of giving pairs.

· Health/Education Focused: Giving Partners must give shoes only in conjunction with health and education efforts.

As of 2016, TOMS had built relationships with over 100 Giving Partners including Save the Children, U.S. Fund for UNICEF, and IMA World Health. In order to remain accountable to its mission in these joint ventures, TOMS also performed unannounced audit reports that ensured shoes were distributed according to the One for One® model.

Building a Relationship with Giving Partners
Having Giving Partners offered TOMS the valuable opportunity to shift some of its philanthropic costs onto other parties. However, TOMS also proactively maintained strong relationships with its Giving Partners. Kelly Gibson, the program director of National Relief Charities (NRC), a Giving Partner and nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the lives of Native Americans, highlighted the respect with which TOMS treated its Giving Partners:

· TOMS treats their Giving Partners (like us) and the recipients of their giveaway shoes (the Native kids in this case) like customers. We had a terrific service experience with TOMS. They were meticulous about getting our shoe order just right. They also insist that the children who receive shoes have a customer-type experience at distributions.

From customizing Giving Partner orders to helping pick up the tab for transportation and distribution, TOMS treated its Giving Partners as valuable customers and generated a sense of goodwill that extended beyond its immediate One for One® mission. By ensuring that its Giving Partners and recipients of shoes were treated respectfully, TOMS developed a unique ability to sustain business relationships that other for-profit organizations more concerned with the financial bottom line did not.

Maintaining a Dedication to Corporate Social Responsibility
Although TOMS manufactured its products in Argentina, China, and Ethiopia (countries that have all been cited as areas with a high degree of child and forced labor by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs), regular third-party factory audits and a Supplier Code of Conduct helped ensure compliance with fair labor standards. 8 Audits were conducted on both an announced and unannounced basis while the Supplier Code of Conduct was publicly posted in the local language of every work site. The Supplier Code of Conduct enforced standards such as minimum work age, requirement of voluntary employment, nondiscrimination, maximum workweek hours, and right to unionize. It also protected workers from physical, sexual, verbal, or psychological harassment in accordance with a country’s legally mandated standards. Workers were encouraged to report violations directly to TOMS, and suppliers found in violation of TOMS’s Supplier Code of Conduct faced termination.

In addition to ensuring that suppliers met TOMS’s ethical standards, TOMS also emphasized its own dedication to ethical behavior in a number of ways. TOMS was a member of the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) and was registered with the Fair Labor Association (FLA). Internally, TOMS educated its own employees on human trafficking and slavery prevention and partnered with several organizations dedicated to raising awareness about such issues, including Hand of Hope. 9

Giving Trips
Aside from material shoe contributions, TOMS also held a series of “Giving Trips” that supported the broader notion of community service. Giving Trips were firsthand opportunities for employees of TOMS and selected TOMS customers to partake in the delivery of TOMS shoes. These trips increased the transparency of TOMS’s philanthropic efforts, further engaging customers and employees. They generated greater social awareness as well, since participants on these trips often became more engaged in local community service efforts at home.

From a business standpoint, Giving Trips also represented a marketing success. First, a large number of participants were customers and journalists unassociated with TOMS who circulated their stories online through social media upon their return. Second, TOMS was able to motivate participants and candidates to become more involved in their mission by increasing public awareness. In 2013, instead of internally selecting customers to participate on the Giving Trips, TOMS opted to hold an open voting process that encouraged candidates to reach out to their known contacts and ask them to vote for their inclusion. This contest drew thousands of contestants and likely hundreds of thousands of voters, although the final vote tallies were not publicly released.

Environmental Sustainability
Dedicated to minimizing its environmental impact, TOMS pursued a number of sustainable practices that included offering vegan shoes, incorporating recycled bottles into its products, and printing with soy ink. TOMS also used a blend of organic canvas and postconsumer, recycled plastics to create shoes that were both comfortable and durable. By utilizing natural hemp and organic cotton, TOMS eliminated pesticide and insecticide use that adversely affected the environment.

In addition, TOMS supported several environmental organizations like Surfers Against Sewage, a movement that raised awareness about excess sewage discharge in the UK. Formally, TOMS was a member of the Textile Exchange, an organization dedicated to textile sustainability and protecting the environment. The company also participated actively in the AAFA’s Environmental Responsibility Committee.

Creating the TOMS Workforce
When asked what makes a great employee, Mycoskie blogged,

As TOMS has grown, we’ve continued to look for these same traits in the interns and employees that we hire. Are you passionate? Can you creatively solve problems? Can you be resourceful without resources? Do you have the compassion to serve others? You can teach a new hire just about any skill . . . but you absolutely cannot inspire creativity and passion in someone that doesn’t have it. 10

The company’s emphasis on creativity and passion was part of the reason why TOMS relied so heavily on interns and new hires rather than experienced workers. By hiring younger, more inexperienced employees, TOMS was able to be more cost-effective in terms of personnel. The company could also recruit young and energetic individuals who were more likely to think innovatively and outside the box. These employees were placed in specialized teams under the leadership of strong, experienced managerial talent. This human intellectual capital generated a competitive advantage for the TOMS brand.

Together with these passionate individuals, Mycoskie strove to create a family-like work atmosphere where openness and collaboration were celebrated. With his cubicle located in one of the most highly trafficked areas of the office (right next to customer service), Mycoskie made a point to interact with his employees on a daily basis, in all-staff meetings, and through weekly personal e-mails while traveling. Regarding his e-mails, Mycoskie reflected,

I’m a very open person, so I really tell the staff what I’m struggling with and what I’m happy about. I tell them what I think the future of TOMS is. I want them to understand what I’m thinking. It’s like I’m writing to a best friend. 11

This notion of “family” was further solidified through company dinners, ski trips, and book clubs where TOMS employees were encouraged to socialize in informal settings. These casual opportunities to interact with colleagues created a “balanced” work atmosphere where employees celebrated not only their own successes, but also the successes of their co-workers.

Diversity and inclusion were also emphasized at TOMS. For example, cultural traditions like the Chinese Lunar New Year were celebrated publicly on the TOMS’s company blog. Moreover, as TOMS began expanding and distributing globally, the company increasingly sought to recruit a more diverse workforce by hiring multilingual individuals who were familiar with TOMS’s diverse customer base and could communicate with its giving communities. 12

The emphasis that Mycoskie placed on each individual employee was one of the key reasons why employees at TOMS often felt “lucky” to be part of the movement. 13 Coupled with the fact that TOMS employees knew their efforts fostered social justice, these “Agents of Change,” as they referred to themselves, were generally quite satisfied with their work, making TOMS Forbes’s 4th Most Inspiring Company in 2014. Overall, the culture allowed TOMS to recruit and retain high-quality employees invested in achieving its social mission.

Financial Success at TOMS
With a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.8 percent from 2010 to 2014, global footwear manufacturing developed into an industry worth over $289.7 billion. 14 While TOMS remained a privately held company with limited financial data, the estimated growth rate of TOMS’s revenue was astounding. In the seven years after his company’s inception, Mycoskie was able to turn his initial $300,000 investment into a company with over $200 million in yearly revenues. As shown in Exhibit 4 , the average growth rate of TOMS on a yearly basis was 145 percent, even excluding its first major spike of 457 percent. During the same period, Nike experienced a growth rate of roughly 8.5 percent, with a decline in revenues from 2009 to 2010.

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

TOMS (in Mils. of $)

Revenue

$ 390

$370.9

$ 285

$101.8

$ 46.9

$ 25.1

$ 8.4

$ 3.1

$ 1.2

$0.2

Growth (%)

5.1%

30.1%

180%

117%

86.9%

199%

171%

158.3%

500%

—

Industry (in Bils. of $)

Revenue

$191.6

$189.3

$175.3

$164.4

$169.4

$152.1

$148.6

$155.6

$131.3

N.A.

Growth (%)

1.2%

8.0%

6.6%

−3.0%

11.4%

2.4%

−4.5%

18.5%

19.9%

—

EXHIBIT 4

REVENUE COMPARISON FOR TOMS SHOES AND THE FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY, 2006–2015

Note: N.A., Not available.Source: “Global Footwear Manufacturing,” IBISWorld, April 18, 2016, http://clients1.ibisworld.com/reports/gl/industry/currentperformance.aspx?entid=500.

The fact that TOMS was able to experience consistent growth despite financial turmoil post-2008 illustrates the strength of the One for One movement to survive times of recession. Mycoskie attributed his success during the recession to two factors: (1) As consumers became more conscious of their spending during recessions, products like TOMS that gave to others actually became more appealing (according to Mycoskie); (2) the giving model that TOMS employed is not “priced in.” Rather than commit a percentage of profits or revenues to charity, Mycoskie noted that TOMS simply gave away a pair for every pair it sold. This way, socially conscious consumers knew exactly where their money was going without having to worry that TOMS would cut back on its charity efforts in order to turn a profit. 15

Production at TOMS
Although TOMS manufactured shoes in Argentina, Ethiopia, and China, only shoes made in China were brought to the retail market. Shoes made in Argentina and Ethiopia were strictly used for donation purposes. TOMS retailed its basic alpargata shoes in the $50 price range, even though the cost of producing each pair was estimated at around $9. 16 Estimates for the costs of producing TOMS’s more expensive lines of shoes were unknown, but they retailed for upwards of $150.

In comparison, manufacturing the average pair of Nike shoes in Indonesia cost around $20, and they were priced at around $70. 17 Factoring in the giving aspect, TOMS seemed to have a slightly smaller markup than companies like Nike, yet it still maintained considerable profit margins. More detailed information on trends in TOMS’s production costs and practices is limited due to the private nature of the company.

The Future
Because demand and revenues were predicted to increase in the global footwear manufacturing industry, incumbents like TOMS needed to find ways to defend their position in the market. One method was to continue to differentiate products based on quality, image, or price. Another strategy was to focus on research and development (R&D) and craft new brands and product lines that appealed to different audiences. It was also recommended that companies investigate how to mitigate the threat posed by an increase in supply costs.

In an effort to broaden its mission and product offerings, TOMS began to expand both its consumer base and charitable-giving product lines. For its customers, TOMS started offering stylish wedges, ballet flats, and even wedding apparel in an effort to reach more customers and satisfy the special needs of current ones. For the children it sought to help, TOMS expanded past its basic black canvas shoe offerings to winter boots to help keep children’s feet dry and warm during the winter months in cold climate countries.

On another front, TOMS entered the eyewear market in hopes of restoring vision to the 285 million blind or visually impaired individuals around the world. For every pair of TOMS glasses sold, TOMS restored vision to one individual either through donating prescription glasses or offering medical treatment for those suffering from cataracts and eye infections. TOMS recently focused its vision-related efforts in Nepal, but also hoped to expand globally as the TOMS eyewear brand grew. As of 2016, TOMS had teamed up with 15 Giving Partners to help restore sight to 360,000 individuals in 13 countries.

ENDNOTES
1. TOMS website, April 4, 2016, www.toms.com/what-we-give-shoes .

2. Blake Mycoskie, web log post, The Huffington Post, May 26, 2013, www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-mycoskie/ .

3. 501c3Lookup, June 2, 2013, 501c3lookup.org/FRIENDS_OF_TOMS/ .

4. “Global Footwear Manufacturing,” IBISWorld, March 2014, clients1.ibisworld.com/reports/gl/industry/keystatistics.aspx?entid=500 .

5. Post by “Alexandria,” TOMS website, June 2, 2013, www.toms.com/red-canvas-classics-shoes-1 .

6. Post by “Donna Brock,” TOMS website, January 13, 2014, www.toms.com/women/bright-blue-womens-canvas-classics .

7. TOMS website, June 2, 2013, www.toms.com/our-movement-givingpartners .

8. Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, United States Department of Labor, June 2, 2013, www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/ocft/tvpra.htm ; TOMS website, June 2, 2013, www.toms.com/corporate-responsibility .

9. Hand of Hope, “Teaming Up with TOMS Shoes,” Joyce Meyer Ministries, June 2, 2013, www.studygs.net/citation/mla.htm .

10. Blake Mycoskie, “Blake Mycoskie’s Blog,” Blogspot, June 2, 2013, blakemycoskie.blogspot.com/ .

11. Tamara Schweitzer, “The Way I Work: Blake Mycoskie of TOMS Shoes,” Inc., June 2, 2013, www.inc.com/magazine/20100601/the-wayi-work-blake-mycoskie-of-toms-shoes.html .

12. TOMS Jobs website, June 2, 2013, www.toms.com/jobs/l .

13. Daniela, “Together We Travel,” TOMS Company Blog, June 3, 2013, blog.toms.com/post/36075725601/together-we-travel .

14. “Global—Footwear,” Marketline: Advantage, April 18, 2016.

15. Mike Zimmerman, “The Business of Giving: TOMS Shoes,” Success, June 2, 2013, www.success.com/articles/852-the-business-of-givingtoms-shoes .

16. Brittney Fortune, “TOMS Shoes: Popular Model with Drawbacks,” The Falcon, June 2, 2013, www.thefalcononline.com/article.php?id=159 .

17. Behind the Swoosh [Film]. Dir. Jim Keady, 1995.