3 ms·

Why isn't this caring more? It is a much better outcome than grinding up the shoes and trying to use them as playground fill or something.

beedeebeedee 4y ago
Most of the shoes that are exported cannot be resold and turn into trash. That is a much worse outcome than all of the shoes being recycled (plus it is illegal according to Indonesian import law).
woodruffw 4y ago
"Caring more" requires us to believe that Dow knows and intended for this to happen, rather than it being a beneficial outcome of local economic pressures. That seems unlikely; why go to the effort of publicizing a specific recycling program (one that's worse!) when you're secretly going to do a better thing? The much more likely explanation is that Dow doesn't care, and expressed that lack of care by paying someone even less scrupulous to "care" for them. That party in turn doesn't care (because they can see Dow doesn't), and simply did whatever made them the most money.
- dawatchusay 4y ago
  Innocent until proven guilty
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    This is an Internet forum, not a court of law.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      Innocent until proven guilty is a standard that should be applied anywhere accusations are laid. Many nasty things will occur if this is violated.
- lazide 4y ago
  So you're judging them by their perceived level of caring and knowledge, even though you have no evidence of it, and the outcome was better than expected. Sounds like hell?
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I’m operating based on all available evidence in the article. I welcome any evidence to the contrary. If “hell” means “telling the truth” or “acting with basic diligence,” well.
    - lazide 4y ago
      From the article - a subcontractor of a subcontractor exported them instead of shredding them. It's at least 3 levels removed from Dow, and likely the Singapore Gov't that did it, as these are Singaporean companies. And they picked them up from the bins, they weren't delivered them by someone else. What level of diligence should Dow be doing here, especially since the outcome doesn't seem to be a bad one - if anything, a better one? "None of the 11 pairs of footwear donated by Reuters were turned into exercise paths or kids’ parks in Singapore. Instead, nearly all the tagged shoes ended up in the hands of Yok Impex Pte Ltd, a Singaporean second-hand goods exporter, according to the trackers and that exporter’s logistics manager. The manager said his firm had been hired by a waste management company involved in the recycling program to retrieve shoes from the donation bins for delivery to that company’s local warehouse."
      - skolsuper 4y ago
        Indonesia bans the import of 2nd-hand clothing and footwear, specifically because a large proportion of it ends up in landfill or incinerators. That definitely would be a worse environmental outcome than being recycled into running track. I suspect the reason the shoes from the article did not go to landfill was probably because they were in unusually good condition.
  - dahdum 4y ago
    > So you're judging them by their perceived level of caring and knowledge, even though you have no evidence of it, and the outcome was better than expected. They solicited donations under false pretenses for PR points and then gave (or worse, sold) them to an exporter. If they want to be seen as trustworthy or given the benefit of the doubt...well they've had 126 years and consistently shown ethical behavior is not a company mantra.
madeofpalk 4y ago
Why do they say one thing, but do another?
janalsncm 4y ago
That was my initial thought, but importing them to Indonesia is also illegal. And if Dow really believes that reusing shoes is better, why not just say so?

beedeebeedee 4y ago

Most of the shoes that are exported cannot be resold and turn into trash. That is a much worse outcome than all of the shoes being recycled (plus it is illegal according to Indonesian import law).

woodruffw 4y ago

"Caring more" requires us to believe that Dow knows and intended for this to happen, rather than it being a beneficial outcome of local economic pressures. That seems unlikely; why go to the effort of publicizing a specific recycling program (one that's worse!) when you're secretly going to do a better thing? The much more likely explanation is that Dow doesn't care, and expressed that lack of care by paying someone even less scrupulous to "care" for them. That party in turn doesn't care (because they can see Dow doesn't), and simply did whatever made them the most money.

dawatchusay 4y ago
Innocent until proven guilty
- woodruffw 4y ago
  This is an Internet forum, not a court of law.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Innocent until proven guilty is a standard that should be applied anywhere accusations are laid. Many nasty things will occur if this is violated.
lazide 4y ago
So you're judging them by their perceived level of caring and knowledge, even though you have no evidence of it, and the outcome was better than expected. Sounds like hell?
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I’m operating based on all available evidence in the article. I welcome any evidence to the contrary. If “hell” means “telling the truth” or “acting with basic diligence,” well.
  - lazide 4y ago
    From the article - a subcontractor of a subcontractor exported them instead of shredding them. It's at least 3 levels removed from Dow, and likely the Singapore Gov't that did it, as these are Singaporean companies. And they picked them up from the bins, they weren't delivered them by someone else. What level of diligence should Dow be doing here, especially since the outcome doesn't seem to be a bad one - if anything, a better one? "None of the 11 pairs of footwear donated by Reuters were turned into exercise paths or kids’ parks in Singapore. Instead, nearly all the tagged shoes ended up in the hands of Yok Impex Pte Ltd, a Singaporean second-hand goods exporter, according to the trackers and that exporter’s logistics manager. The manager said his firm had been hired by a waste management company involved in the recycling program to retrieve shoes from the donation bins for delivery to that company’s local warehouse."
    - skolsuper 4y ago
      Indonesia bans the import of 2nd-hand clothing and footwear, specifically because a large proportion of it ends up in landfill or incinerators. That definitely would be a worse environmental outcome than being recycled into running track. I suspect the reason the shoes from the article did not go to landfill was probably because they were in unusually good condition.
- dahdum 4y ago
  > So you're judging them by their perceived level of caring and knowledge, even though you have no evidence of it, and the outcome was better than expected. They solicited donations under false pretenses for PR points and then gave (or worse, sold) them to an exporter. If they want to be seen as trustworthy or given the benefit of the doubt...well they've had 126 years and consistently shown ethical behavior is not a company mantra.

madeofpalk 4y ago

Why do they say one thing, but do another?

janalsncm 4y ago

That was my initial thought, but importing them to Indonesia is also illegal. And if Dow really believes that reusing shoes is better, why not just say so?