I disagree with the basic premise that Tom's was a source of good before the purchase, let alone that it is one now. Flooding the markets of developing countries with free clothing -- ie, goods that those countries already have the skill and infrastructure to create and sell -- is harmful to their economies.
Throwing free shoes at these markets shuts down the people trying to make a living for themselves making shoes. We're not talking about software here, it doesn't take a great deal of skill or resources to make shoes. 2/3rds of readers' clothing here probably comes out of the developing markets that Tom's floods.
I will consider Tom's a "charitable organization" when they build and hand over ownership of factories and farms for free.
Your argument is fundamentally mercantilist; 'dumping', which is what you are describing, is only harmful to businesses in the industry being undercut, but it helps everyone in the country, and to a much greater extent than any harm which may inhere.[1][2] Please consider whether we should allow energy and lighting services to simply be given to the people of these countries for free all day, thus undercutting the utilities, lighting fixture manufacturers, light-bulb makers, utilities, and all the related industries; if you agree that this 'dumping' is bad, we should blot out the sun.[3]
If energy is being provided for free to these countries, then income is immediately opened up as the new power utility (which of course should be owned by the public or its workers) in the form of jobs needed to keep the plant running. It opens up opportunities for all manner of products, jobs, and factories that were previously not possible before -- I mean, light bulb makers are about as useful in a country without electricity as shoe stores are in a country with free shoes.
Furthermore, if a country has little-to-no access to electricity, providing it is unlikely to impact anyone negatively. And besides, workers/citizens/the state ought own the utilities; this is the case in most of the world and I've had nothing but crap experiences with the privately owned kind.
Are you going to dump seeds and irrigation systems into the same bucket as free shoes too?
Sure, choosing what to charitably give without causing more harm than good must be done carefully, I'll give you that, but I'm not following the all-or-nothing extension of that argument.
Most people don't understand that distinction with charity, giving money to a beggar, or volunteer vacations. It's much easier to do something to feel good, than to do good.
I'm still interested in the concept that a company could be good, rather than focused purely on increasing wealth for owners and shareholders. It's possible, yet rare, so there must be something fundamental that's driving these results.
Throwing free shoes at these markets shuts down the people trying to make a living for themselves making shoes. We're not talking about software here, it doesn't take a great deal of skill or resources to make shoes. 2/3rds of readers' clothing here probably comes out of the developing markets that Tom's floods.
I will consider Tom's a "charitable organization" when they build and hand over ownership of factories and farms for free.