It has been reported that a recent study in South Africa found that school shoes currently available at retail were not suitable for the habitually barefoot population studied.

It recommended that footwear manufacturers should take into account the width of school shoes for children and adolescents in such populations to avoid the long-term negative effect that ill-fitting shoes have on their feet. This does not come as much of a surprise as ill-fitting shoes remains a problem world wide and is not just restricted to countries where there is a prevalence for young children going barefoot.

It is in fact a situation for which, to a large extent, we can thank the globalisation of the footwear industry whereby major brands have evolved to supply a global market. As there are almost as many variations in foot shape as there are nationalities around the world, a compromise has to be made whereby footwear has to be produced on lasts that cover the widest number of individuals possible. Add to this the fact that so much footwear is now purchased either on-line or from retail stores that do not offer any expert fitting advice and you can see why this situation exists. 

Children’s feet

The potential harm being done to growing children's feet through wearing ill-fitting shoes is a serious and ongoing issue. A child's foot differs proportionally from that of an adult primarily in that it is wider which must be taken into account. Furthermore, the bones are not fully ossified and its cushioning function is different. The main distinction, however, rests in the fact that it is growing. In other words, children's footwear may be worn only for a limited length of time and, if worn longer, may lead to deformity. Unfortunately, parents in many developing countries may often not replace their children’s shoes when they should simply because they cannot afford to do so.

If recommendations exist for establishing the safe length of wear of newly purchased children's footwear, they originate from a time when domestically produced footwear predominated and local manufacturers tended to work from measurements of feet in the local child population. It has often been argued that precisely because local manufacturers used local data in order to produce designs that satisfied the ethnic characteristics of the local population, this was a guarantee of healthy footwear. Furthermore, the fact that it was purchased from specialist shoe retailers ensured that children’s shoes were properly fitted.

Formerly closed markets also limited the import of children's shoes and thus their shape and quality could be controlled at a national level. In the 1990s, footwear production shifted rapidly from industrially advanced countries to those across Asia. Relatively effective national activities concentrating on educating parents in the purchase of children's shoes immediately began to lose effect. Any attempts at unifying opinions and proposals for a common approach largely failed in practice with the result that the shape and dimensional proportionality for children's shoes has been left up to global manufacturers to decide for themselves. Globalisation has in fact led to a deterioration of the conditions necessary for healthy children’s feet. 

Accurate measurement

Foot scanners have revolutionised foot measurement and overcome all the earlier vagaries in taking truly accurate dimensions of the foot. They are able to capture the shape of opaque objects in 3D space by providing x, y, z coordinates of the scanned object surface and use devices such as cameras and laser equipment to derive digital and mathematical models from 3D images of the foot. One might think that this, coupled with CAD design software, would have solved all the problems of translating the undulating surfaces and shapes of the foot into perfectly fitting shoes. Well, not quite. Major differences still remain between the foot as accurately captured by modern scanning technology and the shoemaking last, to say nothing of pattern variations and materials used in the final product.

Foot and last surfaces are quite different; the foot is irregular and last smooth. The outline of the foot has no regular outline, whereas a last has a regular and continuous bottom outline or feather edge to assist lasting and give a clearly defined shape to the finished shoe. There are in fact up to 16 such differences between foot and last. However, today’s scanning equipment is globally accepted by both manufacturing and retail sections of the shoe industry, for the creation of highly accurate 3D virtual models of the foot.

While this is to be welcomed, it only affects a relatively small proportion of consumers, both children and adults, whose footwear is purchased from quality retail outlets. The vast majority of consumers globally do not have access to sophisticated retail outlets as they either do not exist where they live or they cannot afford the footwear being sold. For them,  such advanced technology is of no help in improving the fit of their shoes.  Furthermore, it does not solve the ongoing problem of size labelling.  

Confused labelling

Footwear is marked in different sizes but that may only be an indication of its length or, more accurately, that of the foot that should feel comfortable in it. Width fitting is often not mentioned at all, the assumption being that it should fit the average foot. Unfortunately, perception of ‘average width’ varies between brands and global markets. Furthermore, there is a lack of accord between them on shoe size dimensions and labelling. Even when using a single sizing system there are variations in both the foot length and joint girth corresponding with the labelled size. 

This is further complicated by there being multiple shoe sizing systems. When producing footwear, the lasts and tooling used will have been developed in accordance with a particular shoe sizing system. If a manufacturer wants to supply the international market, it must of necessity use conversions between the different sizing systems. This again only covers the length of the shoe but not the width. To try to bring some sense of order and provide an independent reference point, ISO/TS19407 was published in 2015, showing the relationship between different sizing systems and how they relate to foot length.

Unfortunately, interpretations of standard fitting for joint girth can differ widely between brands. Some deliberately grade wider shoes than their competitors to gain an alternative slice of the available market. This results in two shoes of the same style and size having drastically different fitting characteristics. In fact, size labeling has become so chaotic that it is now a total mess and this has made it all but impossible for parents to select and purchase footwear dimensionally and proportionally suitable for their children.

There are in fact at least 11 possibilities as regards shoe sizing systems including British, European, Russian, American, Mexican, Australian, Japanese, Korean, Centimetres, Inches and, not least, Mondopoint. While many of these are now rarely used, the situation nevertheless remains highly unsatisfactory from a consumer standpoint. A universal system, while causing short term disruption to manufacturers if introduced, would put a stop to all this and offer considerable long term advantages, not least of which would be simplifying the global supply chain and making it easier for consumers to buy the right size and width. 

Is there a solution?

A solution for all this confusion already exists and has done so for 50 years. Mondopoint was developed in the 1970s by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) to create a universal footwear sizing system. It is a labelling system that removes the ambiguity of other sizing systems by stating the length of foot for which the shoe is designed. Thus, a Mondopoint size 270 indicates that the shoe should fit a foot length of 270mm. In this way, a UK 9 would be labelled as 271 and would be immediately apparent to a customer whether it was suitable to try on. Similarly, an EU 43 would be marked 273 and would be an obvious approximation of the UK 9 or US men’s 10. 

The Mondopoint system has a further and important advantage in that the labelling should also include an indication of the width of the foot for which the footwear is designed by stating its joint breadth. In this way, a UK size 9 D fitting might be labelled 271/103. A customer can therefore very quickly identify a suitable size and width fitting by taking two foot measurements; foot length and joint breadth–both of which are explained in ISO 9407–and make choosing a size and width of footwear as easy as measuring a footprint and just as easy to remember.

The idea originally stalled mainly due to a reluctance to change on the part of certain countries that still clung to Imperial measurements rather than change to metric. Unfortunately, a universal sizing system like Mondopoint would probably be too expensive and disruptive to implement. The footwear supply chain has enough problems as it is and, without overwhelming pressure from consumers, nothing in regard to footwear sizing systems and labelling is likely to change in the foreseeable future. 

The footwear industry has made incredible technical advances during recent decades except in this one fundamental area, size measurement and size labelling. It had a golden opportunity 50 years ago at the outset of globalisation when it might have stood a chance of succeeding. Instead, conservative thinking held sway and now, instead of a global sizing and labelling system which would have simplified things and saved money, we have  confusion and increasing foot health problems due to ill-fitting footwear. Not a very good legacy. 

Credit: Shutterstock / Nolie Lourens

Share this story: