11th Standard: Material Used In Manufacturing
Introduction:
This is an ongoing documentation of a series of dialogs between members of our Manufacturing Group, charged with the task of developing exceptional standards for jewelry manufacturing. Follow this link for full review of past discussions. This is a discussion of materials used in manufacturing.
This is the last standard and represents a completion of our work: the development of principles and standard for “fair made” or “fair trade jewelry” manufacturing.
This process began in October, 2007, and came out of the Madison Dialog cross sector meeting which took place at the World Bank in Washington DC. Working groups for diamonds, colored gems, precious metal mining and manufacturing were started at the meeting. I personally initiated the Manufacturing Group at that meeting. How a product is made seemed to me just as important as how it is sourced.
After three years, we have completed our initial task. We were the only working group from the Madison Dialogue that succeeded. In January, time permitting, I will compile the comments and post the principle and standard document on this site
~Marc Choyt, Publisher
Marc Choyt wrote:
We now come to our last standard: Material Used in Manufacturing.
In the original document, I stated some reasons why we cannot link fair trade materials to fair made manufacturing. Let me just review these issues now.
At present, the supply of uncertified, yet claimed as fair trade, jewelry materials with which to manufacture is not sufficiently mature. Massive supply chain gaps still exist.
Fair trade manufacturing will take place in the developed world, where even exporting fair trade metal is daunting. For example, to import recycled silver to Indonesia, you can pay close to $2000 in duty and shipping costs, regardless of the value of the shipment, even to a manufacturer who has created an “export free zone.”
Matching fair trade material with fair made product is the ultimate goal. But it is too early to attempt it as a minimum requirement for fair trade manufacturing.
At this point, what we can reasonably ask for is transparency in regard to the sourcing of materials used in fair made processes.
Please review the principle and standard below, and share your thoughts and concerns.
Thank you for considering these issues.
11. Material Used In Manufacturing
Principle:
Companies shall be transparent in regard to the sourcing of all material that is used in the manufacturing of fair made products.
Standards:
Minimum Requirements:
11.1: Companies shall to the best of their ability, trace where the material for their manufactured goods comes from.
11.2 Companies will attempt to source ethically as opportunities become more available over time.
Progressive Requirements:
11.3p: Companies shall use fair trade or recycled precious metal, and gemstones that can be traced from mine to market, ethically sourced and polished.
Vivien Johnston wrote:
I also support this proposal.
I wonder if it would be appropriate to include a line about invoices/
receipts/ delivery notes must be retained for all goods received and
retained for inspection, for a nominal period?
What does everyone think?
Patrick Schein wrote:
thanks for this standard
the progressive standard is excellent.
on the minimum one, I am not in favor in the words “do the best” or “attempt”. I believe we have to trace and we have to source ethically if possible. we have a saying in French “attempting is failing: just do it !”
This being said, and as we are coming through the end of the standards, I have a proposition.
I have been following the FJA creation and posts and seen that your blog is now under its umbrella.
You lead the standards “committee” and as today we came to the end of the drafting and Madison dialogue is not as much active in the field, what about taking the opportunity to offer our contribution to FJA which would act as a promoter of those standards with the ultimate goal of creating a label. This will allow the supply chain from the refiner to the retailer to have a global vehicle to promote our vision that we just transcript in standards.
If you think that this way might be adapted, I would be glad as contributor to those standards to host them in FJA and start promoting them.
Although, I think that all the active contributors of the standards should be consulted reason why I am submitting you that proposal through the list.
Thanks for your thoughts (all) on the subject
Greg Valerio wrote:
I seem to recollect that FJA hosting the standard was a discussion of some months ago and the outcome of this was that as a group we were happy to proceed in this manner.
I forget who proposed it first, but in response to Patrick’s suggestion I think FJA would be a logical place to host the standard.
Marc Choyt wrote:
Patrick, thank you for your support, now and throughout this process. With the endorsement of this group, I would be honored to carry forth this work to its next stage and final completion, with FJA as a host.
Fair Jewelry Action was started to drive more of the jewelry sector’s massive economic impact toward benefiting the producer communities. We want to see these communities not just “sustained,” but flourishing. I invite everyone to read the FJA’s Vision Statement which I recently posted. https://fairjewelry.org/archives/4166.
When reading this vision, one may think it is impossible. But miraculous changes can happen. My father was a activist in the American Civil Rights Movement and much of my time growing up he was so involved in politics that I hardly saw him. He could not have imagined seeing a black man as an American president- at age 88, he viewed Obama’s election as the crowning achievement of his life’s work.
Is it so far fetched to imagine the economic activities within the mainstream jewelry sector to have a massive beneficial impact in impoverished communities, or to see truth and reconciliation between those who perpetuated the blood diamond tragedy and those who were its victims? I think not. It is also completely probably, if we can harness our good intentions effectively, that within ten years the only socially acceptable option will be for consumers to purchase ethically sourced jewelry. This new economic paradigm, which connects economic choices to core values based upon sustainability and human rights, is exactly what young people today want. I see it when they purchase wedding rings from my company.
Though the ethical sourcing community is small in numbers now, our work, as expressed in the many members that make up our group, is laying the foundations for the future economy of the jewelry sector. But we cannot achieve this goal without continuing to work together, cooperatively, in a circle, supporting each others small efforts so that together we build a massive title wave that cannot be stopped.
One element that has been missing is a central communications platform that can represent and bring together a broad multi-sector spectrum of voices that broadly support our initiatives. FJA was created in part to be this platform. Therefore, as part of my offering to accept this task should it be supported by our group, I would like to take this opportunity to invite everyone on this list to become Charter Members of Fair Jewelry Action. There is no cost to join up.
FJA will support the best of what is taking place now, and launch new initiatives that we as a community want to create in support of our shared vision. Fair Made Manufacturing could be the first of those initiatives. We believe that to achieve our goals we must work collaboratively as one community, within our sector and outside of it, pooling resources, talents, and our shared conviction for human rights and environmental justice.
Thank you all for your continued participation and support of our Manufacturing Initiative. Out of all the Madison Dialog Working Groups, it seems that we are the only one that actually accomplished its task.
Steve Metcalf wrote:
Yes, congratulations to all for the accomplishments.
At this point, I would like to see a collated list of the 11 points, so that
everything can be considered in context of the whole. Marc–can you
circulate?
Marc Choyt wrote:
This is clearly the next step (after we finish the 11th standard).
I will need to go back and review the old posts and modify the document. At the moment we’re in our Christmas season and it might be a few weeks before I can squeeze this in.
In addition, I will need to revise and update the entire standard document based upon our insights and discussions and this will take a few days of my time which I might not have until January.
So the answer is yes, but I’ll just ask your patience.
I would like to wrap up our 11th standard with Patrick’s suggestion—revising the language of 11.1 so that it is clear and definitive.
Here’s how it would read;
Minimum Requirements:
11.1: Companies will trace where the material for their manufactured goods comes from.
11.2: Companies will attempt to source ethically as opportunities become more available over time.
Progressive Requirements:
11.3p: Companies shall use fair trade or recycled precious metal, and gemstones that can be traced from mine to market, ethically sourced and polished.
If there are no other suggestions for improvement, we can say that our job, at this stage is done.
Vivien Johnston wrote:
I’m satisfied that this covers our objectives,
Steve Metcalf wrote:
Do we need to offer guidance/clarification on what we mean by “source
ethically” in the minimum standards? Do LSM certification schemes (RJC etc)
fit here?
Greg Valerio wrote:
Possibly, but LSM does not enfranchise the poor intentionally, rather than specifically.
For me it needs to be traceable and transparent
I am happy with this outline, but I would like to see ‘traceability and transparency in the supply chain’ being moved from progressive to minimum requirements.
Cristina Eschevarria wrote:
Just to note that from the supply point of view it will only be possible to ensure physical traceability when economies of scale and sufficient certified volumes are available (at least from ASM). From that perspective I suggest leaving it as a progressive requirement, pending supply information. If sourcing is from recycled or from a certified large mine, traceability should be a minimum requirement.
Now, traceability is complementary, but not the same as transparency. Perhaps they should be separated to ensure there is documentary traceability of the metals and stones, even if they have to be mixed with non certified ones for a period and in certain manufacturing processes. That would be transparent.
Flavia Aarden Kilger wrote:
As much as we would like to see traceability and transparency in the supply chain as a minimum requirement, I don’t believe this is something most jewellers could accomplish today. As a purhcaser I know how difficult it is to trace your gemstones or the precious metal. As much as we’d like to see this as a minimum, I think this requirement should be a progressive one.
Marc Choyt wrote:
Flavia, I agree that most jewelers could not accomplish transparency today because so much is sourced from middle level suppliers and resellers. However, the jewelers on the forefront, including many in this group, can be and are indeed selling product that is both traceable and transparency. I see this as an issue having to do more with honesty, openness and an intentionality to support best practices instead of the bottom line.
It is true that it will take time to build consumer knowledge and supply chain capacity. In the meantime, we can have at least transparency and limited traceability. With my company, as a manufacturer and jeweler, I state openly (transparently) that some of the gems I use are from sources where I cannot trace their origin.
Other gems (on the higher end) I can trace from mine to market. In terms of metals, it is not a problem at all to say (transparency) that my metals are traceable to recycled sources but the silver chain I buy is not. Just stating this information is valuable and a step forward.
I do not feel as if this issue of traceability and transparency is so difficult for manufacturers. It is just a matter of saying that we know or do not know. To state (Cristina) what I know or do not know about a particular component that makes a finished piece is not, as far as I can tell, determined by scale. It is determined mainly by the relationship I might have with the supplier of choice and that supplier’s relationship to his producers. Scalability, and a whole bunch of other issues relating to import, seems to be more of an issue with the progressive requirement.
At this juncture in time, just having a policy that openly asks, “where things come from” I see as a huge step forward. That policy can eventually lead to a product similar to what one may see on a chocolate bar, where some ingredients might be fair trade and organic while others are not. The label educates the public. And it provides a stepping stone to show the movement toward greater traceability and transparency and ethics in jewelry.
Regarding ethics– I agree with Steve’s point that “ethical” is too vague. I think we should perhaps drop this all together. Yet I wanted to convey this sense that the manufacturer is trying to through an ongoing process improve his sourcing.
Moving forward, here’s a new iteration of the 11th Standard
11.1: Companies will trace where the material for their manufactured goods comes from as far back to the source as possible.
11.2: Companies will be transparent in their sourcing information.
(The idea behind this is to simply have ingredients of a particular piece documented, whether they are “fairly” sourced or not… because one day, we will have a mixture between fair and non-fair in a piece of jewelry and we need to protect the integrity of FT products by establishing this type of policy from the beginning.)
Progressive Requirements:
11.3p: Companies shall use fair trade or recycled precious metal; and gemstones that can be traced from mine to market, ethically sourced and polished.
Greg Valerio wrote:
This is stronger, thank you
Flavia Aarden Kilger wrote:
I agree with how this is stated.
Vivien Johnston wrote:
I agree also
