A Review of Corporate Responsibility In The Jewelry Sector by Estelle Levin
Estelle Levin, Minerals and Sustainability Consultant based in the UK, writes here about corporate responsibility models as they relate to the jewelry sector. This insightful piece helps to clarify the many different perspectives that can seem at times quite chaotic to even someone such as myself who follows these issues closely.
This informal statement first appeared in the Madison Dialogue list sever, which is a multi-sector initiative to bring fair trade practices to the jewelry supply chain. Special thanks to Estelle for permission to reprint! ~ Marc
I’ve been thinking a bit about corporate responsibility in the past few weeks, mostly because I’ve just done a course on sustainability assurance and stakeholder engagement.
In the course (brilliantly done by Sd3, a UK consulting firm), we were presented with a ‘generational’ understanding of corporate responsibility / sustainability performance. I’ve worked on this a little and have developed the following typology for companies’ sustainability performance and I’d love to hear what people think about this in relation to the jewellery sector. Do you agree? How does this fit with what we’re all trying to do in the jewellery sector? Where do you and your company want to get to? How far do you want to go?
I’m asking this because one of the main points of the Madison Dialogue is to improve understanding between all of us who are trying to do something in the field of ‘ethical’ jewellery. Thinking about how our goals and drivers differ can help us understand why one company is pursuing one particular strategy (e.g. cause marketing) while another is improving supply chain integrity (e.g. through fair trade certification or vertical integration).
I’m assuming here that people understand what sustainability means but a quick definition would be that sustainability is finding ways of living that limit environmental harm, and social and economic injustices, whilst improving environmental, social, and economic wellbeing, over time and space (i.e. for future generations, and for other people – and species – on the planet). The Brundtland Commission definition is concerned only with future generations, not with other people we share the planet with today, which is why I give this broader definition.
In order to figure out where you fit, you need to ask, what are you doing to be more sustainable, to meet your corporate responsibility?
A 1st generation company would be one that is just beginning to consider its sustainability. 1st generation companies generally don’t really understand what sustainability means / requires of them. A typical activity of a 1st generation company would be choosing to do carbon offsets but doing nothing to actually reduce its carbon footprint, or following a philanthropic route without changing any of their business practices. I say, at least they’re starting to think about it!
A second generation company is doing more than just ‘offsetting’ or philanthropy but understands that it can make change through its actual activities. It is beginning to monitor and improve its institutional or operational sustainability. So they’re thinking about how to make their activities more sustainable (e.g. in their trading relations, in how they dispose waste, in how they deal with stakeholders, in how they source the coffee for the kitchen…!), are making some changes, and are keeping tracks of these to help improve performance. They see sustainability as a vehicle for managing risk and as a business (and maybe even political) opportunity.
A 3rd generation company has actually embedded sustainability in its decision-making at all levels of the organization (operational, strategic, institutional, etc.), reporting on its sustainability activities in a transparent and regular way, and using its position as a ‘corporate citizen’ to help society at large become more sustainable. They see sustainability as moral duty.
A 4th generation company has not just embedded sustainability but is entirely driven by a vision that it is a vehicle for stimulating sustainability in society and is designed with this as the primary motivation, with profit-making understood as the motor necessary to ensure the company’s ‘maintainability’. Social entrepreneurs would fit into this category. Other industry examples might be Innocent Smoothies (UK), Patagonia (North America).
