Foundational Issues For Manufacturing Standards
Introduction:
This is a follow up on the previous post, which provided an introduction to the Manufacturing Standards document. I recommend you review the previous post if you are interested in these issues. I am publishing a proposal for fair trade jewelry manufacturing standards in sections.
This section of the document which I drafted in the fall of 2009 covers foundational issues based on the manufacturing principles which were drafted in 2008
~ Marc Choyt, Publisher
Initially, the group was formed out of the Madison Dialogue meeting which took place at the World Bank in Washington DC. (If you want to learn more about what took place, I reported on this event for Modern Jeweler.) The Madison Dialogue was not the appropriate organization to support actual principle and standard setting. This section of the document covers supporting civil society agencies and foundational issues to the actual discussion.
I want to again emphasize that this document is only a proposal and that it will be modified as it goes through a discussion process. What I tried to do in drafting this is to put the best possible document on the table as a start.
If you are interested in participating, please contact me.
After these principles were developed and posted, the steering committee recognized that they should seek support from other organizations that had experience in standard setting.
Two organizations offered support. Cristina Echavarría, from the Alliance for Responsible Mining (ARM); and Steve D’Esposito, from RESOLVE joined the working group. Demos Takoulas, CEO of Vukani-Ubuntu dropped out and in his place, Mari Lee, Project Director for Vukani-Ubuntu, a successful model for fair made jewelry based in South Africa, joined the steering committee members.
In spring of 2009, the steering committee began standard discussions. In setting standards, two foundational issues of import needed to be settled: composition of fair made jewelry and the sizes of the factories to make them.
A: Composition of Product
At the outside of standard discussions in Spring, 2009, the Fair Trade Labeling Organization (FLO) and the Alliance for Responsible Mining (ARM) were in the final stages of determining certification for fair trade precious metal. The question was raised whether or not a fair made piece of jewelry must be composed of fair trade products.
Discussions around this issue took place in the spring of 2009.
While in the niche fair trade market, fair trade jewelry can be made of fair trade agricultural products, the mainstream jewelry sector, requires jewelry to be composed mainly of gems and precious metals.
Fair trade gemstones at present, remain an expensive, boutique item, not easily adapted to fair trade manufacturing. The popular mass market stones that were in the past commonly referred to as “semi-precious,” such as garnet and amethyst, are hardly available from a mine to market with traceable sources.
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 precious metal is very expensive. Indeed, even in the fair trade world there are different models, ranging from the plantation with multiple workers to the individual farmer. It may end up that some fair trade manufacturing takes place in volume with controlled production. This is an entirely different approach and market than what is taking place now under the label of fair trade jewelry in the mainstream jewelry sector; the offerings of boutique, designer, custom jewelers who have clients willing to pay a premium price for jewelry made with fair trade precious metal.
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” within his factory that traces silver all the way through production.
Ultimately, it was decided that to link the sourcing and manufacturing together, at this point, would diminish, from the start, the impact that our work might have. 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. Just the focus on manufacturing issues is a big enough task with plenty of challenges, separate and distinct from sourcing issues.
B: Size Of Factories
Our goal is to be widely inclusive and supportive of a wide range of manufacturing. The workshop that produces a niche market fair trade product as commonly sold today, is often a family business located in a small village. This is different from a factory that produces for mass markets. The cost for production equipment needed for mass market production is generally not affordable to the small producer.
Standards for the large and small factory overlap, but larger workshops need additional standards which are tied into issues related to production for the main steam jewelry sector, which is investment intensive. For the purpose of this working document, a small factory is under ten production workers and a medium size factory is under two hundred production workers.
Consequently, many of the standards have base minimum requirements that apply to all shop situations, and additional requirements for larger operations. Many standards also have progressive requirements that give a best practice target.
In context to both large and small facilities, another factor to consider is traceability of a product through its entire manufacturing process. Often, to satisfy a large order, a manufacturer will farm out part of the production to several smaller shops. In this case, the work cannot qualify as fair made, unless all individuals within the network apply for the rating.
