Is Serious Reporting on Corporate Responsibility Beyond Fashion Journalists?
Fashion and Luxury Journalist, Vanessa Friedman, of the Financial Times writes A Scandalous Critique of a New Study, Raising Concerns over Competent, Independent Reporting on Responsible Jewelry: An Open Letter from FJA.
The article can be read HERE
Dear Vanessa Friedman,
We read your blog on the report, ‘Uplifting the Earth: The Ethical Performance of Luxury Jewellery Brands’, which Fair Jewelry Action co-published with Lifeworth Consulting. As you did not mention our involvement, and focused on the individual authors, we want to make clear our view on the issues you raise about our report.
You question the methodology which focused on the in-store research where our researcher posed as a potential customer. This is a credible method for its purpose – to see how ethical issues are dealt with in a store, which is an indicator of how well the firm is integrating CSR throughout its organisation. Our report states what was said by sales assistants and does not speculate on whether what they said was true or not. Whether or not what the staff said were true, our research provided an indicator that CSR was probably not being integrated. Consumers cannot have confidence in the industry if shop assistants can’t even provide sound information on gem sourcing.
The in-store research was conducted by a woman who has a PhD in corporate responsibility in extractive industries in Burma and who now works at a major company in the jewelry industry. Her research was advised and checked by the report authors, one of whom is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at a world leading business school, with over 40 publications in refereed academic journals. Your suggestion that we should have worked with gemmologists is also irrelevant, because a Ruby’s origin can not be ascertained with certainty by gemmologists unless it is tested in a top laboratory, such as the Gubelin Labs in Lucerne.
You also suggest we should have contacted the companies again about this issue. As we say in the report, the companies declined to participate. Leading journalists like yourself can illicit more openness from companies. This means you need to research the issues independently, ask them the right questions and analyse their answers to avoid relaying misleading information provided by the mainstream jewellery sector to defend its interests.
For instance, in response to your questions, one brand mentioned that they did not have a problem with Burmese rubies because they will soon be certified by the RJC. The RJC, however, as we detail in the report, does not require either traceability of individual gemstones or transparency about that. Furthermore, the RJC certification is specific to gold and diamonds, another important detail included in the report. The same issue is raised by a brand’s mention of the environmental group WWF. While we welcome meaningful collaboration between charities and companies on CSR issues, it is disappointing to see one of the brands mention WWF to you when answering the question of ruby sourcing. WWF does not work directly on human rights in Burma, so mentioning them is diversionary. These replies should not go uncontested, as the burden of proof on sourcing, especially when there are questions over legality, should rest with managers of a responsible corporation.
So while we welcome the growing attention to social and environmental issues from fashion journalists, such coverage requires a new form of expertise and perhaps more research than usual. Therefore we believe this report, if read closely, could be useful background for fashion and luxury journalists, as well as the handbooks FJA has produced, found in the publication pages of Fair Jewelry Action.
We recognise fashion journalists are not used to investigative reporting, but on social and environmental issues, rather than criticising others for not investigating further, we can equally ask you the same question; why do you not investigate these issues to a degree you consider credible? Is there a role for investigative reporting on the fashion and luxury industry? Clearly you have to maintain favourable relations to gain access for the more normal stories, such as your subsequent blog speculating on The Duchess of Cambridge’s dresses. Other journalists, including Dana Thomas and Lucy Siegle, seem to be able to strike that balance with some more critical analysis of their own.
You criticise the use of the scandalous to generate attention while focusing on the scandalous in your article. Indeed, our report does not focus on Burmese rubies, but is about a whole range of CSR issues and presents a positive vision. Only a few lines of a 58 page report discuss rubies. So the scandal is the suggestion we focus on rubies. Instead, in the report we argue that a focus on the negative business implications of social and environmental issues is a limiting focus. Mainstream brands are looking at ethical issues as a downside risk, to be defensive about, rather than as a motivation for business innovation. We argue that there is a much more positive agenda to embrace and enact.
You suggest transparency of business processes is unlikely and undesirable in luxury. In fact, the foundation of any movement in corporate social responsibility is toward transparency and traceability. Consumers, even luxury consumers, are more and more concerned about these issues. Everyone wants a future for their grandchildren. By extension, if you can transparently show that your creations are excellent in all aspects at all stages in the value chain, why isn’t that alluring? As we show in the report, many smaller brands already trace stones to original source, and provide guarantees of responsible practices. Providing such traceability is a key element of their appeal.
We see the issue of traceability and transparency as critical for the jewelry sector’s future. We support and see more consumer oriented campaigns on responsible jewelry, and with this report we aim to help more brands see the commercial and ethical reasons for investing now so that they can benefit, and not be hurt, from such future campaigns.
Mr Ian Doyle and Professor Jem Bendell should be commended for their pro bono work in producing this freely available report, as well as all the many experts and colleagues who contributed to the research and production. Therefore we recommend you and all fashion industry journalists re-read it before writing about the desirability or otherwise, of jewelry and jewelry brands in future.
Sincerely,
Marc Choyt
Fair Jewelry Action
Please note:
FJA is a forum open to a diversity of opinions in support of its mission. Any editorial expressed in this article represents the opinion of the author, and not necessarily the views of Fair Jewelry Action members.
