Is The Jewelers Vigilance Committee new “Ethical Summit” ethical?
In another frank and to the point article Dana Schorr tackles head on, the ongoing political manoeuvrings in the gemstone world. All the opinions expressed in this article are attributable to the author only. Enjoy the read.
It’s like a bad horror film – you believe the creature is dead but it grabs your foot the moment you return to the water. The creature has changed from Precious Stones Multi-Stakeholder Working Group (PS-MSWG) to the “Ethical Sourcing Summit.”
The stated purpose of the Ethical Sourcing Summit is to “…“brainstorm” a plan to organize an industry event (summit) to facilitate the development of an industry based, credible and shared vision or a set of guiding principles which could be employed by all sectors to address risks to the supply chain that derive from concerns about the way some gems and jewelry are mined, traded, and manufactured…”
The original concept was conceived and proposed in a semi-secret “White Paper” by Cecilia Gardner (and others). Cecilia is the CEO and Executive Director of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC) whose stated purpose is to “educate and protect all levels of the jewelry industry against liability, litigation and to stop negative publicity… and is a champion of safeguarding the industry’s integrity.”
Providing false information and rumors has been damaging to the gemstone trade in the past (Burma rubies and Tanzanite). This is dishonest at best. In promoting her cause célèbre, Cecilia made the following false statements:
- Emerald trading is supporting Hezbollah
- Tanzanite dealing was proven to support Al Qaeda
When pressed on the emerald issue by Roland Naftule, she was unable to provide any verification other than “somebody at the State Dept. told me that.” As for the tanzanite-al Qaeda connection, that was discredited so long ago by both the U.S. Department of State and this Professional Jeweler article by Robert Weldon.
Cecilia is CEO and Executive Director for JVC. Her stated job description is to “stop negative publicity and safeguard the industry’s integrity”. Is this how she accomplishes that important task?
Is this a JVC Project?
Cecilia states in her White Paper “In order to ensure optimal buy in and demonstrate that this summit is perceived as open, transparent and inclusive, it is important to make sure it is not led or dominated by any one segment or sector of the industry.” (Page 3 ¶ 2 white paper; emphasis mine)
The planning committee violates these rules – or maybe not if you include the important word – perceived. The planning committee consists of 21 members, 11 of whom are on the Board of Directors of JVC, employees of JVC or working for a company that is on the Board. (These 11 members account for 25% of the JVC Board).
I did send a letter to this “Planning Committee” (and JVC) to verify my information – but no response – so much for their claim of transparency.
Real Purpose?
The White Paper states: “sourcing of products… associated with certain risks pertaining to the locations where these products are found, the environmental impact of extraction or production…” Never a mention about the last 18 inches where our products get sold. Why is the discussion only about the gaps and risks with suppliers, especially those from developing nations?
The PS-MSWG made only passing mention of the gaps/risks involved in the retail sector – the most important connection to the consumer. Yet, the stated purpose of both these groups is to protect the trade from negative publicity that would hurt consumer confidence. It is unfortunate that these groups are creating a retailer vs colored gem dealer conflict. Are not the problems of unethical product promotions, labeling, pricing, sustainable pay, discrimination and other human rights abuses by retailers of equal concern and importance?
Since the retailer is left out and the diamond and metal trades have their own laws and regulations, who else is left? You guessed it – the colored gemstone trade. Like the PS-MSWG before it, the real purpose of this organization is to control the colored gemstone trade via new protocols and laws.
In my opinion, the only way for huge multinationals like Signet, Richemont (Van Cleef & Arpels, Cartier, etc.), et al., (the promoters behind the PS-MSWG and Ethical Sourcing Summit) to meet their “ethical” goals is to eliminate as many of the artisanal and small scale miners, cutters and independent dealers as possible around the world. Of equal importance is to pressure workers and governments in producing nations to act for the benefit of these Western corporations.
This concept is further supported by two of the studies I have reviewed – the unethically sourced PS-MSWG study (Sustainable & Responsible Solutions, Estelle Levin Ltd and FAFO) and the biased, non-transparent RJC/Richemont study (produced by students from the Graduate Institute of Geneva under contract with RJC and Richemont). Here are examples of what these studies state:
- “Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) still accounts for the vast majority of the worldwide supply of colored gemstones, posing high obstacles to transparency and traceability… ASM is very labor intensive; employing ten times more people than needed in large-scale mining….” (RJC Study Page 10 ¶ 4)
- “…the diamond value chain better lend themselves to the possibility of control and influence than do the characteristics of the colored gemstone value chain at large: predominance of LSM (Large Scale Mining), more consolidated production, less geographic dispersion, regional concentration of trading and manufacturing, streamlined trading channels, prevalence of large wholesalers, …” (PS_MSWG Study page 15 ¶9)
- “…buyers must be willing to disengage if suppliers won’t play ball.” (PS-MSWG Study Page 48 ¶1)
- “…Clearly, and for reasons that have been shown, industrial mining would be the perfect option if traceability was to be applied as a standard…“ (RJC Study Page 32 ¶3)
Read that last statement again. It makes their intent patently clear.
A Replay of the PS-MSWG?
The PS-MSWG collapsed in miserable failure after the ICA, AGTA, TAMIDA, IDCA, Gem-A and CIBJO made statements critical of their actions. Two of the most important leaders of the PS-MSWG started (and are on the planning committee of) the Ethical Sourcing Summit: Cecilia Gardner (JVC) and David Bouffard (VP Signet). From my experience, they are operating from the same play book they used in the PS-MSWG. Once again:
- The proposal was written without open consultation.
- They form a core “planning committee” stacked with biased non-representative supporters.
- None of the affected countries, trade groups, miners, cutters and dealers has been involved from conception.
- They avoid true transparency
Like the PS-MSWG, they sent “(an) outreach e-mails to 20 different industry organizations (international and US based) seeking their interest in being updated on the Planning Committee’s progress. To date, we have received 5 replies from organizations wishing to be kept updated.”
With only a 25% response – this does not indicate wide support. And why should there be, just as before, their input is solicited only after the fact via impersonal emails. The organizers do not have enough respect to make personal calls and include them from the beginning.
At Cecilia’s recent AGTA presentation promoting the summit she claimed to support open discussion, but spoke for 55 of the 60 minute program then shut down discussion when controversial statements and questions were asked. I have requested a copy of her speech to continue the “open discussion” but she has refused – so much for inclusiveness and openness.
How the Ethical Sourcing Summit should be organized
Those who proclaim support for ethics and transparency must walk their talk; otherwise, they have no right to lead the charge.
I believe the following must be practiced by the “Ethical Sourcing Summit” to garner the support of the trade:
- Include, from conception, participants from all sectors affected by the summit.
- Fully Transparent – The use of blanket privacy statements on all email and the abuse of the “Chatham House Rules” are used to avoid responsibility for their actions.
- Stop trying to stuff rules and laws down the throats of dealers, miners and supplier nations. It is unconscionable and colonial for Western businesses and governments to think they can decide what is right and wrong for the fully sovereign nations that are the source of our products.
- Promote and allow full and open discussions on all issues by anyone in the trade.
- All decisions should be made by open majority vote.
This will support a start towards a respectful conversation over real issues. Four well-respected gemstone dealers have been added to the “planning committee”, hopefully they can steer this organization in the correct direction? I doubt it, but challenge the Ethical Sourcing Summit to prove me wrong.
Unfortunately no replies to my email request sent on February 11 and none from Cecilia– not a good day for transparency or winning my challenge!
Thanks very much,
Dana Schorr
On Going Discussions:
If you are in the jewelry trade and interested in the discussion of “ethics” and how it affects our trade please join the discussion group “Gems, Jewelry & Ethics” on LinkedIn. This is a place where all of us in the trade can start an open conversation about these issues.
Click this link to join: Gems, Jewelry & Ethics
LINKS:
Click here to get the Original Ethical Sourcing study by RJC/Richemont
