Madison Dialogue Manufacturing Committee: Contamination Issues In International Manufacturing
The Manufacturing Committee is developing fair trade standards for international manufacturing.
The first part of this process is the development of broad, overarching principles. From that, specific standards can be developed.
In this dialog, minimally edited, participants discuss the issue of contaminations issues based on the proposed principle document.
In this post, you can first find the participants and their respective organizations. Below that list is the actual dialog that took place on the list serve.
Go here for the Complete Cast of Characters; Manufacturing Group Members:
————————————————————————->
Marc:
I am sending out the principles one last time for your review. At this point, there have been no comments. If I hear no response after this email, the steering committee will start to develop specific standards for factory visits. We may want to revisit these principles later and revise them if necessary. This is all a work in process.
Vivien:
This is the 1st time I have seen these principles, so my apologies if you have sent them a number of times. However, I would like to comment on number 3 Safety. It strikes me that education is a large part of achieving best practice as far as health & safety goes, as well as ensuring staff are supplied with the appropriate protective equipment and clothing to prevent injury and respiratory illness.
Otherwise, they are very succinct and I think cover all the points of concern.
(Vivian was referring to this point #3: Employers will provide safe working conditions, ensuring training and monitoring are ongoing to uphold continual improvement in this regard.)
Marc:
Do you have a specific suggestion about how point three should be written in the document?
Vivien:
I suppose it depends on who will be carrying out the certification and the resources available to put together best international standards.
How this to be implemented and what is the ‘vision’ at this point for the principles to be employed?
(I feel I have missed out on this discussion and I’m not sure why- I did log into the system but could only find a few emails there. So, maybe I am having technical problems as this is the 1st time I’ve really seen anything to contribute to! )
Anyway, if you could fill me in more or point me to where I can see more info on the discussion so far (ie how these principles came about) I’d appreciate it as I’m happy to draft out my inclusions but I’d find it easier if I knew more about the resources for implementing standards and if a 3rd party certification scheme has been identified and so on.
Marc:
At this point, I responded directly to Vivien and sent her the original document we put out to the group about decision making and organization. For those of you who would like to see the operating principles, these can be reviewed on my blog.
https://fairjewelry.org/madison-dialogue-manufacturing-committee
Toby:
Thank you for your persistence in getting these principles to us. As I have questions or comments I will leave them in red italics.
These thoughts and suggestions and offered in light of my understanding that people have put much time, energy and experience in writing these Principles and likely have already considered these points and for good reason have not included them.
Thank you for considering my input.
(At this point, Toby sent us some edits of the proposal which I will include in a final document which will be sent out again)
Marc:
You’re comments are really helpful and would like to include them as changes in the standards document. The only issue I’m concerned about is:
“If some contamination does occur, manufacturing promises to report the infraction immediately to the responsible authorities in order to mitigate the impact of the contamination.”
Isn’t “some contamination” inevitable? The processes of soldering do release contamination into the air, for example. Can you help me qualify this?
Anyone else have any thoughts about including Toby’s revisions?
Vivien:
How about ‘In the event of contamination’?
Marc:
It would then read:
“There will be no contamination of water, soil or air by manufacturing operations. In the event of contamination, the manufacturer promises to report the infraction immediately to the responsible authorities in order to mitigate the impact.’
Any objections?
Dan:
I presume the outgoing side of our properly operating scrubbers and bag houses, filters etc are not contaminating the air or water?
Our operation is “closed loop” in that all chemical waste is hauled by a approved vendor. But that means liquids-Nobody this side of the space station is “closed loop” for air.
Martin:
Report contamination to responsible authorities? in a city of silversmiths like our Taxco where every other whom is a jewelry workshop and twenty seven villages in the municipality all of which involved to a greater or lesser degree in the cottage industry production of jewelry,
I can not think of who the responsible authorities for emissions or waste disposal might be. Our city, like many, if not most, cities in Latin America does not have a waste disposal plant; the effluents slide down the arroyos underneath the steep streets of the city and the drainage merges farther down with the tons of mining tailings extracted since the early fifteen-hundreds.
This dark water canyon of effluent just flows down past Xochula and Heuymatla, of course even the cows don’t mess with this stuff and I have never heard of any problem or incident.
Who should this be reported to? before we start wondering if we would report a humble artisan who is burning the pelusa (shreds of cloth from polishing wheel) to reclaim the silver residues.
I don’t know if southwest Mexico is “the developing world”, i would say we are on the frontier of the globalist system and the organic economics that derives from the original communalism of the descendants of the Toltecs and the feudal hacienda systems of the Spanish occupiers.
In Taxco Guerrero Mexico, an important center of silver jewelry manufacture the child labor question is not an issue. There is a tradition of young apprentice helpers – certainly they are quite useful in labor-intensive jewelry operations, as well as going to buy materials, etc.
But nobody around here is worrying about child labor, people here are a lot more worried about whether they’re going to have something to eat tomorrow and how to pay the family expenses. Besides, the kids today would NOT necessarily be studying, they’d likely be playing video games.
Honestly I have little idea what conditions apply to other production plants in other places; nor do I know or wonder if young people should be working or not – here the situation for the artisan is very difficult especially since the downturn, and skyrocketing of the price of silver.
Vivien:
Actually, Martin I take your point entirely. I presented a workshop in London and there was similar confusion at least on who to report to there as well (and on who is responsible for waste management).
So, perhaps we need to look at the actions which would be needed in the immediate response to a leaching for example and the actual forms of contamination which are most likely to occur. What are the contaminants which we are referring to and what measures can be taken to prevent these being released? What steps can a workshop take to damage limitation should something go wrong.. that kind of thing. Would that be a more practical solution do you think?
Patrick:
I think we should define exactly what CONTAMINATION is for MADISON DIALOGUE?
In our case (we operate a small scale Precious Metal refinery in Paris), we can not bring metal to high purity without using acids. By doing so, we do emit contaminants in the air and in water but in the respect of the authorized French limits (parts per million).
It is the same when you take your car and drive 1 mile: you emit contaminants in the air (within the authorized limits). For that reason I do not think we can use in the 6e the wording “there will be no contamination”.
In the 6a we do state that we operate within the authorized limits. It is also a question of monitoring the emissions.
How can you know if you contaminate if you do not have a regular follow up with analysis of your different emissions (air, soil, water)? We could so rather ask for regular emission monitoring.
Toby:
I am struck by the massive global impact of the contamination problem as Martin Rizzi described in Taxco. Obviously we’re not talking about a short-term solution here but how to begin addressing the issue.
I think these principles ideally would give participants a place to stand and to look from, not from being concerned about being ‘caught’ or ‘getting in trouble’ but guidelines that if we adhered to and inspired others to adopt and follow, eventually significant advances would be made. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but these principles seem to be less about rules than they are an outlook, a consciousness that introduces a future that works for the earth and its peoples.
Maybe there’s no ‘responsible authority’ in Taxco now to report contamination to. But there may be someone who will see an opportunity and takes it upon him/herself to offer a sustainable and profitable way to recover silver from old polishing wheels and most manufacturers there begin to use that service. Voila! One contaminate is diminished.
It may be that “reporting the contamination” may simply be admitting to another manufacturer that there is a problem s/he doesn’t know how to solve and from that dialogue an insight arises that begin to address the condition. Perhaps a better way to state that part of the principle would be;
If a contamination incident does occur, the manufacturing company agrees to immediately take the best possible actions to diminish the impact of the pollution as well as to prevent a recurrence in the future.
Marc:
My vision is that we pool our common knowledge and help each other to problem solve and bring best practices to the jewelry manufacturing sector– at home and in the “developing world.” Some times the solutions are simple, but the information is hard to find.
In my small operation, there are areas that I think we could improve upon and it would be really helpful just to be able to say– I’m using this chemical — is there something that has less impact that I could switch to?
My experiences visiting factories in Bali taught me recently, it takes just a second pair of eyes to see the situation and point out what often can be an easy solution that can really improve a situation.
Sometimes it is a matter of resources– certain products that are safe are not available in other countries or they are too expensive. We will nail these issues down in the standards discussion.
I would hope that when we visit a factory, people will see us as a support network that is there to help them with their workers safety and to lessen environmental impact.
We are not the manufacture group inquisition.
Marc (a few days later):
The following conversation focusing upon agreeing on this section the principles:
6. Environment
a) Manufacturing will operate within ecological limits, minimize waste,
seek continuous improvement in their environmental performance and report on performance. They will operate in full compliance with national environmental regulatory requirements;
b) No materials shall be used in producing jewellery from endangered species
c) Manufacturers will identify, manage, and mitigate the negative impacts of dumping wastes;
d) Water and energy will be managed responsibly and efficiently. There will be responsible use, re-use, and recycling and disposal of substances and materials at all stages of operation;
e) There will be no contamination of water, soil or air by manufacturing operations.
Toby suggested:
Instead of:
There will be no contamination of water, soil or air by manufacturing
operations.
We would have: If a contamination incident does occur, the manufacturing company agrees to immediately take the best possible actions to diminish the impact of the pollution as well as to prevent a recurrence in the future.
Can we agree upon this and move forward for now or does someone have additional points to make? I would like to call a consensus here so we can move on.
Toby
Thank you Marc for your summary and compilation.
I am aligned with your proposals and have no further comment at this time.
Martin:
Hello everybody, Buenos Dias greetings from Taxco de Alarcon, Guerero, Mexico
I don’t know how well i was able to explain my thesis that contamination is an idea that seems to come out of perceiving a production operation with the lens of money. Money drives business today. So have generations now been told and they believe it; the transformation of raw materials into finished products is subsumed in Quickbooks approaches, whereas the artisans and craftspeople do not require financial analysis to guide them, they never have.
A dearth of financial analytical tools isn’t the reason they are impoverished with the men all gone to the united states as wetback laborers. Cottage industry producers know how much they are making by how much they have left to spend after paying for their materials to make the next production. Economic thinking on this scale, and, within the context of an homogeneous village community, the women live and provide for their families defending themselves with their hard work.
My perception is that the producer is at the lowest and dirtiest end of the stick and the best silversmiths barely hanging on to a grease pole with what the market pays. The artisans have so many problems today, existential problems brought on directly by assault of globalized price-structures on their traditional markets in mexico & usa.
In a healthy economics for artisans there are steady orders without problem and work to get paid. In these conditions all the artisan needs to to make 20-30 % over costs labor + materials. No financial model is required to attain this scale of production as an organic economic process self-contained within human need and willingness to work
In a healthy economics the artisans and craftspeople will be quite willing to participate in community sanctioned initiatives to improve the lives that will be led by the children: This is the least problem- to enjoy the luxury of working in health and safety and cleanly!
Marc:
Martin has pointed out difficult, valid issues facing artisans in Mexico.
This led me to want to restate what I believe is the objective of our group which was stated in part in the original manufacturing objective.
There are factories and workshops that currently already work their hardest to create jewelry produced with environmental responsibility and fair labor practices. Some members of our group run such factories.
I see our objective as not to transform the entire jewelry sector’s manufacturing base or solve its greater socio-economic problems, but to support exemplary small scale and large scale studios and factories in the international jewelry manufacturing sector.
Whether a factory choses to work with our principals and standards will
always be voluntary. Support means that we offering suggestions to run a workplace that is safer and has less environmental impact. We pool our knowledge and help each other, here and abroad, be the best we can.
Support also means that we drive business to them by “certifying” them. Ethical initiatives in the jewelry sector only work if they are market supported.
“Fair made” (if we choose that term) manufacturing can be part of their product’s unique selling point. The market demands are there — they just lack the proper infrastructure and certification that distinguishes legitimate efforts from those who are fair washing and green washing.
Over time, the prosperity of these exemplary factories will make other factory owners want to clean up their act or obtain our certification.
Our website will post studies of each factory and have detailed, transparent information so that the customer can learn about the issues and make their own evaluation. In my view, this is more potent than a label from a fair trade organization that says, “fair trade certified” that you see on coffee.
I recognize that there are myriads of issues that need to be considered as we move forward. Yet I also believe our objective is simply to create a set or principles and standards where this can take place. This humble goal is obtainable with the good will and focused efforts of our group.
Vivien:
I agree with the revised dialogue on contamination objectives.
Marc:
Toby’s words stand.
But after some discussion with Helen, I propose a few text adjustments.
Right now, the text reads:
Manufacturing will operate within ecological limits, minimize waste, seek continuous improvement in their environmental performance and report on performance. They will operate in full compliance with national environmental regulatory requirements.
Helen and I propose that we eliminate the term “ecological limits” because it reads like jargon. We have a few other changes: please review–
The new text would read:
Manufacturing will deal as responsibly as possible with their contaminants, with the goal of minimizing impact to the environment. They will seek continuous improvement in their environmental performance and track performance. They will also operate in full compliance with national environmental regulatory requirements
Are there any comments on this suggested modification? If not, then we will move on.
Vivien:
My suggestion:
Manufacturing will operate in full compliance with national environmental regulatory requirements. Any contaminants will be dealt with immediately and responsibly with the goal of minimizing impact to the environment. Manufacturing will seek continuous improvement in their environmental performance and will record these improvements.
Marc:
I’m good with your change. Would anyone else like to weigh in?
Daniel:
Looks good to me!
Marc:
Keeping things moving along… I believe that we can go forward with the current proposed changes regarding “contamination.” As I’ve said before, none of this is fixed in stone and we can revisit the issue during our process of developing standards.
What I have below is a compilation of our work on the child labor issue. Below that, the entire dialog. Anyone who did not catch the posts before can get up to speed in a few minutes by reading this entire document.
Once we have agreement on these this, I will compile all the changes,
including some early edits by Toby, and send you a complete document for your review.
Thanks to everyone who is reading and/or responding. I’m not sure that in this case I wish to be the sound of one hand clapping!
Alex:
I have been acting in an ‘observer’ capacity in this group, but i wanted to share a couple of thoughts on these principles.
Firstly, and quite minor, there are some typos and errors in the draft (such as the word ‘principles’ in the title) but i assume this will be vetted before published.
Secondly, it occurred to me when reading 6a and 6e, that compliance with national environmental and regulatory environments may be insufficient when looking at the issue on a broader scale because many countries that host jewelry manufacturing often do not have such strong standards in place.
Food for thought here would be to say that a manufacturing operation would adhere to international best practices in their sector in running a facility no matter where it may be in the world. Otherwise, these principles are excellent bedrock on which to build a set of standards. kudos to all whose hard work helped shape them.
Vivien:
I say yes to the revised version inc. point h.
Martin:
Good observation. A good point. The one point of the manifesto that raised my eyebrow
In the Third World countries there are environmental laws, in general, the environmental legislation has been issued over the past decades by international organs and expressed through the 3rdW country’s legislative legal products, as well as executive-order decrees.
I expect it will be found to be the case that other 3rd World countries like Mexico have plenty of ecological and environment protection codes and laws. The problem is that in the real-world, functionaries of the enforcement agencies are remote from artisans.
In Mexico environmental laws are under SEDUE, a federal agency however I have never heard a word in the past thirty years about SEDUE in Taxco a city of a hundred thousand which is devoted to the production of jewelry and is the site of silver mines opened in 1521.
In 1991 i hired a corporate law firm to set up a factory near taxco and over a year paid more than twenty thousand usd$ in legal fees. One thing i got for my money was a SEDDUE permit based on the required reporting of about 50 pages (with multiple copies).
Thus I am perhaps the only or one of the very few persons in Taxco who even knows what a SEDDUE environmental permit is, even though, according to the law, every business is required to possess this. I also complied with other laws that I have never heard of since!
Realistically, can one anticipate a cottage industry jewelry producer to make reference to laws which were written by extra-national powers without reference to the local situation especially the fact of the inexorable price pressure on the artisan brought on by globalism. Otherwise, these principles are excellent bedrock on which to build a set of standards. kudos to all.
Marc:
Alex, Martin thanks for your points.
First, I welcome corrections and proof reading. I have slight dyslexia. Often I cannot even see my errors. Any final draft will go through Amanda and hopefully others who are good at this type of thing.
Second, below is a new version of point 6), based on Alex’s ideas. It makes sense to tie the principles to best practices and not what is going on in a particular country. Consider the points Martin wrote about conditions where his artisans work. Helen had raised the same concern to me personally last week from a different angle and we had a long discussion about it but I could not think of a way to articulate her concerns in a draft…
The other thing that bothered me is the notion in A of “report on performance.” The question is, report to who? Who is going to receive these reports?
Also in point f) we talk about how the manufacturer will record these improvements. I think that by saying “report on performance” in part a) and “record improvements” in part e) we are basically saying the same thing twice. So… I have made a separate point about documentation so I’ve added a point h).
The question is, is the manufacturing reporting/documenting to the new “fair made” certification group? If so, perhaps we should say so.
Also, though Alex suggested “adhere” I think that we should say “strive to adhere” to best practices because manufacturers in international settings cannot often afford to adhere to best practices. Even in the US many manufacturers are not even close to best practices.
I believe our work is to provide a support structure to help them do so.
POINT 6 CURRENTLY READS
6. Environment
a) Manufacturing will operate with a commitment to ecological sustainability, minimize waste, seek continuous improvement in their environmental performance and report on performance. Manufacturing will operate in full compliance with national environmental regulatory requirements.
b) No materials shall be used in producing jewellery from endangered species.
c) Manufacturers will minimize waste production, seek ways to recycle and identify, manage, and mitigate the negative impacts of dumping wastes.
d) Water and energy will be managed responsibly and efficiently. There will be responsible use, re-use, and recycling and disposal of substances and materials at all stages of operation.
e) Manufacturing will operate in full compliance with national environmental regulatory requirements. Any contaminants will be dealt with immediately and responsibly with the goal of minimizing impact to the environment.
f) Manufacturing will seek opportunities to continuously improve in their environmental performance and will record these improvements.
SUGGESTED REVISIONS FOR POINT 6
6. Environment
a) Manufacturing will operate with a commitment to ecological sustainability, minimize waste, seek continuous improvement in their environmental performance.
b) In addition to operating within full compliance with national environmental regulatory requirements, manufacturing will strive to adhere to international best practices in their sector in running a facility no matter where it may be in the world.
c) No materials shall be used in producing jewellery from endangered species.
d) Manufacturers will minimize waste production, seek ways to recycle and identify, manage, and mitigate the negative impacts of dumping wastes.
e) Water and energy will be managed responsibly and efficiently. There will be responsible use, re-use, and recycling and disposal of substances and materials at all stages of operation.
f) Manufacturing will operate in full compliance with national environmental regulatory requirements. Any contaminants will be dealt with immediately and responsibly with the goal of minimizing impact to the environment.
g) Manufacturing will seek opportunities to continuously improve in their environmental performance.
h) Manufacturer will document their environmental performance.
Martin:
This manifesto seems to me to be entirely reasonable and worthwhile in terms of affirming a positive and healthy framework of attitude regarding jewelry manufacturing operations.
Alex:
Excellent revisions Marc!
