Manufacturing Group Discussions: An Approach To Standards That Is Neither Top Down Nor Bottom Up
Introduction:
This is an ongoing recording of a dialog between members of our Manufacturing Group charged with the task of developing exceptional standards for jewelry manufacturing. . Follow this link (www.fairjewelry.org/madison-dialogue-manufacturing-committee) for full review of past discussions.
In this dialog, between February 19th and 22nd, 2010, Patrick Schein raises the important point that manufacturers are not well represented in our standard setting group at this stage. How can our standards for them then be considered legitimate?
Martin Rizzi suggests a producer centered model. I respond to both with the ethos behind my facilitation of this group: a circle-based approach that will incorporate all stakeholders, which generates additional comments, including metaphysical speculations on how a circle can be squared.
~ Marc Choyt, Publisher
Patrick Schein Wrote:
Thanks for your message and summary of the situation. Great job!
After reading Martin’s messages, I have a question related to the essence of the list. How many manufacturers are we in the list and where are they located? Of what I have found in the blog there are five manufacturers based in the South of which four are independent (Martin in Mexico, Vukani Ubuntu in South Africa, Kapit Mas in Bali and one representative of a manufacturer in Thailand) the last one being presented as the plant of John Hardy.
My concern is to avoid those standards that are made in a top-bottom approach: Jewelers who run businesses in the industrialized countries set out standards to regulate manufacturers in the South where they sub-contract a big share of their fabrications.
If the standards are to be used mainly in workshops located in Asia, Mexico, Bolivia, etc., then we need a strong participation of those in the definition of the standards. Manufacturing standards have to be designed and made by the manufacturers with the participation of their workers and all the supply chain involved (refiners, jewelers, etc.).
When I read point 5 – “we will partnership with manufacturers”, it sounds like the “we” are not the manufacturers. This could be addressed if necessary by setting up a Technical Committee in charge of the definition of the standards. This way, we can be sure of the representation of the manufacturers and that their concerns and points are being taking care of.
This technical committee could also have worker’s representatives for example, making sure that the workers concerns are being taking care of from a worker’s point of view. If the standards are designed in a bottom-up approach with the input of all the supply chain then they will be STRONG and will bare 100% legitimacy and this will be of benefit to all the actors. I would like to have your opinion there.
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
Well, Patrick, that is a mighty good observation you make about the production workshop certification process. Thank you.
What a crucial distinction you make about the directionality of certification! The north-to-south certification model will always be problematical – at best. As the astute Ms. Vivian pointed out, there is the question of paying for this: Who is to pay for this? and the other question she asked: Won’t such certifications only lead to fraudulent representations?
Looking at this problematic issue of how to enforce a brand entailing worker health and safety conditions, real economic development for the craftspeople and their families, and a humanistic approach to economics: the question of certification is front and center; ultimately, this question of certification can NOT be ignored.
Here is how it works. The artisans certify to their buyers that they have been treated fairly with respect and dignity. They can annex all manner of internal health and safety reports and other materials that are relevant to production.
If a merchant wants to sell something as “fair trade” they should have possession of the certificates corresponding to the products they are introducing into the commercial chain. Certificates are to be issued only by true crafts people In other words, the people who actually make the pieces in question. No certificates signed by craft consolidators,
coyotes, importers, presidents of artisans cooperatives, missionaries, etcetera. Only real artisans issue certificates.
Certificates must bear good contact information for the artisan so another artisan can call and ask a few questions. In actuality it is not very difficult for a craftsperson to ascertain if another person is an authentic craftsperson or not. Why not let those who actually make the pieces for fair trade markets make the determinations as to what is fair trade? Who would YOU rather trust: someone making handcrafts for a living? or an anonymous bureaucrat in an labeling agency?
See how simple? Doesn’t cost the merchants anything. They don’t have to worry about paying out for a bunch of fraud. This should not disrupt ongoing fair trade commerce as the buyers can ask their existing artisan suppliers for certificates.
The adoption of ‘south-to-north’ certification of fair trade goods would make a fine distinction, easy to understand. Does the fair trade vendor have artisan certification or not? Can the maker of the piece be identified by the vendor?
IMO, ‘south to north’ certification has a number of advantages, the most important being that this will honor and empower the artisans, whose creativity, diligence, tradition, spirituality, fortitude and productivity underwrite fair trade.
The subscribers to this list are uniquely qualified to tell what is wrong with this approach. What has been overlooked? I am quite interested to learn the responses to this proposal, and consider objections to the ‘south to north’ certification.
Marc Choyt Wrote:
Greetings from the snowy lands of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
A few years ago, a few of us lit a small fire and kept it going, barely. If we had received funding from the start, we certainly would have done this process differently with the support of “experts.” The process we are engaging here has not only been pragmatic, given our resources; but also potent in context to community building.
In context to my facilitation and the task at hand, I see the approach as not top down or bottom up, but rather, circle based. Retailers, producers, customers and our very ecology make up this circle. To work in a circle means to recognize the equality of all stakeholder views that are essential to making the whole.
In this context, as much as I find Martin’s proposal valuable, producers from the south should not define this circle; just as retailers and customers from the north should not define this circle. We must not reduce ourselves to merely part of an economic equation. It is the recognition of our common humanity, our sense of fairness and dignity that is the basis of this circle and our work.
At this point, the views are naturally biased toward those who are from industrialized countries, though the manufacturers have had a very potent influence in our views. Nevertheless, it would be utterly arrogant and colonial for us to take this document and impose it on producers.
Therefore, once we complete our process here, we will open the circle, take our ideas into the factories, do studies and reviews and fully bring this process into balance. At this point, a technical committee will be completely appropriate. Then, this committee will make recommendations back to our group here and civil society.
Right now, perhaps the strongest contingent in our group is retailers, who are the bridge between producers and customers. Our efforts must be driven by the market; it is this group of passionate retailers who are educating the customer. Their participation is critical to our success.
The process we are going through may not be conventional, but it has great value and it strengthens our fair trade jewelry community. The full documentation of the discussions on fairjewelry.org is extremely valuable and they safeguard us from accusations from those who would say that our process is rigged. I do not want to shortcut or bypass it. We can probably complete it within this year.
With the larger picture of process I have outlined above, I propose we continue on, adding more wood to our central fair trade community fire, with discussions such as this kept in context to the reviewing of the proposed standards.
Greg Valerio Wrote:
I believe Marc makes a very important point! Personally I have worked in many contexts (ARM being one of them) which have employed differing degrees of process that have been called ‘bottom up approaches’ There are strength’s and weakness in this, as of course there are in a ‘top down approach’ which is not desirable either.
In a globalized world, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that ‘bottom up vs top down’ is a dialectic we need to move beyond.
Participation
Functionality
Inclusiveness
Consensus
And No Bureaucracy;
Are the key values that we need to embrace.
A virtuous circle that creates equity in the economics is I believe highly desirable. Equally, the voice of the marginalized must not just be heard, but must shape and frame the discussion.
As I understand it, the process we are currently engaged in is dialogue with a view to taking it as far as we can go given the limitations of no hosting organization for this process.
Circles are better than straight lines…
Patrick Schein Wrote:
Thanks for your message from the mountains.
Your suggestion of having a second stage once our process is completed is fine with me. As long as the standards are endorsed at the end by the interested parties in the producing countries (socially and environmentally) I am happy with that.
Let’s just keep in our minds, while going forward, that those standards are designed mainly for the benefit of those countries workers/artisans as well as environment.
Steve Metcalf:
Greetings from Vancouver, where we have mountains but barely enough snow to support our Olympic “adventure” (or “misadventure” as many here would have it).
If Greg is saying that “bottom-up” processes do not necessarily ensure the “Participation, Functionality, Inclusivity and Consensus” lacking in “top-down” approaches, I agree. Still, these short-hand “up” and “down” concepts are sometimes useful.
Stepping back a couple of postings, I was pleased to see Patrick raise his concerns about “top down” standard setting and argue for the benefits of a rigorous technical discussion to assess functionality of the draft standards. Marc and Greg (and now Patrick) are comfortable with this kind of technical discussion happening some time in the future, but it seems to me that if technical/marketing/manufacturer consultations occur throughout our process, the final output of our conversation will be enriched by a multitude of key “little facts” that so far have not come to light. More scope now would need financial support, I am afraid, but Patrick suggests that there might now be institutions interested in funding aspects of this process. This is my sense as well.
I am also wondering if rather than striving for a single best standard at this point, the most important output of this group might be a suite of sketches of FT/FM scenarios that can stimulate/support discussions as standard development takes place in consultative forums. That said, the last weeks of discussions show that trying to define a standard can be an incubator of new ideas—I guess even straight lines are circles eventually, as Einstein, or one of those guys, once suggested….
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
The question of whether a circle could be constructed with straight lines is a venerable one.
The Greeks approached it like this: Inscribe a triangle, then a square, inside a circular figure
The area volume of the inscribed polygon approaches the area volume of the circle as the number of sides increases.When the polygon has, let’s say, a thousand sides, it’s area volume is near to that of the circle, and nearer still when it has a million sides.
The empiricist then casually says “that’s good enough, it’s so close, it is all the same”
However, in point of fact, as the number of sides approach infinity, the more the polygon is less like the circle. A circle which has NO sides or angles at all. Thus, the Greeks showed that circular motion can not be constructed using straight lines.
