New Transparency
Introduction:
This is an ongoing documentation of a series of dialogs between members of our Manufacturing Group, charged with the task of developing exceptional standards for jewelry manufacturing. Follow this link for full review of past discussions, including the first, second and third post on transparency. The entire principles and standards document can be in our Manufacturing Standards section located on the top bar of this site.
One further note: at the beginning of August, I called for a break in our dialog, mainly due to my own schedule left little time for this work. I also felt stuck. It was difficult to reach an agreement on how to move forward with transparency. Here, we found a way forward, with the helpful comments from Cristina Echavarría, ED of Alliance for Responsible Mining.
~Marc Choyt, Publisher
Marc Choyt wrote:
I sincerely hope that everyone receiving this is in good health and happy. Though I’m certain most of us are extremely busy, let’s press on and complete what we have started, hopefully by the end of the year.
In picking up our conversation, I would like to make a clear point. What we are attempting to do is in context to jewelry manufacturing, is to create, as Patrick said, a “system that could be implemented and understood easily by the consumers and that brings really something to the producers or manufacturer in the South.”
Concern has been raised by several people regarding broader fair trade issues: “depersonalized ethics,” that there are 600 certification systems and we may be adding another… My sense is still that our efforts, particularly with our web based platform, will be potent and effective. We are literally breaking new ground.
Now, on to transparency.
Previously, I had suggested that we drop the 8th Principle:
High standards of financial, social, manufacturing, delivery transparency and accountability principles will be observed.
Also, that 8.1 be added to Human and Worker rights:
8.1: Companies will be transparent in regard to finances and delivery to their workers and trading partners.
Several suggestions were considered. Some of us were in favor of a transparency standard, and some against. Positions of some, including myself, shifted during our dialogues. You can read the passed discussions, if you wish, here:
https://fairjewelry.org/archives/3974
https://fairjewelry.org/archives/3976
https://fairjewelry.org/archives/4057
Patrick suggested transparency remain as a standard. His suggested principle remains the same:
8: High standards of financial, social, manufacturing, delivery transparency and accountability principles will be observed.
8.1: Companies will be transparent in regard to finances and delivery to their workers and trading partners.
Patrick suggests this Progressive Standard:
8.2: Consumer facing brands using the FairMade label must, in the second year of label use, provide clear information to their customers regarding the impact that their labeled products has on the producers, and those in the supply chain.
Can we consider, once more, which direction we should go?
Thank you in advance for your attention.
Marc Choyt wrote (after a week of no response):
I see how it is that we can not come to any kind of consensus on transparency.. I believe that it is because do not have enough information to make a final decision. To commit or delete this standard at present simply does not feel right to me.
In order not to stall out indefinitely, I propose that in final document, we list several perspectives on this issue and leave it at that for now. We will simply say that we are as of yet, undecided. This is supportive, not contrary to our intention. We do not want to over reach. We are developing a working document to the best of our abilities, with the full understanding that it will evolve and improve through its implementation.
With additional time, the participation of producers on the ground, and feedback from participants beyond our group, we will know the next step. Unless there are objections to my proposal to move forward, next week we will review on to the 9th standard: closure. Thank you for your consideration.
Greg Valerio wrote:
Are at least able to say that we are all agreed that transparency should be a core value to the document and appear in its introduction as an overarching principle?
I remain in favour of it being applied as a standard with definitions attached, but of course others are not. To be concluded as you suggest below.
Patrick Schein wrote:
As English is not my native language, can you please be more explicit. Do you propose to leave it as a standard as proposed in your “back to school” email which is fine for me, or do you propose to remove it? (Both would have a footnote saying that consensus was not reached?)
Marc Choyt wrote:
Sorry that I was not clear enough in my last email. What I propose is that the document would not take a final position, but state the different options and basically say: we will decide what we do later.
I agree that transparency is, as Greg said, a foundation. I feel it is best to get more information before we commit to how we are going to do that.
Cristina Echavarría wrote:
I have been somewhat absent form these discussions, but after reading the toings and froings on transparency, I would like to contribute the following :
The Fairtrade and Fairmined gold standard developed by ARM and FLO does require full transparency from the artisanal and small scale miners, and traceability from mine to market. If ASM, who are a weak link in the supply chain are required transparency and disclosure, I do not really understand why other players down the supply chain are to play by different rules, especially if it is an important differentiation for them in the global market.
For sure it does mean for the small miners a lot of paperwork aiming at formalising all of their commercial operations and putting all accounts on top of the table, but is this not part of the objective? Why should they alone be obliged to be transparent? This is why it is called “fair”, so we can have a better understanding at how value is distributed along the supply chain and seek greater balance?
I certainly do not think that a manufacturing standard that intends to use Fairtrade and Fairmined gold, can be anything but transparent. This would be an insult to the small scale miners doing enormous efforts to comply with what we have felt is crucial in changing the industry.
Greg Valerio wrote:
I agree.
Martin Rizzi wrote:
I am WAY with Christina. Artisans are expected to comply with transparency, a process so costly in practice, it is doubtful they will ever get their money back.
Yet the commercial agents, wholesalers, and licensing authorities have no need to explain themselves to anybody. Since the entire industry is based up on the well-being of producers, Why is this?
PS: I think I am now willing to become convinced to the reason of having all the parties be transparent
Patrick Schein wrote:
So let’s keep the standard !
Marc Choyt wrote:
Let me try, once last time, to move forward, this time with the most recent input.
It is critical that our document is in alignment with what has already been put forth by A.R.M.. A.R.M.’s breakthrough initiative for Fair Trade Gold has set international criteria that are widely respected and accepted. We will achieve acceptance of our work most easily if we follow in the path that they have created.
I read the latest A.R.M. documents. Cristina (the ED of A.R.M.) suggested in an email to me that transparency needs be both an “explicit principle of the standard,” and also, “a cross cutting issue in the requirements as in our standard, much like gender issues should be.”
Cristina’s suggestion incorporates both points of view that we are considering. I think it is a good means through which we can move forward. Therefore, what I propose is that we make Transparency both underlying and a specific standard as well.
When the final document is drafted, I will write something about transparency as an underlying foundation. I will also include some of our concerns and issues. At the same time, let’s keep Patrick’s suggestion for 8 as he outlined below.
8: High standards of financial, social, manufacturing, delivery transparency and accountability principles will be observed.
8.1: Companies will be transparent in regard to finances and delivery to their workers and trading partners.
Patrick suggests this Progressive Standard:
8.2 Consumer facing brands using the FairMade label must, in the second year of label use, provide clear information to their customers regarding the impact that their labeled products has on the producers, and those in the supply chain.
Do we have consensus?
Greg Valerio wrote:
I support what you have outlined.
p8.2 will need a further level of definition though so it is totally clear as to what is expected. Money and Light do not like each other.
Cristina Echavarría wrote:
As in the ARM FLO standards, the point 8 that Greg refers to lays down the requirement, which will then be monitored through the relevant paperwork that will be checked by auditors, which would be the compliance criteria and the so-called methods of confirmation.
We are not at that stage yet in the manufacturing standards. This is something that in the case of Fairtrade and Fairmined, was done by the certifier, Flo CERT.
Hope this helps.
