La mentira joyería Responsable Big Fat: The Responsible Jewellery Council
introducción del autor: La mayoría de la lectura de este sabrá que el Consejo de Joyería Responsable (RJC) se ha convertido en una fuerza dominante en la ética de la joyería / responsable, particularmente en América del Norte. Apenas la semana pasada, Stuller, la mayor casa de la oferta en los EE.UU., unido a sus más de 11,000 miembros.
El RJC se presenta como una organización sin ánimo de lucro establecimiento de normas. De hecho, como admitió su ex director ejecutivo en una entrevista previa, son una asociación comercial. Eso es correcto: una asociación comercial determina los estándares "responsables" de sus miembros. Aunque el RJC no ve ningún conflicto de intereses, Presento las fatales lagunas que ocultan la farsa de los estándares, una de las cuales es una amnesia histórica de atrocidades cometidas por miembros certificados del RJC. (Anglo American Ashanti y Rio Tinto) produciendo "oro responsable". Responsabilidad significa esencialmente abdicación de la verdad, reconciliación, y restitución a las comunidades afectadas porque las vidas indígenas / africanas realmente no importan.
Así hoy, large multinationals and retailers continue their ongoing exploitation of people and ecosystems under a new self-certified “responsible” shine that hide crimes in plain sight.
The following section of the Exposición de joyería ética was originally published aquí.
The Third nesting doll is the Responsible Jewelry Council’s structure: a trade association that presents itself as a nonprofit.
To understand what an organization’s purpose really is, it’s useful to go back to its very inception.
In June of 2009, I published on myFair Jewelry Action website an interviewGreg Valerio conducted with Michael Rae—then the CEO of the Responsible Jewelry Council .
At the time of this interview, the Council was in the process of formulating the standards-setting criteria that would ultimately form the basis for their certification.
El sistema de certificaciónse lanzó formalmente en diciembre 2009, seis meses después de esta entrevista.
En aquel entonces, el Consejo era más pequeño, y ni mucho menos tan influyente o poderoso en la esfera más amplia de la joyería como lo es hoy.
Lo que parecía más importante en el momento de la publicación fue la admisión de Rae de que el sistema de certificación del Consejo no evitaría que el oroextraído por niños trabajadores que usaban mercurio entre en la cadena de suministro.
En retrospectiva, lo que Rae reveló sobre la estructura del Consejo tiene un peso aún mayor.
Rae afirma que el Consejo está creando “un sistema como el MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) [o] FSC(Forestry Stewardship Council)”Y admite que el Consejo“ descartó descaradamente ”a estas organizaciones.
Necesitamos desentrañar las implicaciones de "desvergonzado".
The Marine Stewardship Council and Forest Stewardship Council exemplify aradical centrism model. The idea is that you bring together both a broad swath of stakeholders, many of whom might be diametrically opposed, and forge an agreement.
Por ejemplo, membership of the Forest Stewardship Council might include an environmental group—whose aim is to protect a forest—and a paper manufacturing company—whose aim is decidedly the opposite. The goal of bringing these two together under one roof is to reach an agreement and create a viable path forward.
An effective radical centrist approach exemplifies the aphorism “perfection should not be the enemy of the good.”
Rae hasborrowed the language from these models because he wants the Council’s certification process toappear like these models.
Él enfatiza que el Consejo es una organización que establece estándares que se verá muy similar a esas iniciativas bien consideradas cuando hace referencia a "estándares que hemos adoptado que han surgido de procesos de múltiples partes interesadas".
Pero luego dice algo más, que es radical y nuevo: "La metodología que hemos utilizado es, en esencia, una asociación comercial con un enfoque de administración de productos".
En otras palabras, el Consejo está creado para parecerse a los Consejos de Administración Forestal y Marina, invitando a una amplia gama de fiestas a la mesa.
Pero ultimamente, el Responsible Jewellery Council es unorganización comercial.
Este tipo de razonamiento engañoso, para enfatizar una perspectiva con el fin de ocultar una mayor, verdad más importante, es un tema común en nuestra exploración.
Aquí está el fondo (Me refiero a balbucear) Línea:
Todo el proceso de establecimiento de estándares, millones y millones de dólares de consulta, documentos, críticas, participación pública, oscurece lo que Rae admitió. Déjame decirlo de nuevo para enfatizar:
El Responsible Jewelry Council es una organización comercial.
La toma de decisiones siempre está alineada con sus intereses corporativos que cotizan en bolsa que están legalmente obligados a proteger sus activos y maximizar el valor para sus accionistas..
La diferencia entre el Responsible Jewellery Council y los Marine and Forest Stewardship Councils es radicalmente importante. En realidad, las dos últimas organizaciones permiten que una amplia franja de intereses opuestos participe en la toma de decisiones.
The Responsible Jewellery Council, como organización comercial, se centra en proteger los resultados de sus principales fundadores y, por extensión,, the mainstream jewelry sector.
Aquí hay una razón adicional por la que la tercera muñeca rusa es tan poderosa: desvía a los perros guardianes de la industria.
Organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) vs. el Consejo Responsable de la Joyería
Organizaciones como Amnistía Internacional, Human Rights Watch, o Global Witness, que expuso el tráfico de diamantes de sangre, Funcionar como una especie de respuesta de los glóbulos blancos a las violaciones de derechos humanos y las amenazas a nuestro medio ambiente..
De hecho, Varias ONG se centran específicamente en cuestiones relacionadas con los impactos de la minería y la industria de la joyería en general.. Pero importante, si una ONG critica al sector de la joyería desde fuera, sin que parezca trabajar hacia esfuerzos bipartidistas dentro de la industria más grande, se cancelan y se descartan por no estar dispuestos a trabajar con el comercio de la joyería para proporcionar soluciones realistas.
Así, Las ONG se comprometen de manera constructiva con el Responsible Jewellery Council, que representa los intereses fundamentales del sector de la joyería y, después de todo, is setting ethical standards.
But this engagement has become a kind of quagmire, a Catch 22.
Desde el principio, Council standards have been questioned by NGO watchdogs.
En 2009, after the Council standards were published, nine NGOs and labor organizations jointly put outthis press release denouncing them:
“The standards would let companies operate mines in conflict zones and in most protected areas; would allow dumping of tailings waste into lakes and deeper ocean waters; and provide limited or no control on emissions of toxic substances to the environment. The standards also lack provisions for community consent for mining operations or resettlement…"
Movimiento de tierras, which signed the letter, also held out some hope. They wrotea letter to CEO Rae stating they were “committed to a multi-stakeholder approach to standards setting and third-party certification” and referencedstandards expert Michael Conroy, who had served as the Board Chair of the very Forest Stewardship Council that Rae “unashamedly cribbed” from.
Conroy pointed outaquí que, for standards to be valid, they must be “created jointly by the full set of stakeholders negotiated by industry representatives and representatives of social, ambiental, and community organizations, then audited annually by a totally independent outside organization.”
Here’s the key subtlety:
The social, ambiental, and community organizations that the Responsible Jewellery Council invites have little influence over key decisions regarding standards. Just because you have a seat at the table doesn’t mean your voice will be heeded.
Así, the core critique leveled back in 2009 has remained a kind of constant: invitation to participate but no real power of influence.
By May 2013,Movimiento de tierras correctly assessed that the Council had shut them out.
Earthworks published a report entitledMore Shine Than Substance: How RJC Certification Fails to Create Responsible Jewelry, together withMining Watch Canada, Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union, yUnited Steelworkers.
The title is self-explanatory. But again, one of the central criticisms of the Council in this study is the fact that it is not a true multisector initiative.
To quote from the executive summary, “the Responsible Jewellery Council system and its components are riddled with flaws and loopholes… rendering it an ineffective tool by which to create an environmentally and socially responsible supply chain in the jewelry industry.”
More specifically, depages 12-13:
1:)El RJC (Responsible Jewellery Council) is exclusively industry-controlled and governed, leaving civil society out of decision-making or oversight. There is no way to publicly track or view complaints that have been lodged regarding RJC’s certification process or the certification of an individual member.
2) RJC fails to include and respect the voices of those most affected by jewelry-supply-chain practices,
3) Certification is based on standards that fail to fully protect communities, workers and the environment,
4) Multiple loopholes in the certification process weaken the system’s legitimacy,
5) The certification system has virtually no public transparency or accountability,
6) The complaints system is inadequate and RJC-controlled rather than independent.
En 2013, cuandoMore Shine Than Substance was published, there were just 450 Responsible Jewellery Council members. And in June of that year, the Council issued a veryrobust response to the main points of the report.
Actualmente, the Council has over 1100 miembros. En otras palabras, the Earthworks publication did not slow the momentum of the Council one bit.
Current Critiques of the Responsible Jewellery Council
In early 2018, Human Rights Watch published a 99-page study, The Hidden Cost of Jewelry. Much of the critique is an updated version ofMore Shine Than Substance.
Quoting from the report:
Además, Human Rights Watch writes in theircall to action signed by 29 Non-government organizations, including Amnesty International, Global Witness, and Impact:
“The Responsible Jewellery Council promotes standards that allow companies to be certified even when they fail to support basic human rights.”
This is generally the same conclusion that was reached back in 2009!
Between then and now, NGOs have not been negotiating with the Council on the assumption that it is a non-profit organization which shares common values instead of a trade association composed of major multinationals focused on protecting assets, profits, and global shareholder investments.
Unlike in 2013, the Council in 2018 does not even respond directly to Human Rights Watch’sThe Hidden Cost of Jewelry.
They don’t need to, because they have already set the perfect trap. The NGOs have been inadvertently legitimizing Council by engaging with them over the years. This engagement has only reinforced the Council’s global power and stature.
Así, the CEO ofSignet Jewelers, Virginia C. Drosos, responds to Human Rights Watch —on behalf of Council—withas follows:
“In the spirit of transparency and cooperation, Signet and other members of the jewelry industry engaged openly and extensively with Human Rights Watch. Desafortunadamente, the report contains language chosen more to criticize our industry rather than provide constructive recommendations.”
Pause with me for a moment. Let’s back up together and go through that again.
The Council felt no need to even respond to this thorough, 99-page criticism by Human Rights Watch.
En lugar, the CEO of a major jewelry retailer, a Council member, speaks on the Council’s behalf with a consummate dismissal, using the NGOs engagement against them in an aikido-like manner.
From another perspective, Human Rights Watch and the 29 NGOs that signed on with them are brushed off like an annoying housefly. Human Rights Watch’s efforts come across as the equivalent of trying to attack an entire division of modern-day tanks with a few soldiers armed with pea shooters.
Desafortunadamente, the framers of the Human Rights Watch initiative do not understand how one plus one can equal eleven, or even twenty-nine. We need a system-thinking approach that considers multiple levels of complexity: es decir. Russian nesting dolls.
Because HRW is more symptom- than system-oriented, they fail not only to locate and activatethe energy for change, but misdirect it. You have to find ways beyondthese polite tweetsto shift the market, and only the threat of making less money or the possibility of making more money will change the behavior of these large companies.
This is the way Capitalism is set up!
As this dynamic requires a more detailed analysis, I have written an entire supplementary article, Human Rights Watch’s “Behind the Bling”: Un análisis estratégico.
Let’s get back to our Russian doll and continue our descent toward the center!
CExplore the entire Ethical Jewelry Exposé
**All writing and images are open source, underCreative Commons 3.0. Any reproduction of this material must back link to the landing page, aquí. For high resolution images for publication, contact us at expose(AT)reflectivejewelry.com.**
