La menzogna gioielli Responsabile Big Fat: The Responsible Jewellery Council
introduzione dell'autore: La maggior parte lettura di questo saprà che il Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) è diventata una forza dominante in gioielleria etica / responsabile, particolare in Nord America. Proprio la scorsa settimana, Stuller, la più grande casa rifornimento negli Stati Uniti, unito il suo corso 11,000 membri.
Il RJC si presenta come un'organizzazione senza scopo di lucro impostazione standard. Infatti, come il loro ex amministratore delegato ha ammesso in un'intervista all'inizio, sono un'associazione di categoria. Proprio così, un'associazione di categoria determina gli standard “responsabili” dei suoi membri. Anche se il RJC non vede alcun conflitto di interessi, Vi presento le lacune fatali che nascondono gli standard Charade-non ultimo dei quali è un amnesia storica di atrocità commesse da membri certificati RJC (Anglo American Ashanti e Rio Tinto) la produzione di “oro responsabili”. Responsabilità significa essenzialmente abdicazione della verità, riconciliazione, e la restituzione alle comunità colpite a causa indigena / Africa vive davvero non importa.
Così oggi, grandi multinazionali e rivenditori continuano il loro sfruttamento continuo delle persone e degli ecosistemi con un nuovo splendore “responsabile” autocertificato che nascondono i crimini in bella vista.
La seguente sezione della Gioielli etico Exposé è stato originariamente pubblicato qui.
La bambola Terzo nidificazione è la struttura del Jewelry Responsabile del Consiglio: un'associazione di categoria che si presenta come una no-profit.
Per capire quale scopo di un'organizzazione è davvero, è utile per tornare al suo inizio.
In June of 2009, Ho pubblicato sul miosito web Azione Jewelry Fair un'intervistaGreg Valerio condotta con Michael Rae, allora l'amministratore delegato della gioielli Responsabile Consiglio .
Al momento di questa intervista, il Consiglio era in procinto di formulare i criteri di definizione delle norme che alla fine avrebbe costituire la base per la loro certificazione.
Il sistema di certificazioneè stato lanciato ufficialmente nel mese di dicembre 2009, sei mesi dopo l'intervista.
Back then, il Consiglio era più piccolo e in nessun posto vicino influente o potenti nella sfera più ampia di gioielli come lo è oggi.
Quello che sembrava più importante al momento della pubblicazione è stata l'ammissione di Rae che il sistema di certificazione s il Consiglio’non impedirebbe l'orominato da bambini lavoratori che stavano usando il mercurio from entering the supply chain.
Ripensandoci, ciò che Rae ha rivelato sulla struttura del Consiglio detiene un peso ancora maggiore.
Rae stabilisce che il Consiglio sta creando “un sistema come l'MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) [o] FSC(Forest Stewardship Council)”E ammette che il Consiglio‘cribbed senza vergogna’da queste organizzazioni.
Abbiamo bisogno di decomprimere le implicazioni della “cribbed senza vergogna.”
Il Marine Stewardship Council e Forest Stewardship Council exemplify uncentrismo radicale modello. L'idea è che si mettono insieme sia una vasta banda di soggetti interessati, molti dei quali potrebbero essere diametralmente opposto, e stringere un accordo.
Per esempio, l'appartenenza del Forest Stewardship Council potrebbe includere un gruppo-il cui scopo è quello di proteggere una foresta e un fabbricazione della carta società-il cui obiettivo è decisamente l'opposto ambientale. L'obiettivo di portare questi due insieme sotto lo stesso tetto è quello di raggiungere un accordo e creare un percorso percorribile in avanti.
Un approccio efficace centrista radicale esemplifica l'aforisma “la perfezione non dovrebbe essere il nemico del bene.”
Rae hapreso in prestito la lingua da questi modelli perché vuole processo di certificazione da parte del Consiglioapparire come questi modelli.
Egli sottolinea che il Consiglio è un'organizzazione di definizione delle norme che avrà un aspetto molto simile a quelle iniziative ben considerato quando si fa riferimento a “norme che abbiamo adottato che sono usciti di processi multi-stakeholder”.
Ma poi si afferma qualcosa di diverso, che è radicale e nuovo: “La metodologia che abbiamo usato è in sostanza un associazione di categoria con un focus gestione del prodotto.”
In altre parole, il Consiglio è impostato per apparire come i Consigli Marine e Forest Stewardship, invitando una vasta gamma di parti al tavolo.
But ultimately, the Responsible Jewellery Council is atrade organization.
This kind of specious reasoning, to emphasize one perspective in order to hide a larger, more important truth, is a common theme in our exploration.
Here’s the Bottom (I mean Babble) Line:
The entire standards-setting process, millions and millions of dollars of consultation, papers, reviews, public participation, obscures what Rae admitted. Let me say it again for emphasis:
The Responsible Jewelry Council is a trade organization.
Decision making is always aligned with its publicly traded corporate interests that are legally bound to protect their assets and maximize value for their shareholders.
The difference between the Responsible Jewellery Council and Marine and Forest Stewardship Councils is radically important. The latter two organizations actually allow a broad swath of oppositional interests to participate in decision-making.
The Responsible Jewellery Council, as a trade organization, focuses on protecting the bottom line of its core founders—and by extension, the mainstream jewelry sector.
Here’s an additional reason why Third Russian Doll is so powerful: it deflects industry watchdogs.
Non-governmental Organizations (ONG) vs. the Responsible Jewellery Council
Organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or Global Witness, which exposed blood diamond trafficking, function as a kind of white blood cell response to human rights violations and threats to our environment.
Infatti, several NGOs are specifically focused on issues related to the impacts of mining and the larger jewelry industry. But importantly, if an NGO criticizes the jewelry sector from the outside, without appearing to work toward bipartisan efforts within the larger industry, they are written off and dismissed as unwilling to work with the jewelry trade to provide realistic solutions.
Così, NGOs engage constructively with the Responsible Jewellery Council—which represents core interests in the jewelry sector and, after all, is setting ethical standards.
But this engagement has become a kind of quagmire, a Catch 22.
From the beginning, Council standards have been questioned by NGO watchdogs.
In 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…"
Earthworks, 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 outqui that, for standards to be valid, they must be “created jointly by the full set of stakeholders negotiated by industry representatives and representatives of social, ambientale, and community organizations, then audited annually by a totally independent outside organization.”
Here’s the key subtlety:
The social, ambientale, 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.
Così, 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,Earthworks 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, eUnited 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, dapages 12-13:
1:)The 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.
In 2013, whenMore 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.
Attualmente, the Council has over 1100 membri. In altre parole, 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:
Inoltre,, 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.
Così, 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. Sfortunatamente, 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.
Invece, 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.
Sfortunatamente, 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: i.e. 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'analisi strategica.
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, qui. For high resolution images for publication, contact us at expose(AT)reflectivejewelry.com.**
