The Manufacturing Committee Dialogues’ Second Foundational Issue: Size of Factory PART II
Introductie:
This second post is the first of several regarding the issue of the size of the factory in the creation of exceptional manufacturing standards. Within the fair trade community, there is a vigorous debate as to whether fair trade should be for the small producer or producer.
At the beginning of each section is the participant in our dialog who wrote the post. For a complete list of participants, previous posts and background information, bezoek https://fairjewelry.org/madison-dialogue-manufacturing-committee.
In this post, I begin by outlining the thinking behind the creating of the Manufacturing Standards Document: https://fairjewelry.org/archives/3196. From there, the discussion continues around the issue of large and small manufacturing models.
~ Marc Choyt, Uitgever, Fairjewelry.org
Marc Choyt Wrote:
Steve: You raise some very good issues here that call for clarification. What I’m writing below is an explanation that goes into the thinking behind my creating my document that you quote.
Nu, if you google fair trade jewelry, you will see that it is being made and produced as a niche handicraft product and sold by companies such as Ten Thousand Village, World of Good etc etc.
Jewelry is a recognized category in the larger fair trade movement. https://fairjewelry.org/archives/63. This categorization is not third party certified and exists outside of FLO. (There are many different fair trade organizations.) My research into this niche fair trade market indicates that it operates on lofty principles but is very weak on standards, such as, do the fluxes the jewelers use in their manufacturing have cadmium, and if so, is there proper ventilation? I actually posed this question to one of the big fair trade jewelry sellers and they could not answer.
When I specified that the document was to develop standards for the mainstream jewelry sector, I meant only to distinguish our efforts from the cottage handicraft industry. The standards we create, echter, will be applicable to those small producers who create goods for that niche market.
On a very practical level, one issue that concerns me, having worked with international manufactures, is that manufacturing for the jewelry sector has certain criteria that are potentially difficult to achieve for the small cottage manufacturer, such as: financing for metals; quality control, equipment investment; on time delivery etc. These are not insurmountable issues – I’m just saying they are difficult in the context of diamonds, gold and large numbers. It is difficult to create systems that work in businesses once you scale up.
To create that bridge between the small producer in the developing world and the mainstream jewelry sector is not easy. The best example of it can be found in a project in South Africa. http://www.vukani.co.za/. (Mari Lee, the Project Director of Vukani Ubuntu, is on our steering committee for this group.) This project has received wide spread support from governments and corporations: https://fairjewelry.org/archives/56. I don’t think it would be easy to duplicate in other countries.
In the niche market fair trade jewelry and handicraft world, the issue of large companies working with small cottage industries is solved through distributors who consolidate and ship to larger retailers. My issue with this is that this supply chain is not transparent and we do not know how much money the distributor is making versus the producer working in their home. The best possible solution for producers is to sell directly to the public, which is what the New World Mexican Woman do.
In the jewelry industry, a larger company might work within the context of ethical manufacturing with transparency in regard to worker wages and conditions, such as Kapitmas. (Ben Morice, the Director, is part of our list serve.). I personally favor this model over the distributor model because it is far more transparent.
Whether we think that fair trade manufacturing (if that is what we choose to call it) should be exclusively for the small scale or not, we can still see how FLO handled this question. They support both large and small. Even though the European FLO seems to favor smaller producers, FLO still certifies coffee and banana plantations with many workers, and ARM in their recent document works with large and small mining operations.
In regard to the “buy-in” issue, we do have some representatives that are involved with grass roots initiatives; specifiek, Martin Rizzi’s work in Mexico and there are others who have had lots of experience. But we could use more participants.
Op dit punt, I’m not necessarily trying for a huge “buy in” at least initially. Rather, I anticipate starting small with a few companies that want to step forward to be part of the mainstream jewelry sector’s “best practice” of “ethisch” manufacturing supply chain.
I agree with your statement: “Ultimately creating a label that certifies adherence to good manufacturing practice without entering into the official FT discourse/process might be enough to support mainstream manufacturers and at the same time, provide enough flexibility to help “value added” jewellers in the developing world access the emerging eco-ethical market in the North.”
In terms of your statement: “Draft Principles are likely already met by jewellery businesses operating in the developed world.” I am not sure this is the case, as I have interviewed bench jewelers for my company even recently that are working under very toxic conditions. My wife, a bench jeweler and the Creative Director of my company, was poisoned because the company she apprenticed in twenty years ago had no ventilation. (But this is outside the scope of our discussion.)
Part of my objective is simply to become a resource in support of safer work places. Nailing down some principles and standards could seriously prevent ill health to some bench jewelers in the developing world. A document could also serve as a foundation, possibly for a diversity of initiatives that give economic support to an ethical manufacturing supply chain that is transparent.
I agree with Greg Valerio who commented earlier that, fair trade is: “An economic response to a development requirement… for the benefit of the small producer, manufacturer, artisan.” Echter, I do feel that we should also not limit ourselves at this point by only creating standards for small cottage industries. We may not ultimately call the larger factories “fair trade.” The naming issue can be sorted out later.
I hope that this helps to clarify my position on these foundational issues. For a broad overview of fair trade jewelry issues, this post might interest you: https://fairjewelry.org/archives/1936
Stephen Metcalf Wrote:
I have the sense that the two manufacturing types (“mainstream”, be them large or small, based in Mexico, Indië, Duitsland, or wherever, and craft producers in developing countries who are more or less following traditional production models) may have distinct needs:
Craft producers need a marketing system with greater scope than 10,000 Villages, etc.. A certification system/label might these craft producers “hitch-hike” on the eco market that is going to be driven by mainstream producers. Making the craft supply chain “fairer” is a good idea, but isn’t this a different project than facilitating the uptake of the emerging raw FT metals and stones by the mainstream? I wonder if there are two separate initiatives needed here.
I agree that there there are serious occupational health and safety issues in the mainstream jewellery sector, but I think we need to be strategic as to what battles we pick. Is it possible to keep things simple? I am shy of the ARM model which seems to address far too many concerns. Complex standards require more supervision (depleting resources that should go to the primary producers), and onerous standards may only be met with false reporting.
Greg Valerio Schreef:
You are of course right, when dealing with a finished product we are of course dealing with two principle activities.
1. The extraction of the raw material
2. The transformation of this raw material into a finished product.
Regarding point 1, I do not think this is the remit of this group. ARM have undertaken a diligent and comprehensive review, analysis and delivery of what I believe to be the most progressive standard not only for ASM but in the gold sector as whole. Their partnership with FLO will bring real capacity, delivery and independent certification to the process. All this means we do not have to give consideration to the gold material flowing through this pipeline as FLO/ARM will deliver this for the industry.
Regarding point 2, this is our remit. How something is made and the conditions under which it is made. In order for our discussions and ultimate delivery of a process and standard to remain in the spirit of fair trade/fair made it must be beneficial to the small over the large and intentionally enfranchise the poorer sectors of our industry. Currently we are missing a vital element in our discussion in order to deliver this component to market.
This is an organization that can take responsibility for the fair made standard and govern the process so it can maintain credibility and have authority in the global market. If our process is designed to benefit the poor and build real capacity with those groups we do not need to worry about ‘resources being moved away from primary producers’ as our target group for the fair made process is poorer/marginalized manufacturers and artisans. If we succeed in this and couple it with fair trade gold everyone is a winner and we deliver the finest product to market.
Stephen Metcalf Wrote:
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was trying to split your point #2 into two sections: mainstream jewellers who are mostly in the developed world, and craft/traditional jewellers who are mostly in developing countries. The means by which each of these jewellery manufacturer types wraps their product in the “fair trade halo” might well reflect their unique access to market challenges. A standard (or label) that fits the needs of one manufacturer type might not be the best fit solution for the other.
I agree that the issue of extraction of raw material is not the remit of this group. Ultimately however, it seems we might be addressing how mainstream jewellers identify their product when they are using FT/Fair Mined raw material.
