The Manufacturing Committee Dialogues’ Second Foundational Issue: Size of Factory PART III
Introduction:
This is the third of several posts 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 the large 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, visit https://fairjewelry.org/madison-dialogue-manufacturing-committee.
In this post, Martin Rizzi begins by raising broader fair trade issues related to the supply chain in context to manufacturing and puts forth a radical, producer centered fair trade manufacturing model. Later in the dialogue, I suggest a fair trade model based upon radical transparency as a unified approach that would allow for both producer centered certification as well as certification for larger factories producing for the mainstream jewelry sector.
~ Marc Choyt, Publisher, Fairjewelry.org
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
Thanks to Marc for including me and encouraging me to post to this list – emails and posts are what get me in trouble. I have learned to look on posting to forums something like a cow looks upon an electric fence.
This is extremely important material to all of our interests. It is not idle opinion making – far from it – so here goes….The issue of economic justice is vitally important and difficult.
For certain sublime reasons, this is a particularly important concern for the creators, producers designers, and purveyors of ornamental art Vivien’s words suggest a practical approach which is to let the authentic artisans and small farmers establish their own authority based solely upon their ability to produce the product. Artisans should define their own interests, and they should be allowed to try to find out how to get it. Otherwise this will cost money for you to execute and will end up being phony.
The artisans and farmers should certify the consolidators and wholesalers of their products. If you want to have a fair trade certification that makes the fair trade certification up until now seem like a hoodwink, then have the artisans – the people who actually make the products – certify those who desires to purchase their products for the purpose of marketing it as fair trade.
Call it Fair Trade For Artisans, something catchy like that or Artisan Owned Direct Distribution Model…
Otherwise, fair trade will continue to be open to charges that it is a mafia of wholesaler insiders using the artisans as window-dressing – because the big fair trade companies routinely indulge in these practices, that automatically puts all the rest of you truly idealistic fair trade merchants at peril and risk.
Unquestionably, the fair trade giants have been careless in having treated the artisans as if they were their serfs. Artisans do not mind being poorly paid. What they really hate is the injury suffered to their dignity by having to endure the humiliation of being in the position of an importuning vendor.
This feeling is something nobody ever talks about. Think about it. Who would tell of one’s humiliation? But if you ask the right question, every one will tell how much they dislike playing the part of a beggar. The fair trade institutions are particularly egregious in the arrogant attitude they impose upon their suppliers
This would be a good starting point for a certification process. The certification by artisans and farmers of their customers in terms of the way they are treated as human beings, and their agreement as to prices, terms, and commercial conditions that are amenable to artisans, and NOT dictated by fair trade buyers,
This approach is functional for many reasons. Here, I refer to the angle that concerns present-company. Because of Vivien’s commendable letter – which was so reasonable I felt invited to reply – opened the door to this question of the artisan, the joker who has appeared so ambiguously in the promotions of fair trade
A while ago, I downloaded from their website an IFAT pdf doc. It was the data base report titled PRODUCERS I looked this over with interest, looking for different companies I was familiar with. Eventually, I realized that this report is mis-titled. It should be titled something like CONSOLIDATORS or WHOLESALERS.
(Just because a business is called a cooperative does not in itself mean that the administration of the cooperative is not performing identical practices of a consolidator/wholesaler under legal cover. The cooperative administration in effect being the agent of the fair trade certifying customer overseas.)
In the context of an alliance between the idealistic cosmopolitan merchants and the authentic artisans, this practice of naming Consolidatores and Mayoristas and Compradores as “Producers” is to be deplored. The authentic producers should be minimally honored by not awarding their name to commercial dealers.
Up till now the craftspeople have been excluded from fair trade or made to take the lowest and least remunerative position. This corresponds to the position of the artisans in the rest of the jewelry industry. so their is no loss. However the fact that fair trade routinely touts benefits to the artisans means trouble.
In this revolutionary Year 2010, I believe it behooves everyone of good will to rescue the fair trade movement from the distress that will be caused when 10,000V and World of Good are featured on 20/20 television and this is going to happen; this story has an eerily familiar echo of the collapse of Arthur Anderson and of Enron
So watch out! if you don’t understand what I am saying because I am so socially out of it (I never leave these mountains of Guerrero) then please re-read and try to parse my grammar and feel free to ask me a question. I am looking for a good solution – otherwise, I would not rudely march into Marc’s forum in archaic regalia.!!!
Vivien Johnston Wrote:
a) Fair Trade/Fair Made meaning a co-operative, a marginalized maker, a craft maker, cottage industry who gain access to the market through certification which guarantees them a fair trade % premium and maximises the profit to them, the producer.
b) Mainstream jewellers being labeled under a different ‘Ethical’ status, to show compliance with health & safety, rights of workers, mitigation of environmental damage etc.
I think we should include both at the moment; splitting them not into size but into either geography or alternatively, if they are co-operatives/family owned/sole traders as separate to private companies which hold directorships etc. However, I do think these are quite different and certainly in terms of compliance/mitigation for private companies, we would see some cross over with RJC?
If we had to prioritize between these, my stance is potential Fair made/trade workshops do then require our assistance as a group as have little access to information and markets which our group could address and by having accreditation they could significantly benefit.
I think certification for Fair Trade metals could be treated separately at the moment for the purpose of our group, as either type workshop may have access this.
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
The craft producers don’t need to be certified. If they are able to make the product they are qualified. The ones who need to be certified are the commercial dealers.
Yes, craft producers need a marketing system with greater scope than 10,000 Villages which is like a glorified catalog company with a high-mark-up strategy.
The market for hand-crafted jewelry is in the billions upon billions of dollars; yet the artisan creating and making the products is hanging by his fingernails.
The 3rd World artisans can still energize a new powerful revolutionary economics informing and enriching the “mainstream producers” (I don’t know who these are).
Let us just draw a sharp distinction between craftspeople who create and produce with the commercial dealers, consolidators, wholesalers who purchase and re-sell. There’s no justification for artisans to be scrutinized to benefit commercial interests; at a minimum, the commercial interests should bear all the costs of this process.
The commercial people and the bureaucrats are the ones ruining fair trade’s name; not the creative productive craftspeople in whose name the merchandise is marketed.
I agree. It might get quite confusing mixing the sourcing of metals and gemstones with the production of handcrafts
I have seen from the artisan side how 10,000V, etc., work. Making the artisan fill out a large amount of information and sign off on any number of propositions in order to get an order. Anyone with experience in buying overseas knows that people who want to sell will say whatever the buyer wants to hear. This is no big secret.
So again I say, certify the re-sellers and give the artisans and craftspeople a break if their images are to be used to stoke up sales, don’t forget to not even say thanks.
Well, there is my two-cents worth from Guerrero Mexico. I am not contradicting anybody. I respect everyone’s contribution here.
In response to the quality letters of others, I thought this might be added from Tecalpulco, Guerrero, Mexico.
Best wishes from Tecalpulco, Guerrero, Mexico
From Marc Choyt
I first would like to complement everyone for their contribution. These types of civil society conversations are critical not just for our group, but for the entire ethical jewelry space. Many people in our group are key figures in this emerging movement.
I would like to suggest a way forward which, at this point, may allow us to take an inclusive approach which will support the best practices within the manufacturing jewelry sector.
First, please review the original objectives from my manufacturing document, on page 5, which were as follows. We have accomplished the first objective and we are working on the second. It is important to know the end goal even as we start at the beginning. In context to our issues here, pay particular attention to number 5 and 6.
1. To develop fair trade based principles which lead to specific objective criteria for environmental, corporate social responsibility, and working conditions for small and medium jewelry manufacturing facilities in the developing world.
2. From these principles, to develop standards.
3. To create a fair trade verification platform utilizing an existing organization or a newly developed one.
4. To visit factories and objectively evaluate the fair made standards and to assist them in worker safety issues.
5. To publish these standards on-line, on a website which will allow those who work with the factory to link directly to that site, offering third party verification to legitimize claims of “fair trade” or “ethical” practices.
6. In the final stage, the factories would be supported in the marketplace minimally through a website. A customer would click on a logo on a web page which will take them to a specific website, allowing them to see the actual report, including comments, photos and perhaps video of the factory. In this regard, the model would be based on something akin to what the American Better Business Bureau does with its clients.
I believe, we can move forward in an inclusive way using a web based model that would surpass the current fair trade label approach, educate the customer, and provide a broad array of diversity of manufacturing which would allow for cultural differences.
The factory would have a label which would link to a study, outlining what particular qualities they offer. This would allow direct trade with artisan centered factories, as well as for larger plants that are operating on an ethical basis.
Some of these factories we might label as “fair trade” and some we might label as “ethical” or “fair made.”
If we end up with a complex third party certification scheme, some of these ethical factories, or small producer factories, may choose to participate in it in a limited fashion. We may decide that the qualification of ‘artist made’ is in itself so central, other standards are less important. If we had a checklist on a website, we could just say: standard 7: did not participate. The beauty of the proposed web-based approach is that all this information can be transparently displayed to the potential customer.
We are not simply growing coffee or bananas here, or even mining. Manufacturing is much more complex, with a huge amount of cultural variation, so our ultimate objective must encompass this complexity.
There is a model for this active web based approach in the US. It’s called the Better Business Bureau. You can review my company on this system on this link. http://www.bbbsw.org/Business-Report/Reflective-Images-Inc-44712 Of course, our web page will be related to issues that we determine based on our standards.
This web based approach frees us, I believe, from having to make concrete decisions about all the different possibilities that these issues allow. We can be entirely conclusive. The foundation of this approach is simple yet profound and it has driven the best possible solutions in the tech world: open source and radical transparency.
I believe that we would all agree that we want a vibrant, ethical, fair trade, fair made, (whatever we call it) manufacturing sector that is safe. We also want to connect these factories to the market and bring them more business from both the main stream jewelry sector and the current niche fair trade handicraft sector. In all cases, we want to maximize benefit for the artisans. That is why we are taking part in these discussions.
Based upon what I propose here, unless I am missing something, I do not see any disagreement over the approach of setting up standards for large and small at least as a basis to move forward.
Thank you all, once again, for your contributions.
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
The familiar Anglo-American/European concept of commerce is compared to an arrow coming from outer space:
Outer space being the financial realm; that is where business begins – because somebody has some money.
The arrow then flies through the commercial atmosphere; this is the realm of the merchants, those who buy and sell-
Eventually, it lands at the feet of an artisan standing on earth in the form of an “order”. This illustrates the most basic conditions of normal every-day commerce, as we have known it in our time.
Now, picture the artisans standing on earth – this is the realm of traditional creation/production economics This is where the beautiful ornaments come from; and this is the expert laborious hand-making of jewelry
Now imagine these artisans on the earth of creation and production sending an arrow through the atmosphere of the idealistic merchants (the commercial realm) towards the sky of the financial realm. Isn’t this better ???
Ancestors of the Mexicans had a different idea of economics and the pre Colombian cultures of Mesoamerica were quite advanced; the famous Spanish chronicler Bernal Diaz was amazed at how clean everything was, and how all the areas were employed in cultivating all manner of vegetables…that he observed no beggars. In this little discourse I am attempting to explain some theoretical aspects of artisan owned direct distribution model – how am i doing?
However, the real virtue of the AODDM is that it is eminently practical! I want to strongly stress that the AODDM is self-evident in practice so much so that theoretical explanations are, in no way, necessary.
With the AODDM, the economic impulse comes from the creative/productive ground of the producers themselves; the artisans who give content to the entire industry, upon which the merchants rely. They are not asking for much. They are not asking for a better price. They are only asking for steady work so they are able to support their family
The artisan needs employment 52 weeks a year; that is FAR more important than the price-per-piece rate.
Artisan economics implies a high-volume low mark-up strategy. This is the desire of the artisans standing on earth.
Then, to shoot the arrow of their creative productions of ornamental and decorative art – into the commercial realm! By the time the arrow gets to the sky of finance, the artisans and the idealistic merchants are all contentedly smiling.
I am attempting to give a description of how a healthy creative/productive commercial economic process would work; a description of the principles underlying artisan and small farmer economics, or, more generally, producer economics.
Vivien Johnston Wrote:
OK, so I am having my eyes open to ‘the other side of the story’ by you! Thank you for your frank points, you make some sound suggestions.
I think it’s interesting to consider the producer as the certifier which brings me back to my main alternative-to-fairtrade: transparency and an Open Source approach.
I’m now thinking through the implications of Martin’s suggestion; that the chain is reversed and certification is issued by the producer.
NGO’s have proved the key to working alongside the community & business people in many situations and acted as a form of certification (2nd party).
Would this be an option for our group, or not?
Oro Verde seems to be a prime example of the success (perhaps not in up-scaling but in everything else) of how the standards can be set to the highest bar by the producer without the need to meet certification standards; indeed they set them. They exceed the Fair Trade standards now set by the ARM Standard zero.
I was aware that Fair Trade was not a golden bullet answer for empowering marginalized communities, but you are suggesting it has become in fact quite the reverse and has made producers at times feel even more marginalized and dis-empowered over their goods, am I correct?
In that case, our group may serve a truer purpose, because for me the whole point of establishing my brand was in order to maximize the benefits to each level of the supply chain to my product (the design) from miner to gem cutter…and also as the business develops to work with manufacturers where benefit would be most useful (to the community; or to dis-advantaged groups for example).
Then any certification organization, fair trade or otherwise, can follow our standards and use them as a model as would probably be the case.
I maintain that the imbalance between countries which are mineral rich and yet remain economically poor must be redressed. I see the same imbalance between the artisan and silversmith/goldsmith skills which should be utilized and not lost and should bring reasonable remuneration.
As a trained goldsmith & silversmith (though now turned designer since my crafts-woman-ship proved too slow and frankly too shoddy /Joke )
It is also a concern that large wholesalers could divert the whole fair trade process and lose its way. This is very worrying, as for the consumer (in the UK at least) the Fairtrade mark remains the most sought after for ethical buying and a mark of trust that the producer did indeed benefit.
So, Martin you have the best inside knowledge I think, so far, of how Fairtrade may not benefit the producers best.
Can you give more detail to your suggestion of Artisan Owned Direct Distribution Model?
I look forward to everyone’s thoughts on this I’m feeling an Open Source approach may give us enough to move with for now instead of trying to name the certification but would like to know others opinions?
