The Manufacturing Group Considers Standards for Transparency: Part I
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, https://fairjewelry.org/madison-dialogue-manufacturing-committee for full review of past discussions. The entire principles and standards document can be found here.
How to deal with the issue of transparency generated much discussion in itself and catalyzed consideration of a wide range of issues. Even now, weeks after starting, we are still not settled. At the end of this section, I propose that the Transparency Standard is dropped from our document.
The group is taking a break this August and will pick up this issue in September. This is the first of at least three posts on Transparency.
~Marc Choyt, Publisher
Below are the dialogs on the Transparency Standard.
Marc Choyt wrote:
Transparency is foundational to any ethical venture in the jewelry sector. Please consider what is below carefully and put forth your ideas. What I drafted below last fall now seems minimal and may need some flushing out.
Below is the 8th principle: Transparency.
Transparency
Principle:
High standards of financial, social, manufacturing, delivery transparency and accountability principles will be observed.
Standards:
Minimum Requirements:
8.1: Companies will be transparent in regard to finances and delivery to their workers and trading partners.
Patrick Schein Wrote:
I do not like this standard as transparency is more a main pillar of this kind of initiative and should stay at that level.
I would propose to state in the foreword that Transparency is one of the bases of this initiative and to shift the communication of the financial statements to the workers in the labor relation section.
Regarding the transparency to the trading partner, this is usual business and any requirement from a partner should be dealt directly with the manufacturer.
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
Congratulations
I am impressed by the seriousness you are affording to this process with your question of whether Transparency is to be a numbered point in a constitutional statement of what should ethical fair made jewelry; or, whether Transparency ought to be a fundamental principle of fairmade.
In the familiar fair trade model, Transparency is a numbered principle (to my mind, this is the old model we are all about replacing here.)
In the familiar old fair trade model, Transparency is waved like an icon, but what is happening on the ground? Transparency would be, to show for one’s Mexican suppliers, invoicing over the past 10 years or maybe only the past year if it is too much work.
Let us see the export invoice, the import invoice, and all the relevant corresponding documentation. Would not this be Transparency? Could one ever see these papers, or not?
And how about a registry of which producers actually made the pieces? These folks surely should be enrolled with the Mexican tax authority; even in the case they are not, there should be remission notes. It should be possible to interview and talk informally with them as these are the artisans responsible for making the products.
Well now, the present company: is this asking too much to ask of licensing agencies, and fair trade wholesalers?
If it is too much, then, Transparency would be a trap this worthy new initiative should be sure to not step in.
Greg Valerio Wrote:
Just a quick note here, Fair Jewellery Action has transparency and traceability as it core principles, so in every way we take it very seriously, including financial, who you work with, where you work. I have sat around to many board meeting in my time, listening to individuals talk about transparency but when they are asked to deliver , they never do.
Will FJA get it right? No, it will make mistakes, but it won’t cover them up either, so I think we can say transparency is top of the agenda alongside moving towards physical traceability in the supply chain so the middle can’t wriggle out of changing as well.
Marc Choyt wrote:
This is a very important discussion and different approaches have been put forth.
Patrick suggests that we put transparency not in the standards section, shifting the communication of financial statements into the labor relations section. In this case, if I understand Patrick correctly, transparency would an item which we discussed earlier as our “Foundational Issues,” along with size of factory and content of material which we discussed earlier.
Martin writes about “transparency waved around like an icon.” The concern I have based upon numerous side discussions with Martin is that the icon often does not have any real teeth in certain “fair trade” scenarios. For numerous reasons, including the prevalence of distributorships, corporations posing as cooperatives in Mexico, and massive mark ups of product from producer to consumer benefiting the fair trade merchant, producers, the artisans, are not in fact benefiting from fair trade. Fair trade is used as an exploitative marketing tool and many artisans would rather do straight business.
There are many different fair trade organizations and the fair trade claim is loosely bandied around in the market place, often with little backing the claim up. Even so called fair trade jewelry being marketed right now by fair trade organizations has no standards, which is why we are doing this project.
The question comes, how do we best not fall into the traps that undermine the integrity of this process to truly create a situation that benefits producers? Everyone must benefit on this circle for it to work: producers, retailers, consumers.
Should we ask for transparency which would assure integrity in the process, such as the import invoice and relevant documentation, a registry of which producer made the piece and allowing interview and talks with the producer, as Martin suggests? If distributorship is involved, that should be disclosed as well. Are there other things that should be added as standards? Or should we go more top level as Patrick suggests?
I believe that we all support the notion that transparency, in Greg’s words, should be something that we actually deliver. I believe my web based proposal would also be supportive to this end. It would allow us to discuss what is actually happening in each fair made jewelry manufacturer instead of just providing a label.
Greg Valerio wrote:
ARM began not just with miners but also retailers (CRED Jewellery) and other concerned NGO’s (Amichoco). FLO have been clear they are wanting to follow but will not move on social compliance in the manufacturing jewellery stage at this point until the fairtrade fairmined gold is fully launched, which I believe to be a very sensible approach.
Marc (Reflective Images) is a manufacturer and to that end is the person other manufacturers can gather around, other of us have experience working with artisanal manufacturers in Mexico, Nepal, Ethiopia are the ones I can think of. i am sure there are others out there.
I believe the foundations are in place…
Marc Choyt wrote:
When considering the issue of whether to put transparency in the principle/standard section or as an overarching foundation, it is clear to me that every principle and standard we’ve discussed and settled upon right now must already based upon transparency. If there is no transparency, then this whole process falls apart.
For example, we could write at the end of every principle that we’ve created so far these lines: “The basis of this principle is transparency in context to the standards below.”
There is no other principle and standard that we have agreed upon that is so general and foundational. The value of our agreed upon principles and standards lie in their specificity to particulars in support of a fair made situation. So, what are we trying to accomplish with this “transparency” principle that we have not already done?
The true contribution, if there is on, in the work that we have done is on the standard level. Other fair trade organizations already are selling fair trade jewelry. They have lofty principles and show beautiful photos of smiling artisans on their websites inducing people to buy the products. They all claim transparency. But… alas, they have no standards.
Martins’ concern, if I understand it correctly, is that layers of standards hinder the artisan. The artisan’s work with its hand made integrity is enough in itself and anything on top of that represents an added burden. They artisan should not bare the burden.
The reason for my wanting to do this project is to support that artisanal integrity, not burden it. The best support is market support and also technical support that will enable a safer studio. I deeply appreciate how ARM assists small scale gold miners to safely do their work. I would like to be able to do this as well with artisanal groups we partner with.
I know that safer compounds and equipment costs money and sometimes efficiency. This can be too high a price for some artisans. Perhaps when the artisan gets more business they will be able to switch to greater safety practices. So our efforts will create an upward spiral that is life giving and beneficial for all. The web based system I propose will allow people to understand the issues and the trade offs. It also allows for larger fair made factories where ventilation would be a requirement to be fair made. I believe that the fair made label can be widely applied and I believe that it is very much needed today.
But, getting back to our point at hand, what is the standard for transparency? I do not know, other than the specific standards that are the real value of our document and collective efforts.
So, I propose that we follow Patrick’s earlier suggestion that we drop this 8th principle. Transparency is the foundation of this whole process, not a specific line item. It should be mentioned as the third item in our preconditions, along with size of the factory and content of material.
If this view that we drop Transparency as a principle and standard is valid, please make public your support. If I am not seeing clearly, then I ask those who have an argument that Transparency should remain as an 8th principle to put forth their views for consideration. What are the standards? To me at this point in my thinking, making Transparency the 8th principle and making a specific standard for it actually undermines its power in the document.
