The Tenth Standard: Verification

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 for full review of past discussions and also to see the entire principle and standard document.

In this principle, we discuss the issue of Verification. Below, you can read what was considered. In the end, we slightly modified the final standard.
~Marc Choyt, Publisher, Fairjewelry.org

Marc Choyt wrote:

Let us move on to the next principle and standard, the second to the last in our document. This issue concerns Verification.

Please review the proposed Verification standard below.

Thank you for your ongoing consideration.

Principle:

Independent, third party verification will be actively and persistently sought and utilized to ensure that activities operate in accordance with stated principles and standards.

Standard:

Minimum Requirements:
10.1: The company supports third party certification efforts to support its compliance.

Greg Valerio wrote:

Yes yes yes. Without it what do we have apart from a document and our good intentions and general say so.

This is an essential art of our transparency and traceability claims.

Patrick Schein wrote:

Thanks for this standard.

I believe that we cannot have a dual system where some will be labeled “third party” and other not.

If the objective is to be “third party” certified, the term support is not adapted and the companies should engage themselves to run through certification

The standard should then say:

“The company will adopt third party certification to support its compliance.”

If we wish to establish a transitional phase, then we could consider a period of time (1 year?) where the certification is not compulsory. I am not personally in favor of that.

Hope this helps.

Marc Choyt wrote:

Patrick as put forth that the standard read:
“The company will adopt third party certification to support its compliance.”

I am in favor of this suggestion. It makes our document stronger. Can we move forward with this change?

Greg Valerio wrote:

Yes

Cristina Echavarría wrote:

I agree with both Patrick and Greg. It is not to support the idea, but actually to implement 3rd party certification what matters.

Flavia Aarden-Kilger wrote:

I agree with how this standard reads.
Thanks Marc & Patrick.

Vivien Johnston wrote:

I agree with Patrick’s suggestion and with comments made so far.

Marc Choyt wrote:

It seems to me that we have consensus to adopt Patrick’s suggestion. We will move on to the final standard next week.

Thank you for your ongoing consideration.

---