Make Change

Participation is essential to developing responsible sourcing solutions

By Andrea Hill

Three of the most challenging aspects of engaging in jewelry industry responsible supply chain activities are how opaque jewelry supply chains continue to be, how many problems remain to be solved, and the moral dilemmas around many of our materials. The truth is, the jewelry industry depends upon the very materials that are often used to fund international crime, terror, and state-sponsored oppression. Very few industries—other than oil and gas, arms manufacturers, and now big tech—have similar im-
pact on world peace. Daunting, isn’t it?

It’s tempting, then, to throw up one’s hands and say, “Well, I’m not going out of business over this, so I guess I just need to accept that this is an unsolvable problem and get on with my work.” But it’s not the only (or best) solution.

This is not easy work, but it is good work, and together we can make our industry as beautiful in its behavior as the products we make and sell.

After hosting an MJSA webinar on responsible jewelry practices in April, I heard from some members of the audience that the topic is daunting. They expressed frustration over hearing that the Kimberley Process (KP) is ineffective. They were surprised to hear to hear that “recycled” doesn’t really mean post-consumer when it comes to gold. They were overwhelmed at the idea there is no good way to know if their diamonds or gold are coming from Russia during this time of Russian war against Ukraine.

One attendee said, “Despite a 40-year career of diligently applying responsible and environmentally aware procurement and manufacturing practices, which utilized jewelry-industry proposed safeguard programs, I (wonder if I have been) a fool to do so.”

Ouch. And I know that attendee is not alone—a lot of people feel that way when exposed to these challenging discussions of responsibility and transparency.

Where Change Is Needed

The fact of the matter is that many jewelry industry guidelines are completely out-of-date. They must be updated based on new knowledge, global warming, and the positive increase in society’s awareness of our international human impact.

Information about how the KP falls short is available in abundance. But two significant misunderstandings of the KP relate to its organization and its purpose.

The KP is made up of a council of government leaders, with rotating leadership responsibilities, and the council is primarily concerned with security, economics, and the self-interest of each country seated at the table. The diamond industry has a seat at the table as an influential observer. But conflicts of interest are inherent given that massive diamond companies Alrosa, Anglo American (owner of DeBeers), and Rio Tinto also have close economic ties to governments with diamond deposits within their borders. To consider the possible conflicts of interest between the KP’s civil responsibility and its economic interests, look no further than the people seated at the table.

Secondly, the KP is not legislation or policy; it is a voluntary certification scheme. Their charter is to limit trade in conflict diamonds used by rebel militias to finance military activities aimed at overthrowing legitimate governments. The definition has been somewhat expanded to reduce the opportunity for rough diamonds to fuel “armed conflict” more generally. Most people are surprised when they learn how narrow the definition of the KP’s charter is. But the KP does not yet address broader human rights abuses that are often associated with large-scale diamond mining, such as government-sponsored sex trafficking at mine sites, destruction of clean drinking water for people living in the region, or forced relocation of people from their homes.

In short, simply reporting that “we only buy diamonds certified by the Kimberley Process” is no guarantee that women were not raped, that children did not die of infections due to loss of clean water, or that entire villages weren’t torn from their ancestral lands in the mining of those diamonds.

Clearly, we need to raise our standards when it comes to the definition of a good diamond.

Change Is in the Air

A number of voluntary standards have been developed in the past 20 years, all of which hold potential for more responsible jewelry practices. The Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) has developed a code of practice that is imperfect but that has been moving in the right direction (despite RJC’s massive failure of leadership relative to Alrosa and Russian diamonds in the first two months of the Russian war against Ukraine). Strengthening that code of practice—and rebalancing RJC’s board to limit economic conflict of interest—holds promise for future solutions to the tricky problems of transparency in jewelry supply chains.

Another organization, SCS Global Services, both certifies RJC-members’ sourcing behaviors and policies and offers many important certification standards of its own, including its Recycled Claim Standards, the Certified Sustainability Rated Diamond standard, and Responsible Source standards for precious metals and gemstones. Another standard, CRAFT code, provides access to artisanal mined gold that meets baseline requirements for responsibility. So, progress is being made, but much more attention is needed.

The simplest—and most challenging—answer of all is that we don’t have solutions to offer you, or at least, not enough of them. Not yet. We need you to participate in creating the solutions that will make our industry truly responsible. Do some research. Get familiar with the concept of voluntary standards. Attend the Chicago Responsible Jewelry Conference. Join Ethical Metalsmiths. This is not easy work, but it is good work, and together we can make our industry as beautiful in its behavior as the products we make and sell.