Jewelry ethics remains one of the “hottest” trends in 2008. To make it conspicuous, the organizers of JCK Las Vegas invited rap mogul and philanthropist Russell Simmons to render the opening address. Simmons personifies the moderate wing of proponents belonging to the jewelry ethics movement. The founder of Simmons Jewelry Co. dedicated his speech to the evolution of his own views: although some time ago he thought diamonds and furs were pernicious luxury and squander, later on Russell Simmons came to awareness that “through the transparent diamond one can see Africa gaining its own steam.” His ideological inspirer was Nelson Mandela who convinced him during his trip to South Africa that “diamonds have nothing to do with furs and the diamond industry may provide an extremely beneficial influence on African life.”
In 2007, being armed with this knowledge and his own confidence in the importance of giving back to society what was taken from it, Simmons established the non-profit Diamond Empowerment Fund accumulating proceeds from the sales of “The Green Bracelet” of his own design. This money goes to maintain an art college in Johannesburg. 25,000 bracelets have already been sold during this action.
According to Diamonds.net, by now Varda Shine of DTC and Festus Mogae, the former Botswana President, joined the DEF management team.
The American and British mass media treat the problem of jewelry ethics differently. Different attitude to this problem is also noted on the part of the jewelry industries of both countries, although the basic aspects of this problematics are concurrent: they include “conflict” gemstones, precious metals and gemstones reclamation and recycling as well as social stories like corporate responsibility and ecologically safe jewelry manufacturing.
On the whole, the British press is more often addressing these themes and ethic approach to jewelry is pronounced as one of the life style canons. Remember, that the first night of “The Blood Diamond” film received more coverage in Britain than in the U.S.A. and since that time you can come across the “conflict diamond” expression in British editions much more often than in American editions.
In a similar manner one may find difference in the grade of public perception of this problem and in the attitude of jewelry communities in both countries. Thus, the No Dirty Gold campaign ongoing in the North America from 2004 organized by Oxfam America and Earthworks is depicted in the press publications as a much more formal movement, than its British counter part Unearth Justice developed by Cafod. Incidentally, last Mid-May the latter launched the Pure Gold? Exhibition designated to show the back side of gold mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and secured the support of Hollywood actor David Harewood, a black-skin star in “The Blood Diamond.” Finally, it is noteworthy that “green” jewelry companies are sporadically appearing in the publications of the American mass media. At the same time, the British press is regularly publicizing the activity of jewelry company Fifi Bijoux, whose adornments, as it is alleged, are made of gold and gemstones mined in line with ethical standards at the enterprises where workers are decently paid. The company’s owner Vivien Johnston recently became the founder of the British Association of Jewelry Ethics.
Earthworks President Stephen D’Esposito says to date, companies representing 23% of U.S. jewelry sales have signed on to the No Dirty Gold pledge.
The “golden rules” developed by Cafod have been signed by seven British jewelry companies.
John Bridge, the spokesman of Ben Bridge, a large U.S. jewelry company, points out that they are using some recycled gold, but a big company simply cannot source everything that way. According to him, the company has too many suppliers, and the market is not at a point where it is going to bear the extra cost associated with recycled gold. “I assure you it would price us out of the marketplace,” Bridge says. “It would sell to a few people, but it would not sell to very many.” According to Jewelry.com, at least 15% of the annual world gold consumption is recycled gold.
Last year the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) released a report evaluating business practices of the 10 biggest and most famous world luxury brands from the point of view of their compliance with ethical and ecological standards, which, the report said, was attracting growing interest on the part of consumers.
Among those included in the “Deeper Luxury” report are such biggest jewelry companies as Tiffany and Co., Swatch Group, Bulgari, Richemont and LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton. Neither of them scored more than a grade C+. Bulgari got F and even Tiffany, praised for its efforts to observe ecological requirements which were above the industrial standards, scored D+.
The World Wildlife Fund did not reply to National Jeweler’s inquiry and did not comment on the report data, which were chastised by the CRJP (the U.S. industrial agency monitoring compliance with the rules of responsible jewelry practices) as “undeserved and unwarranted” and based on erroneous and inaccurate evaluating methods.
According to the British “Independent,” the market of jewelry complying with ethical standards has turned into the fastest growing segment of the British jewelry industry: two years ago it yielded virtually zero sales, whereas this year sales are predicted to exceed 1.5 million pounds sterling (USD 3 million).
