Get Ready for the Next Round
If there’s anyone left in this industry who still thinks that all this talk about sustainability and environmental and social responsibility is a bunch of hooey that will run its course, you might want to log onto this article, from Fortune. Also check out this post from JCK’s own Rob Bates, in which he discusses the “Red Gold” documentary about the proposed Pebble Mine site in Alaska.
These issues are here to stay. While the Bingham Canyon mine, discussed in the Fortune article, and the proposed Pebble Mine both contain far more copper than gold, gold is sexier than copper and therefore is what’s going to make news.
At the same time, research pundits such as Unity Marketing’s Pamela Danziger predict that after the current recession is over, American luxury consumers still won’t go back to the wild spending sprees we saw in the past decade, acquiring stuff just for acquisition’s sake. They’re asking serious questions about the impact of consumerism on the future of the planet. Given that the jewelry industry depends on extracting mineral wealth from deep inside said planet, only a fool would ignore the impact this psychological shift can have on our industry.
There’s also another point to consider here: Where Wal-Mart goes, America follows. While Tiffany is to be commended for taking an early and vocal leadership role in these issues (Rob’s Red Gold blog post lists the other jewelers who’ve also committed to not sourcing gold from Pebble Mine, should it come to pass), when Wal-Mart embraces a cause, it’s practically guaranteed to become part of the mainstream consciousness. So if you think your customers aren’t concerned about it, wait a year. They will be.
What can jewelers do now? All jewelers, both large and small, can start by questioning suppliers about their gold (or silver, or platinum, etc.), and make it clear they’re going to insist on sourcing only from suppliers who source from responsible mining companies. Manufacturers and designers will then have to ask their suppliers, and so forth up the supply chain. While it’s true that once gold is melted, there’s no way to tell the origins of the finished product, a chain of warrants along the lines of the Kimberley Process will go a long way toward ensuring it comes from a mining company that does its utmost to minimize environmental impact.
There’s no way to completely avoid affecting the environment to some degree—regardless of whether the extracted mineral is burned for fuel or worn for adornment, getting it out of the earth is going to make a big mess. But at least if a mining company is willing to invest in doing as little damage as possible and restoring the earth as much as possible to its original state, it deserves our business. It may cost a bit more, but the earth is worth it.
Hedda Schupak commented:
Not to get overly partisan on here, since we're not a political
magazine, but Christina's point about the election is a good one.
If people are shouting "Drill! Drill!" at Republican rallies, it's
a pretty clear message that their agenda may not be in tune with
what seems to be a rising sentiment among consumers. If I were a
jeweler, I'd still go with the consumers, for the Earth's sake as
well as our business's sake.
CFoshee commented:
Yes, these issues are now here to stay, and do need to be addressed
now. Many of our customers and might-be customers are certainly
thinking about them! One thing we can do is to point out that
jewelry will not be discarded the way that used computers, cell
phones, toasters and other items are that end up in land fills.
Jacques brings up good points, and is of a similar mind that I have
been for some time; namely, Recycling! Yes, there are methods of
recycling that are woefully inefficient, but there are some that
work quite well. If we do not start doing more recycling, it will
eventually be mandated by law at some point. We can point out to
customers that precious metals are oftenly recycled, and we can use
the "green"-recycled-metals in our businesses as well. Yes, it does
take time, no one will dispute that. Meanwhile, the best we can do
for our own peace of mind and that of our customers is to follow
some sort of protocol like that of the Kimberley Process, so our
customers will remain- our customers!
Christina commented:
Jaques, Of course a law telling miners to clean up after themselves
is desirable, but first we'll need to wait to see who wins the
presidential election. One party will be open to more environmental
laws, and the other will not. Assuming the democrats win, then I
we'll see more environmental laws enacted and you can encourage
your congressperson to introduce a bill. But passing laws takes
time. Meanwhile, questioning your manufacturers and suppliers and
encouraging transparency up the supply chain is important. The
sooner the miners get the message that responsible mining practices
are becoming increasingly important to their customers, the sooner
they will start looking at their operations and what they can do to
improve. If their bottom line is affected by customers sourcing
metals from competing, more responsible companies, they'll consider
changing.
Jacques Voorhees commented:
As a knee-jerk environmentalist (Yes, I came of age in the
sixties/seventies), I have no patience with mining companies
destroying the environment. Here in Colorado we have a nasty place
called the Climax Mine, high in the rockies, which is basically one
big 10-square-mile cesspool. Yet trying to bring pressure to bear
on such companies via a chain-of-warranties, isn't that awfully
inefficient? Wouldn't it just be better to pass tough "you can't
destroy the environment" laws, so that a minining company is
REQUIRED to clean up its act, and more or less restore the beauty
of the Earth, after it does its mining thing? I mean, if, as a
society, we think businesses should not destroy the Earth, why
don't we just make that a law? Isn't that what government is for?
Trying to enforce proper behavior via consumer shopping habits has
got to be the most inefficient way of accomplishing anything that I
can imagine. On the other hand, I could be wrong.
