Jeweller - May 2022

Editor’s Desk
Veritas odit moras – truth hates delay
‘Corporate transparency’ – world-changing initiative or another buzzword being bandied around?
ANGELA HAN digs a little deeper into what these words really mean.
In theory, ‘corporate transparency’ is
about the degree to which an
organisation’s decision-making,
operations and actions are observable
by external parties, which – most
importantly – includes the general public.
In light of this, it’s no secret that the
Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC), an
organisation dedicated entirely to advocating
corporate transparency, has faced a tidal
wave of scrutiny in recent weeks.
The uproar emanated from the RJC’s
perceived lack of action on Alrosa, one
of its high-profile members and which
is 33 per cent owned by the Russian
government. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
began on 24 February, and on 3 March
the RJC announced that the Alrosa
representative had voluntarily resigned
as vice-chair of the board.
However, many members and the wider
jewellery industry thought more action was
required. Some viewed it as inappropriate
for Alrosa to remain an RJC member.
While there may have been steps taken
in private, prolonged silence on the issue
was likened to inaction and more criticism
followed, with the organisation labelled as
hypocritical after repeatedly preaching to the
wider industry on the value of transparency.
If the RJC staff and board refuse to
publicly communicate on simple and
fundamental matters, it’s only fair to ask:
Is the Responsible Jewellery Council
really responsible?
Today, the RJC finds itself searching for
a new executive director.
If a prospective leader thinks that the
Alrosa membership is the biggest problem
to resolve upon their appointment, then
they need to get out their finest-toothed
comb for a closer look at the organisation.
The RJC’s lack of transparency over the
handling of Alrosa was just the tip of the
iceberg. Unless the organisation changes
its communication and governance, it’ll only
bury itself further into its hole of hypocrisy.
Third-party playing the field
London-based Gemfields Group claims to
be “a world-leading supplier of responsibly
sourced African emeralds, rubies and
sapphires”, and enjoyed growth in revenue
in 2021 to the tune of US$258 million.
The words ‘responsibly sourced’ feature
throughout its website, and are highlighted
and promoted in the company’s annual
reports and other media.
It must be noted that Gemfields is not a
member of the Responsible Jewellery
Council. There is, of course, no obligation
for it to be so!
Rewind to 2013 – Gemfields acquired
Fabergé, an iconic brand best known for
its gemstone-encrusted eggs. Fabergé
joined the RJC in April 2018 and is
currently certified until February 2024.
Its website states: “2013 - Gemfields,
a world-leading supplier of responsibly
sourced coloured gemstones, acquires
Fabergé with the aim to create a globally
recognised coloured gemstone champion,
building on Fabergé’s status as a global
brand with an exceptional heritage”.
The term ‘responsibly-sourced’ forms a
pivotal part of the company’s marketing.
It’s important to reiterate that the
Gemfields Group isn't an RJC member.
For the RJC, this should raise some big
questions. Perhaps most importantly:
Is it appropriate for one RJC member
company – which has been successful in
gaining responsible sourcing Certification
– to promote another (non-member)
company’s claims of responsible sourcing?
Clearly not so transparent
Mozambique’s Montepuez ruby mine
has been the subject of international
controversy for many years.
Under the heading on Fabergé’s website,
‘Gemfields gemstones are mined with
transparency, legitimacy and integrity’
the page explains that the Gemfields’
mining operation at “Montepuez mine in
Mozambique covers 33,600 hectares and
is one of the most significant ruby
deposits in the world”.
There have been news reports with
allegations of torture, beatings and the
murder of local villagers and miners
working within the vicinity of the
Montepuez operation as recent as 2020.
Rather than apply to join the RJC, in
April 2020, and only two months after
the February report on violence flaring
at its Montepuez mine, Gemfields joined
the Voluntary Principles Initiative (VPI), a
global body that claims to be "dedicated
If the RJC staff
and board refuse
to publicly
communicate
on simple and
fundamental
matters, it’s only
fair to ask: Is
the Responsible
Jewellery
Council really
responsible?
to sharing best practices”, alongside other
members such as ExxonMobil, Anglo
American and Shell.
It is unclear how many company members
the VPI had in 2020, however, at the time
of publication its website lists only 33,
compared to the RJC’s stable of more
than 1,450 members.
In 2018, Reuters reported that Fabergé
owner, Gemfields was taken to court by
a UK legal firm, Leigh Day, over alleged
human rights abuses in Mozambique.
In an out-of-court settlement, Gemfields
paid out £5.8 million ($US7.8 million).
This has led industry commentators to
question: how can a company that has
been involved in a highly controversial
mining project, and which has agreed
to pay $US7.8 million in compensation
to the local people, can claim to offer
'responsibly-sourced' gemstones?
Maybe it’s all smoke and mirrors
Is it appropriate for Fabergé to campaign
under the banner of ‘responsible’ when
its parent company Gemfields, has been
embroiled in this kind of controversy, in
recent years?
It could be argued that Gemfields is
attempting to benefit from the imprimatur
and/or warrant of the RJC Certification
held by its subsidiary, Fabergé.
How is it acceptable for one company
to trade-off, and benefit from, another
company’s certification for responsibly
sourced gemstones? And if the RJC is not
aware of the actions and activities of its
member, Fabergé, then one must ask – why?
At the time of publication, the RJC has not
acknowledged Jeweller’s emails.
Perhaps the biggest question of all is why is
the RJC so unapproachable when it comes to
the search for clarification on these issues?
Is this an example of the corporate
transparency the wider jewellery industry is
supposed to emulate?
No public statements have been made since
1 April. The RJC’s silence is deafening.
Silence, as we often find, is the voice of
complicity.
Angela Han
Publisher
May 2022 | 11