Does a New Gold Standard Really Protect Miners?
A 15-year-old boy works alongside a teenage girl in an artisanal and small-scale mine in Odahu, Amansie West district, Ghana. Credit: Juliane Kippenberg / Human Rights Watch  BERLIN, June 29 (IPS)  Many products these days come with the promise that workers and communities throughout their supply chain are protected from abuse by virtue of a standard or a specific code of conduct. Since the United Nations adopted the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights About a decade ago, a plethora of such certification systems emerged, including for mining and allied industries ranging from cars to jewelry and electronics. For mining and mineral sourcing only, companies can choose from at least 17 standards some apply to all minerals, and others to some. The standards aim to promote respect for human rights or the environment, and companies carrying the label are periodically checked for their performance according to the standard by an auditing company. But some of these systems arent as valuable to consumers or supply chain workers as one might hope. A certification standard is voluntary and usually owned and managed by a separate certification body. Many involve only superficial human rights inspections and lack transparency because the decision-making bodies for these systems are often dominated by representatives of industry. The standards are often broad and vague. Compliance is not always rigorously verified. For example, company audits of the gold supply chain are often performed by someone at an office and do not include field checks of mine conditions. For example, the London Bullion Market Association, the certification body for gold refineries, has certified gold refineries with serious human rights violations, including violence against local residents by mine security personnel in Tanzania, and conflict-related abuses in Sudan. The association replied saying it is committed to continuous improvement. Certification bodies do not share information on why a company received certification, including who interviewed and weaknesses identified. For example, the Responsible Jewelery Council (RJC) does not publish the detailed results of its audits and does not require member companies to publish how they are putting its standard into practice. Nor does it oblige member companies to disclose any deficiencies they have found and the steps they have taken to remedy them. In addition, certification bodies rarely require companies to disclose their suppliers and the mines from which they originate. This makes it much more difficult for communities affected by mining to report problems to companies obtaining minerals from their local mines and to lobby for improvements. But not all standards have the same problems. the Responsible mining insurance initiative, a relatively new standard for large-scale mining, is distinguished by equal representation of unions, affected communities, non-governmental organizations and businesses on its decision-making board. It also has stricter transparency requirements and recently released the first two mine audit reports from Mexico and Zimbabwe, with an impressive level of detail on the nonconformity he found. In terms of traceability, the Fairmined and Fair gold The standards guarantee full traceability of artisanally mined gold back to the original mine. New rules binding on all businesses and sectors are being developed in the European Union and beyond. This is a good development: voluntary certification standards cannot bring about the necessary change for the whole industry. Laws can level the playing field and introduce greater corporate responsibility. The debate over mandatory human rights rules raises important questions about the relationship between the law and voluntary certification standards. The new obligation of the European Union regulation of minerals Already heavily dependent on certification bodies for gold, tin, tungsten and tantalum. The EU is currently assessing which certification bodies will be recognized under the regulation. It is a risky process: a law that relies on a weak certification system for its implementation is still weak. Voluntary certification standards are not a substitute for effective grievance resolution and redress, but they do have a place and can help foster responsible business conduct, provided they are rigorous, transparent and inclusive. A strong certification standard should give civil society and industry representatives equal representation in its decision-making body. They should demand compliance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other relevant human rights laws. Risk assessments and audits should be conducted by independent human rights and environmental experts who visit the mines of origin and properly consult with affected communities, and be complemented by effective grievance mechanisms. To ensure transparency, certification standards should require companies to make audit reports public and describe measures taken to address risks, as well as to publish the names of their suppliers and of the mines of origin. These measures could help consumers as well as workers and affected communities throughout the companys supply chain to be convinced that responsible minerals standards are really useful when it comes to improving. human rights in the sector. Julien kippenberg is an associate director of Human Rights Watch for the rights of the child who has carried out extensive research on child labor in gold mining and gold supply chains, including in Mali, Ghana and in the Phillippines.