Since its formation, the jewellery and watch industry’s supposed ‘standard-setting organisation’ has faced enduring accusations of conflicting interests.
Simply put, the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) is both a trade association and a certifying body, and it’s long been argued that this dual role is counterintuitive.
The organisation must strike a balance between the objectives of its members and the enforcement of ethical standards – often developed and created by itself.
Worse, there are concerns that the RJC’s financial dependence on industry (member) fees for its operation may influence its ability to rigorously enforce standards with impartiality.
Indeed, it took a war to highlight the fact that once a company had become member, the RJC could not expel the company!
The RJC’s inability to remove Russian diamond miner Alrosa following the invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022 led to the departure of several prominent members of the organisation.
Rather than the RJC creating a solution, Alrosa eventually suspended itself from the RJC in April; however, by then companies such as Richemont, Pandora, Kering, Cartier, and Watches of Switzerland had already resigned.
These are fundamental ‘big picture’ management issues for the RJC; however, new problems appear to have emerged relating to the conduct and behaviour of the organisation’s staff.
Jeweller has become aware of a new situation in which staff can be perceived to have exploited their position for personal gain or potentially may have. Executive director Melanie Grant has been made aware of one issue (there may be others) but has shown no discernible interest in addressing it.
Indeed, it could be argued that in the recent example Grant has knowingly or unknowingly contributed to creating this perception of a serious conflict of interest.
Integrity and transparency
By way of background, the RJC’s ‘About’ website page lists 34 ‘team’ members with their photos and job titles.
Grant appears on the page with the following statement: “Together, we strive to make a positive impact, ensuring that the entire watch and jewellery supply chain operates with integrity and transparency”. [Emphasis added]
Readers could be excused for believing that the 29 women and five men are all employees of the RJC; however, Jeweller has learned that some are third-party, external consultants running their own businesses while simultaneously being on the organisation’s payroll.
Not only does the website - and Grant – fail to be transparent on this matter, but it’s arguable that good governance would dictate that any person who offers their services to the RJC while simultaneously operating another business in the same industry should be identified as such.
» Background reading: How responsible is the Responsible Jewellery Council?
This would be a preemptive effort to navigate any potential perception of a conflict of interest and is particularly important if the consultant’s business operations are in the same sector as the organisation.
One example is Katie Manderson, a member of the RJC’s four-person staff handling communications and public relations.
The RJC fails to detail that Manderson is also the founder of Honest.PR LONDON, a company based in the UK with concrete ties to the jewellery and watch industry.
“Honest is an international communications & digital agency for industry leaders specialising in luxury, jewellery and watches,” Manderson’s website states.
“Understanding and gaining client’s consumer and corporate PR coverage has increased sales growth and injected market interest for many high-profile brands as well as new brands entering the market place.”
Potential risks
It’s not difficult to imagine the many ways that a person who holds dual positions could potentially create severe conflict of interest issues for an industry organisation, such as the RJC.
For example, a potential conflict could arise if a consultant was put in a position of prioritising the interests of their clients over broader industry standards.
Potentially sensitive information from the trade association may be inadvertently disclosed to the consultant's other clients, risking confidentiality breaches. The inverse of this situation is also plausible.
In such circumstances, preferential treatment and advantages in other industry matters are common concerns.
» Background reading: Russia causes turmoil at RJC; Executive director resigns
There are many other examples of how conflict of interest issues could manifest when a staff member of an organisation such as the RJC has separate vested business interests. Each can lead to ethical lapses, which undermines the integrity of the organisation’s standards.
While these are conceptual issues related to the nature of undeclared roles, it took little time to discover potential problems regarding Manderson and the RJC.
Manderson’s HonestPR business website lists Gemfields as a client. While Gemfields is not a member of the RJC, its subsidiary jewellery business, Faberge, is a member.
Gemfields acquired the famous historical brand known for its gemstone-encrusted eggs in 2013. Fabergé joined the RJC in April 2018 and is certified until December 2026.
Jeweller has previously detailed how Gemfields appears to trade off the RJC membership of its smaller company despite various media reports about controversial activities in Mozambique, Africa.
The Montepuez mine has been the subject of international controversy for many years, including allegations of torture and murder of local villagers and miners.
Manderson’s website claims: “Our values and innovative thinking enable Honest to remain ahead of the cultural and commercial curve.”
The HonestPR website omits — and is not transparent about — the fact that Manderson also acts as the RJC’s public relations and communications manager.
Likewise, the RJC’s ‘Meet the team’ website page does not mention Manderson’s ownership and operation of a public relations firm.
With that said, the HonestPR website does boast about Manderson’s unique ties to the industry: “Our level of client results is due to our close personal connections with the industry, the media, designers, creatives, digital platforms and luminaries.” [Emphasis added]
Show me the money
Beyond the issues of transparency on Manderson’s and RJC’s websites, the situation becomes more concerning with further analysis.
Manderson operates another ‘business’ - again using the word ‘honest’ - which also omits to mention her ties to, and/or “close personal connections” with the RJC.
The webpage reads: “The Honesty Box on Jewels is a brand new jewellery newsletter from Honest PR”.
It further explains that “The Honesty Box on Jewels - [is] An honest view on jewellery and gems, from Katie and Kate”.
The About page details how the Honesty Box will “share jewellery news, trends and industry insight, for you to read over weekend morning coffee. We’ll share our favourite new pieces and bring you exclusive views from friends in the jewellery world, for a straightforward look at all that is bright and beautiful in the industry we love so much.”
Typical of digital media, the site offers free content and “exclusive content available to paid subscribers only”.
An annual subscription to Manderson’s ‘honest view’ newsletter costs €50. She boasts “over 2,000 subscribers”.
Coordinated conflict
Honesty Box recently published an article entitled: “Melanie Grant on JewelryArts24, green gems, and how to do Venice.”
The article was promoted as “An exclusive interview with the RJC's Melanie Grant”.
In media circles, an 'exclusive interview' is when a source offers a journalist or media platform a story that does not appear in another publication or on any other media channel.
Said another way, the journalist or media platform is the first to publish the story before it is available to offer publications.
In this specific instance, the media ‘source’ is Melanie Grant, the executive director of the RJC - and Manderson’s boss - with whom she has “close personal connections”.
From the outside, it would appear that Manderson arranged an exclusive interview, which was then published on her 'Honesty Box on Jewels’ Substack account.
No discernible attempt was made to disclose that Manderson works with, and for, Grant and the RJC.
Revealing response
Jeweller contacted Manderson to ask her to about the dual positions and to ascertain whether she believed there was a chance they might be perceived as a conflict of interest.
She promptly replied: “I was surprised to receive your email this morning and surprised that you think my working with the RJC is a conflict of interest as all companies have the right to employ an external specialised expert in their industry, Communications professional, or consultancy.” [sic]
Noting that Manderson avoided the salient question - and has since not replied to subsequent emails for clarification - her response raises several other concerns.
Most notably, she fails to understand the relevant facts. For example, Manderson is incorrect when describing the RJC as a company; it’s a not-for-profit organisation.
Further, the RJC is the self-proclaimed 'standard setting organisation' for the international jewellery and watch industry and claims to promote trust and accountability across the globe.
It is, therefore, a false equivalency for Manderson to compare the governance standards of a member-based, not-for-profit industry association with the governance of a for-profit private company.
The RJC’s bar is much higher - by its own admission.
This says nothing about the lack of transparency about her dual roles of managing public relations and communications for the RJC while running at least two ‘for-profit’ businesses (HonestPR and The Honest Box on Jewels).
As a matter of record, Manderson’s LinkedIn profile also omits any reference to her current position at the RJC; it currently details “Founder Honest.PR LONDON -2018 - Present · 6 yrs 8 months”.
Same old tricks
Jeweller sought to clarify these issues with Manderson, including the potential perception that she is exploiting her paid consultancy work with the RJC for financial gain.
However, in a move that has become all too familiar with the RJC, when confronted with difficult questions, the communication abruptly ended.
Worse, Grant was included in this correspondence; however, the executive director has also remained silent.
It would mark yet another example of the RJC’s apparent double standards regarding the values of honesty and transparency.
The RJC claims: "Our vision is a responsible world-wide supply chain that promotes trust in the global jewellery and watch industry. Values - We are respectful and fair. We practice honesty, integrity and accountability. We engage in open collaboration.” [Emphasis added]
It should be noted that in April, when announcing the judging panel for the Jewelryarts24 awards, for which Manderson subsequently obtained an exclusive interview, Grant referred to ethics in the jewellery industry.
“I’m excited to continue our mission of action and innovation which began with The State of Art Jewelry Summit to unite art, science, education and industry in the service of responsible jewellery. The future of jewellery itself depends on a wider global audience asking for ethical practise,” Grant said. [Emphasis added]
Jeweller has sought clarification on a range of issues regarding the RJC’s ethics and accountability under Grant’s management; however, she chooses to avoid all communication on topics on which clarification is required.
While Manderson's inability to address any perception - let alone examples of - a conflict of interest is just the latest in a long line of issues concerning the RJC, Jeweller has been made aware of other matters that should cause concern to the board.
» Editor's Note: Readers with information about alleged conflict of interest or wrongdoing in the jewellery industry can either, formally or anonymously, contact Jeweller via the Contact Us form or write directly to our Tips email address.
More reading
Membership mystery: ABC Refinery & the Responsible Jewellery Council
Responsible Jewellery Council’s ‘missing’ members
How responsible is the Responsible Jewellery Council?
Can we trust the ‘leaders’ of the jewellery industry?
How can I do 'good' and buy responsibly sourced jewellery?
Gemfields, Fabergé and the Responsible Jewellery Council