Chanel And Van Cleef Arpels Stated They Were Not

The top 10 brands studied for their common and atmosphere performance included Boucheron, Bulgari, Buccellati, Cartier, Chanel, Chopard, Graff, Harry Winston, Piaget and Van Cleef Arpels.

Authors argued that luxury jewelry brands hold the power and prestige to make a difference in the industry, 10 yet brands analyzed, with Cartier exception and Boucheron, it appeared that most was slow to demonstrate responsible business practices, really in regard to responsible sourcing.

The study compared the brands’ practices against innovations made across precious ethical sourcing metal and gemstones, and looked with success for that with the exception of Cartier and Boucheron, the jewelry brands lagged behind acceptable norms.

It remained unclear whether Buccellati and Bulgari were selling Burmese rubies. Of course the study reported that plenty of luxury brands offered to sell rubies from Myanmar, despite an embargo on those gems in Europe. Chanel and Van Cleef Arpels stated they were not. Nevertheless, as indicated by the authors. Whereas Chopard. )andthus iaget were selling more latter Burmese stones. Click this link: replica jewelry.

a few of findings revealed that despite the fact that some top brands belonged to the Responsible Jewellery Council, they lacked transparency, that is one pillar for membership.

All the brands failed to publicly communicate their long period of time commitment to public responsibility initiatives, while Cartier was an exception.

The brands did not disclose how they combated corruption, that is another key pillar of RJC’s better practices. Although, the brands as well failed to state how they supported the Kimberley Process in effort to ensure that diamond mines operated without human rights abuses. As a result, conforming to the authors, given these findings, the brands needed to strengthen relationships with the supply chain and be able to trace goods back to the source.