Southern Responses to Gold Certification: Cooperate, Compete, Reject, Revise
Southern responses to Northern-led certification programs are understandable and largely predictable if the ideas, interests, and power of key actors are accurately assessed. When alignment and power are high, Northern programs will likely succeed. When they are low, they will likely fail. When they are at medium levels, Southern actors will likely launch competing programs and producer participation might be low but will likely skew South. This paper presents a case study of Southern responses to Northern certification of artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM), which are emblematic of the latter, medium-level state. It details four key Southern responses: cooperation, competition, low uptake levels, and program revision via supplementation. The Southern-led Alliance for Responsible Mining first cooperated with Fairtrade International, then built enough capacity to compete with it. Miners’ and programs’ interests aligned on income and deforestation, but diverged on chemicals and legality, leading to low uptake. The Alliance responded by launching a second sustainability standard called the CRAFT Code in 2018. Whereas certification rewards the use of best mining practices, the CRAFT Code rewards avoidance of the worst. By focusing on conflict and relaxing their stance on legality, mercury use, price floors, and the use of third-party audits, the Alliance created a program that aligns with the majority of actors’ interests and is likely to experience broad uptake but limited effects.
Keywords: gold; mining; Environmental Sustainability; Standards; Programs; Governance Compliance; Competition; Adaptation; Mining Industry;
Citation:
Sippl, Kristin. "Southern Responses to Gold Certification: Cooperate, Compete, Reject, Revise." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-055, November 2018. (Under review.) View Details