Natasha Schweitzer
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 3 November 2026 · 4 sources
Australian fine jewellery brand founded by two sisters.
Until Natasha Schweitzer traces its gold and gemstones to the mine, it can't show that the miners who dig them are safe or fairly paid.
Better-graded fine jewellery
Graded higher than Natasha Schweitzer, selling the same kinds of things.
No fine jewellery brand selling new goods is Good yet. These are the strongest so far.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Natasha Schweitzer? Send a right of reply.
Compare Natasha Schweitzer with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 5 of 7 Good requirements.
- Holds the grade back: It relies on high-risk mined materials it can't trace. That alone means a poor grade until it takes steps to trace them.
- It isn't Harm on record, because there's no serious confirmed problem on its record.
- Lacks transparency is still a poor grade: in supply chains like this, workers who can't be seen to be treated fairly are usually unprotected.
Good requirements 5 of 7
- Met: Pays a living wage, or holds a strong fair-pay certificationLiving wage: presumed because legal wages in Australia are about a living wage, not checked at the company
- Met: Respects worker rights
- Met: Supply chain independently audited or certified, or at least 80% made in countries with strong labour standardsPresumed from where it's made, not audited
- Not met: Shows where its earlier production stages happen, not just the final oneA "Made in" claim can cover only the final stage. Earlier stages to show: watch movements, cases and dials, and cast or set parts
- Met: No child or forced labour findings or links
- Met: Names the factories or farms that make its products, or is fully certified by a scheme that holds and audits that listMakes its products in its own factories
- Not met: Conflict-free: diamonds, gems and gold traced to the mine, lab-grown, recycled or Fairmined (the Kimberley Process alone isn't enough)
Red flags 1
- Red flag: Relies on high-risk mined materials it can't trace
- Red flag: Fails its category's raw-material check (means Lacks transparency)
Stars it would earn as Good
None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars
Estimates for its products
Our rules applied to one kind of product at a time, using Natasha Schweitzer's evidence and, where it has product lines, that line's countries. They're estimates: we don't know which factory made any single item.
Rings, Engagement & wedding rings, Necklaces & pendants, Earrings, Bracelets: Lacks transparency, the same as Natasha Schweitzer overall, because nothing we know differs between them.
Holding one? Scan its barcode for an estimate that uses its care label or ingredients.
Where it's made
From Natasha Schweitzer's own disclosure: it makes its products in its own factories.
| Country | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | Strong protections | About a living wage | Low |
Evidence
What we found
- Risk across the industry, not a finding about this company: gold and gemstone mining are linked to child labour, forced labour and mercury poisoning.
- Owns or runs its own production
- "Made in Australia" only means the last major stage happened there: under customs and consumer law, watch movements, cases and dials, and cast or set parts can be made elsewhere. It hasn't shown where those earlier stages happen, so where it's made counts towards On Track but not Good.
- Relies on gold and gemstones from artisanal mines where workers face mercury poisoning, silica dust and deadly collapses. It hasn't shown any steps to trace these materials to the mine, so it's graded Lacks transparency until it does.
Research notes Natasha Schweitzer designs and makes its jewellery in-house at its Brisbane studio and says it is committed to Australian manufacturing. It recycles workshop scrap gold but does not say the gold it buys is recycled, names no gold refiners, and relies on the Kimberley Process for diamonds, which it buys from long-standing cutting houses it does not name. It does not claim Responsible Jewellery Council membership.
What independent sources say
Sources and actions
Sources 4
Show all 4 sources
Published by Natasha Schweitzer or its owner
- Natasha Schweitzer – Our Commitment · search the archive · Designs made from inception to assembly in-house at its Brisbane studio; scrap gold reused; Kimberley Process for diamonds; no refiners or RJC.
- Natasha Schweitzer – Our Craftsmanship · search the archive · Every engagement ring made in its Australian workshop by its in-house team of jewellers.
- Natasha Schweitzer – Our Diamonds · search the archive · Uses the same suppliers and cutting houses for nearly 50 years; diamonds assessed against GIA standards; no origin given.
- Natasha Schweitzer – About · search the archive · Established 2015 by sisters Natasha and Alexandra Chipman, continuing the legacy of master jeweller Marion Schweitzer (family history since 1972).
Company details
- Headquarters
- Australia
- Last researched
- 3 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Natasha Schweitzer ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/natasha-schweitzer, last researched 3 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Something missing or wrong?
Grades are opinions based on the evidence listed here. Send us evidence, or a right of reply if you represent Natasha Schweitzer.