Fair trade diamonds

[teobdl]

Would you be willing to pay a premium for fair trade, ethically sourced and supplied diamonds? If so, how much? Has anyone been tempted to buy from brilliantearth.com or another ethically branded retailer because of these issues?

Here is some interesting reading about the limitations of the Kimberly Process http://www.brilliantearth.com/kimberley-process/

Rapaport seemed to speak pretty passionately about these issues during his "state of the union" address that was posted before [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/state-of-the-diamond-industry-2013.189998/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/state-of-the-diamond-industry-2013.189998/[/URL] I also found this video of him promoting fair trade, ethical practices http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1peA_qtHTwg

As branded diamonds become more heavily promoted as having something value-added (brands such as BG, ACA, AVC/R, VC's new line), I would love to see ethically sourced and supplied diamonds as much a part of the discussion as any other major performance characteristic of a diamond.

 

[kenny]

No.
I would not trust that it WAS, beyond a shadow of a doubt, ethically sourced.

One of the many middlemen between the mine and my finger may have inserted some 'regular' diamonds into the 'Fair Trade' pile to print some money.
Same thing with 'Canadian' diamonds.

Money corrupts people and the diamond industry is the opposite of transparent.

 

[teobdl]

No.
I would not trust that it WAS, beyond a shadow of a doubt, ethically sourced.

One of the many middlemen between the mine and my finger may have inserted some 'regular' diamonds into the 'Fair Trade' pile to print some money.
Same thing with 'Canadian' diamonds.

Money corrupts people and the diamond industry is the opposite of transparent.

Kenny, you seem to have more perspective about the diamond industry than most posters on PS. Is this conjecture or fact (that Brilliant Earth wouldn't have more ethically sourced diamonds)?

 

[kenny]

I'm just a jaded grouchy old man.

I have no information or sense of that vendor.

 

[diagem]

No.
I would not trust that it WAS, beyond a shadow of a doubt, ethically sourced.

One of the many middlemen between the mine and my finger may have inserted some 'regular' diamonds into the 'Fair Trade' pile to print some money.
Same thing with 'Canadian' diamonds.

Money corrupts people and the diamond industry is the opposite of transparent.

Kenny, you seem to have more perspective about the diamond industry than most posters on PS. Is this conjecture or fact (that Brilliant Earth wouldn't have more ethically sourced diamonds)?

Not Kenny, but I just went browsing their website and couldn't find any proof of ethically traced Diamonds only read statements.
Maybe you or even someone from BE would be able to get on this conversation and show us the tracking system they're are promising.
I would gladly hear some more...

 

[diamond-enthusiast]

It's just marketing. Diamonds you see from any online reputable vendor here goes through the Kimberly process. Technically speaking, all the stones passing through the Kimberly process are ethical. How do you proof that nothing goes in between?

If Brilliant Earth's main selling point is in ethics and seem to suggest that they are doing way more than any other vendor, well, all i can say is, other vendors are just as good.

 

[teobdl]

It's just marketing. Diamonds you see from any online reputable vendor here goes through the Kimberly process. Technically speaking, all the stones passing through the Kimberly process are ethical. How do you proof that nothing goes in between?

If Brilliant Earth's main selling point is in ethics and seem to suggest that they are doing way more than any other vendor, well, all i can say is, other vendors are just as good.

It's only ethical if you think Kimberly Process is the standard for ethics. Here is a statement from Martin Rapaport in 2010. Yes, the creator of the Rapaport Daimond Report, who also played a role in the creation of the Kimberly Process.

“The Kimberley Process (KP) is aiding and abetting severe human rights violations as it certifies, legalizes and legitimizes blood diamonds. Corrupt governments have turned the KP on its head. Instead of eliminating human rights violations, the KP is legitimizing them.

"The diamond trade and consumers cannot trust the Kimberley Process, its system of warranties or those that promote the Kimberley Process as an assurance of the legitimate source of diamonds. We must face the fact that the Kimberley Process is a politicized, government-controlled initiative that is incapable of eliminating human rights violations in the diamond sector. It’s time for the World Diamond Council (WDC) and responsible NGOs to withdraw from the KP.

“The solution is outside the KP. The diamond trade must take full responsibility for how and where it buys its diamonds. It must stop hiding behind the KP and recognize that it has moral and ethical obligations that transcend national and international laws. While governments cannot enforce international human rights standards due to sovereignty issues, diamond traders can use their purchasing power to enforce such standards. The key to understanding this issue is that, in the end, our diamonds are only as good as we are.”

Strong words.

As to whether middle men mess up the supply, I have no idea. I also have no idea if Brilliant Earth actually does sell diamonds that are more ethically sourced and supplied than other companies. Tiffany is another company that now seems to be going out of their way to build a brand of using ethical diamonds.

I really hope someone can can chime in and give some facts, because when the alternative of an "ethically sourced" diamond is that my diamond was likely the object of murders, mutilation, and slavery, then this matters. At least, I think it matters.

 

[denverappraiser]

BE is a credible outfit. I agree that they, and everyone else, are a little light on proof and there's very little 'mine to finger' paperwork available in the trade at the moment. The closest is the various Made in Canada, Made in Botswana, Made in Russia types of pedigrees and these are only as good as the issuer. BE tries. Most others don't. Personally I give them kudos for that. I would love to see more and better paper trails but it WILL cost money and if consumers are unwilling to support it, that WILL be the end. So far marketing like this has not gone well and there's very little pressure on the mining companies and even source countries to support it.

Kimberly Process has it's point, but 'ethically produced' isn't what it's certifying, and never has been. KP has to do with miners paying their taxes to source countries and preventing diamonds from being used as a funding mechanism in a series of African wars (most of which ended a decade ago).

I think your wrong that diamonds that have not been somehow certified as 'ethically sourced' are therefore unethically sourced. Even at it's peak, even the harshest critics attributed 'conflict diamonds' as 4% of new production. Defenders argued 2%. Don't get me wrong, 2% is still a big number and abuses continue to be a problem even as objectives change (again, KP was about war funding in central and west Africa, most of which have ended) but it's good to keep these things in perspective.

 

[Riesz]

Most vendors claim to only sell ethically sourced diamonds but most have no proof.

I enquired about the origin of my James Allen diamond several times and none of the customer service reps were able to give me any info about it. I was hesitant to purchase it based off that fact but decided to anyway. I still have absolutely no idea where this diamond was mined or cut.

 

[Lula]

Most vendors claim to only sell ethically sourced diamonds but most have no proof.

I enquired about the origin of my James Allen diamond several times and none of the customer service reps were able to give me any info about it. I was hesitant to purchase it based off that fact but decided to anyway. I still have absolutely no idea where this diamond was mined or cut.

Your post is a good reminder that where the diamond is mined is only part of the story. Human rights abuses happen at the cutting stage, too. I believe there was a documentary out a few years ago that depicted the deplorable conditions in some Indian cutting houses. The truth is, there is just no paper trail. And I'm in agreement with Neil -- consumers don't seem to want to pay for one either. I also agree that BE seems to be a reputable company, but they don't provide what I consider evidence that they're stones are sourced in a "more ethical" manner than any other diamond being sold by other online or B&M sellers. There is a lot of recycling in the form of trade-ins and recutting, etc., as well.

 

[RockyRacoon]

I've spent a long time looking for 'fair trade' diamonds, as my fiance was concerned about diamond practices that she had heard about.

What can you do?

I went with Brilliant Earth, as they seem to have the best documentation available. They can attest to the origin, as well as to who cut/polished the stone. This is a bit more detail than many Canadian diamond sellers provide, as their certification usually does not include information about the diamond after it's been mined.

Admittedly, the documentation is lacking from Brilliant Earth, but I found it to be more compelling than any other diamond seller.

As to the actual selection of stones, they are somewhat limited. However, if you do your own due diligence, you can uncover some really nice ones. Don't expect the Sales Reps / gemologists to be very helpful, as they don't have the most informed opinions (in my experience).

In addition, the price at Brilliant Earth was about 3-10% higher, in my limited experience.

In the end, my fiance was happy, which is really the whole point!

 

[denverappraiser]

There’s very little standardization of paperwork on this sort of thing. Even obvious things like ‘product of Canada’ are less obvious than they appear at first blush. Does that mean mined in Canada? Cut in Canada? Both? FWIW, in the US it means that it was at least 51% cut in Canada and it would be a product of Canada even if it were mined in Russia or anywhere else. In other places it’s different so a component of what that means even depends on where YOU are. Yeah, I know, it seems like it should be so easy.

It’s not just diamonds by the way. How do you know that your chickens from Whole Foods are ‘free range’? For me as a consumer it’s fundamentally a matter that WF has claimed it and I find them to be a reliable source. They have a lot to lose with lying about this sort of thing and I simply choose to believe them. There’s no extra chicken inspector measuring the size of the pens and as far as I know there’s not a definitional difference between a cage, a pen and a range in any case. I’ve seen no report from the world’s foremost chicken authority declaring the difference. This issue applies to all manner of wishy washy attributes and ‘ethically sourced’ is nothing if not wishy washy. There’s no test that can be performed on the stone so it’s entirely based on the paper trail and someone making a claim. I think it’s fair to guess that people who would source their goods through murder and theft would have no ethical problem with counterfeiting paperwork so the paper trail needs to be pretty cleverly done or it doesn’t actually answer the question. That’s expensive and it involves the cooperation of a fair number of people. We’re back to assessing the credibility of the people making the claim. That’s where we are now. The dealer, in this case Brilliant Earth, makes a claim and the decision whether or not to believe them is a matter of assessing the credibility of BE, not so much the merits of the stone(s). That’s cheap and puts the burden entirely on BE. You need to trust BE to apply appropriate pressures on their supply chain and you need to believe that their suppliers are responsive to that pressure, just like with the chickens at Whole foods. If you find them lacking or their claims less than credible, you don’t just pass on the stone, you pass on the dealer.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Neil’s comments reflect a sincere interest and deep understanding of the issue. His common sense perspective also helps one to balance the human rights aspects associated with diamonds with many other things that we spend our money on.

I do respect Martin Rapaport for continuing to champion the cause and to use his high profile position to keep attention focused on problem areas of the diamond business. However, any suggestion that the KP should be dismantled is like “throwing the baby out with the bath water”. It is pretty clear that governments, trades people, and NGO’s did come together around the KP and that it made a positive impact in its intended purpose. Because determined forces are able to subvert the process is not a reason to give up on a framework that does includes all of the forces for good.

Regarding the ability of any retailer to offer proof positive about the path a given diamond has taken “mine to finger”, there are always limits. For instance, 90% of the diamonds we sell are the from our regular production runs from select manufacturers who are sightholders. These top level suppliers not only provide us written statements attesting to the legitimacy of the goods but are themselves constituents of the certification process and members of the top level organizations in the industry such as the Responsible Jewelry Council. This gives us a high level of confidence that the product we are selling has ethical integrity.

A small portion of the diamonds that we sell are sourced from the broader market through our “virtual diamond service”. To ensure to the best of our ability that these diamonds likewise have been brought to market in an ethical fashion, we only source through suppliers who are subscribers of the Rapaport network. It is our expectation that any Rapaport members known to be involved in illicit diamond trade would not be allowed on the network, especially given Martin Rapaport’s strong leadership on this issue.

I believe that the solution to correcting human rights problems associated with any industry starts with awareness of the problems and a sincere desire to be part of the solution. As Neil suggests, consumers should judge trading partners on the basis of their orientation to the issue and their reputation for ethical behavior.

 

[denverappraiser]

Thanks for the nice words Bryan.

I certainly don’t have the bully pulpit of Mr. Rapaport but I do seem to be a mouthpiece in this issue and I do try and keep things grounded in reality. It’s easy to produce an example of tragic abuse just as it’s easy to produce examples of how the diamond industry has benefited those involved, including miners, cutters, and their communities. Everyone wants their diamond to come from the later and not the former. The vast majority do, independently of all of this. The vast majority of the people in the industry are stand up and highly ethical folks who are appalled at the implication that they are somehow perpetuating evil through their partners. The tricky part is at the margin and exactly what constitutes acceptable proof. If a dealer claims to have the most ethically produced diamonds in the world and shows a report from God personally certifying this, does that make him the most ethical, or just the biggest liar? If a jeweler says that they’re doing all that they can to vet their sources and that as better tools become available they will use them as best they can because they are committed to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, are they lacking because they haven’t produced ‘proof’? In the end I guess it’s up to the shopper but as I pointed out above, we’re talking about attributes of dealers, not attributes of diamonds.

Here’s another analogy since people seem to like them: Why does the FDA have standards for the acceptable number of rat hairs in hot dogs, and why isn’t it zero? In both cases I think it’s obvious but the question then becomes whether FDA has provided sufficient ‘proof’ that a particular dog is hair free.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Following along the hotdog analogy and tying it to a quote earlier in the thread - one could make the claim that the FDA is thereby 'legitimizing' the manufacture of hotdogs containing rat hairs!

I don't think that is either the intent or the effect of that approach. It is evidence of transparency and an acknowlegement of realities. Would we rather they didn't measure it?

By the way, it is not just hot dogs. I believe cereal products are a culprit. Not surprisingly, grain elevators are very popular hangouts for our little friends...

As consumers, when we go seeking perfection we better be prepared to bump up against inconvenient truths. That is not to say that we should be happy about it or that we should not do our part to change it. We just need to keep it real.

 

[WinkHPD]

Personally, I am very proud of what our trade has done to eliminate the trade in "conflict diamonds" as best it can. The Kimberly Accords were being worked on long before the press got involved.

What always amazes me though is how no one is protesting "conflict coltan" and "conflict oil". If the makers of our cell phones had to establish that they used only free trade coltan, I wonder how many us could actually afford a cell phone? If our gas stations served only "conflict free gas" it would cost much much more than it does now to fill our cars.

I am constantly amazed at efforts by the press and Hollywood to make diamonds "evil" with such blatant fictions as the movie Blood Diamonds.

I think the atrocities that have been done are sickening and need to be stopped, and as I said, I am proud of my industry for what it has done so far and that it will continue to do in looking for new and better ways to stop them. I would just like to see the "conflict" label applied to some of our other popular items that suffer, perhaps even more than diamonds, from the evils that are done to acquire them.

It is going to take tremendous efforts to educate people as to what is going on with many different industries and then to find equitable solutions. Just pointing fingers at diamonds will not even begin to do it.

Wink

 

[Jim Summa]

A little "hair of the dog" just doesn't have quite the same meaning.

What I can add is a link to this group, that spoke at AGS conclave in San Francisco a couple years ago.

http://www.ddiglobal.org/

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Jim, thanks for posting the link to DDI. It is important to understand the other things (besides KP) that are being done to make diamonds a more "fair trade" product. And it is important to see the link between development efforts and the coming together of multiple interest groups around the KP.

It's a philosophy aimed at making things better by doing more good. Well meaning people may run up against limits as to what they can to modify others' bad behaviors, but we have more ability to control what we can contribute in a positive way. Especially since the well meaning people vastly outnumber the bad ones.

 

[heididdl]

Thanks devenappraiser.....I have been lurking on this post and reading all of these. I understand in a perfect world we would all like everything we eat to be honest and ethically optained. In that case we should all be vegan and USA only buyers. I was brought up kosher so that my family knew that the cows were slaughtered in one slice across the throat and not clubbed to death. You can only go so far before you just become untrusting of anyone or anything. isn't there any joy in buying a ring with out being suspicious. In reality if you are that focused then people should get more involved in women's right to choose etc. not just avoiding blood diamonds. To each his own I guess.