This is the reason why we support marriage equality. We know the joy that our customers experience when they decide to dedicate their lives to one another. We don’t think that anybody should be deprived of this joy due to restrictive marriage laws. When President Obama recently announced his support for same sex marriage, we were thrilled. His support could hasten the day when all people in the United States, regardless of sexual orientation, are able to marry the person they love.

As the leading provider of ethical origin jewelry, we’re especially glad about Obama’s announcement. Our commitment to using only ethical gemstones and eco-friendly precious metals is rooted in a belief that people and the environment should be treated with respect. At Brilliant Earth, our focus is on building a more ethical jewelry industry. But when the people we serve are themselves not treated respectfully, that’s an issue that also directly concerns us.

Our support for marriage equality isn’t new. We’ve always been proud to offer a range of terrific wedding and engagement ring options to our gay and lesbian customers. (This page provides some good suggestions, including custom designed rings and rings that match or have common elements.) As we continue to advocate for people in diamond and gold mining communities around the world, we’ll also look for ways to support our customers – as well as our friends, family members, and fellow employees – who seek only the right to marry.

In the annals of blood diamonds, few men have compiled a more horrific record than former Liberian President Charles Taylor. The warlord turned president used diamonds to instigate a bloody civil war in neighboring Sierra Leone that endured for 11 years. It is estimated that Taylor bears responsibility for the murder, rape, maiming, and mutilation of over 1.2 million people.

So it was welcome news last week when an international criminal court convicted Taylor on 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The historic verdict represents a victory for the international criminal justice system, a measure of justice for Taylor’s victims, and a symbolic moment in the fight against blood diamonds.

The Taylor case has drawn a good deal of international attention, not in the least because a key witness in the trial was supermodel Naomi Campbell, to whom Taylor once gave a blood diamond. Last week, his conviction became a top international news story. With Taylor’s conviction still in the public spotlight, it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on the severity of his crimes and to remember the role of diamonds in Sierra Leone’s civil war.

Taylor was a rebel warlord in Liberia in 1991 when he began offering strategic support to rebels in Sierra Leone. After he became president of Liberia in 1997, he continued to provide this support – mainly by supplying the rebels with weapons in exchange for their diamonds. The diamond trade helped Taylor grow to rich and to win power and influence over the rebels.  Diamonds, in turn, helped convert Sierra Leone into a bloodbath, as rebels fought to control Sierra Leone’s valuable alluvial diamond deposits.

The atrocities committed by the rebels — many of which are depicted in the 2006 movie Blood Diamond – shocked the world. With backing and direction from Taylor, the rebels murdered, tortured, and raped. They kidnapped young boys, drugged them, and forced them to become child soldiers. The rebels also mutilated their enemies, hacking off limbs and cutting off the hands of people who voted in UN-sponsored elections.

The war in Sierra Leone ended in 2002. With the war now over for a decade and Taylor convicted, it’s important that this history isn’t forgotten – out of respect for the war’s victims but also for the lessons that can be learned.

One of those lessons is that it takes individuals, and perhaps a madman like Charles Taylor, to ignite civil wars and violence. But another interpretation is that underlying systemic factors – ranging from grinding poverty to inadequate regulation of natural resources such as diamonds – also play a major role.

Today, blood diamonds continue to be a reality in countries including Zimbabwe, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In thinking about how to break the link between diamonds and violence, it’s important to consider the problem at both the individual and systemic levels.

At the individual level, wrongdoers need to be prosecuted for their diamond-related crimes. In Angola, human right advocate Rafael Marques de Morais has filed a promising lawsuit against the country’s military generals for their campaign of violence against artisanal diamond miners. This lawsuit is encouraging, but the individual who may be most deserving of criminal prosecution – Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe – is still at large and in power. Mugabe and his top generals are responsible for massacring hundreds of diamond miners, torturing and enslaving others, stealing Zimbabwe’s diamond wealth, and other serious crimes. They should be held accountable.

At the same time, criminal prosecutions can only do so much to combat blood diamonds or build an ethical diamond trade. Progress in combating blood diamonds cannot take place without systemic change in the diamond industry and in diamond-producing countries. At Brilliant Earth, we strive to bring about this change by raising awareness about blood diamonds, by supporting meaningful diamond industry reform efforts, and by directly donating a portion of our profits to communities negatively impacted by the diamond trade.

The annual survey, the latest of which involved participation from more than 18,000 couples who married in 2011, gathered data on a variety of wedding topics – ranging from wedding dresses to DJs to choice of venue. (Read the full survey results here.) However, the survey doesn’t seek to explain all the data it reports.  That leaves us to wonder: why the drop in engagement ring spending?

It’s possible that the survey results represent a statistical blip. But assuming that the results are accurate and indicative of a trend, two main explanations come to mind: either engagement prices have declined or consumers are spending less. Since there hasn’t been a noticeable decline in prices, it stands to reason that consumers last year decided to spend a little less on engagement rings. But why is that?

The first possibility that comes to mind is that consumers, affected by the economic downturn, are becoming more budget conscious. This theory would seem to be challenged by another survey finding: that overall wedding spending is not declining.  In fact, the survey found a slight uptick of 0.1 percent in the average overall wedding budget.

Still, the belt-tightening explanation can’t be discounted so easily. There are some important differences between engagement rings and other wedding expenses – the most salient one being that engagement rings are usually paid for by the groom, while family members often help out with other wedding costs. The slow economy has hit the pockets of young people in particular. It’s quite possible that some grooms are spending more cautiously on engagement rings, even as their families pitch in to keep wedding budgets intact.

But there are other possibilities as well. For instance, it may be that changing style preferences, rather than pinched budgets, are driving a decline in engagement ring costs. There’s no doubt that sapphire engagement rings, usually more affordable than diamond rings, enjoyed a renaissance last year, as Kate Middleton’s dazzling sapphire halo engagement ring reminded the jewelry world of the beauty and desirability of colored gemstones. The rising popularity of sapphires could have helped reduce the average cost of an engagement ring.

Or, it may be that consumers in 2011 were drawn to many of the other excellent engagement options that happen to be more affordable.  These include diamond bands (like our Flora Ring), engagement rings paired with lab-created diamonds, and antique engagement rings.

At Brilliant Earth, we ‘re eager for consumers to discover all the terrific options available to them; we’re also pleased if consumers are doing a better job of setting an engagement ring budget and sticking to it. We believe that one of the keys to being completely satisfied with your engagement ring purchase is selecting a ring within your desired price range. For this reason, we have made setting a budget the very first step in our guide to buying an engagement ring.

Regardless of the reasons for the survey results, it seems clear that engagement ring shoppers are looking for value and choice. That’s why, at Brilliant Earth, we strive to provide competitively-priced jewelry that is of the very highest quality, customized to individual preferences, and produced with respect for people and the environment.

That premise seems to be the impetus behind a plan to create a new way to invest in diamonds – one that doesn’t involve ring shopping. A financial firm near New York City recently announced its intention to establish an exchange traded fund (ETF) – a passively indexed kind of investment fund – tied to the value of diamonds. Investors would be able to buy and sell shares of the diamond fund much like they do any stock. The fund would hold a giant store of actual diamonds in a vault in Antwerp, Belgium.

Investment analysts seem intrigued by the idea of an ETF for diamonds. We’re intrigued, too, but for different reasons. As a leading provider of ethical origin diamond jewelry, our question is: what would the fund mean for efforts to build a more humane, ethical diamond industry?

Boom and Bust Cycles

We do have some concerns. For one, the new fund could give financial markets a greater role in setting the price of diamonds. Diamond prices could become more subject to market swings, potentially causing disruptions for the more than one million people in Africa who make their living by digging for diamonds.

The market for gold, another component of jewelry, provides a helpful illustration.  Unlike diamonds, gold is already one of the most heavily-traded commodities. In recent years, investors spooked by the global economic downturn have plowed their money into gold, causing the price of gold to soar. The rising price of gold has persuaded hundreds of thousands of people in the developing world to take up artisanal gold mining – the type of gold mining in which people pan or dig for gold.

The explosion of gold mining in developing countries isn’t all bad news. The gold mining boom has expanded economic opportunities for many people. But the boom has been a very mixed blessing. All the labor and environmental abuses long associated with artisanal gold mining have only become worse and more difficult to control; these abuses include the widespread use of child labor and the spewing of toxic mercury into the environment. In addition, if gold prices were to crash, it could cause an economic calamity for people who have become dependent on gold mining.

It’s hard to say how the new investment fund will impact diamond prices, if at all. But if diamond prices do become more volatile, that may not be good for Africa’s diamond diggers. During boom cycles, labor and environmental abuses – and possibly violence – might become worse. During the busts, diamond diggers could suffer economically.

Ambiguous Ethical Standards

We have another concern about the new diamond investment fund. The firm planning to establish the fund, IndexIQ, hasn’t promised to avoid buying diamonds tainted by corruption and serious human rights abuses.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the firm promises to buy only “conflict free” diamonds – which it defines as “rough diamonds used in the past by rebel movements to finance their military activities, including attempts to overthrow legitimate governments.”

Sadly, IndexIQ’s filing relies on the same outdated definition of “conflict diamond” used by the Kimberley Process, the troubled international diamond certification scheme. That definition leaves out most of the serious ethical issues plaguing diamond mining today – including child labor, violence, and corruption.

Large portions of the diamond supply are tainted by abuses such as these.  In both Angola and Zimbabwe, for instance, diamond mining recently has been plagued by killings, torture, rape, child labor, and corruption.  Angolan and Zimbabwean diamonds, which make up 10 to 20 percent of the world diamond supply, nevertheless receive Kimberley Process certification.

IndexIQ should be clear. Will it buy diamonds from these countries? Will it purchase diamonds linked to grave human rights abuses? Or will it adopt a higher ethical standard than the one used by the Kimberley Process?

An Opportunity

Here’s the good news: if IndexIQ is willing to show some leadership, it could perhaps have a very positive impact.

By choosing to buy only ethically-sourced diamonds, the firm could use its market leverage to encourage the diamond industry and national governments to raise ethical standards. This is one of the strategies that we, at Brilliant Earth, use to spur diamond industry reform.

Furthermore, the Kimberley Process is presently engaged in a debate about whether to broaden its definition of “conflict diamond” to include concerns like violence and corruption. Broadening this definition is absolutely critical to the Kimberley Process’s credibility. But when an established company like IndexIQ proceeds as if there is nothing wrong with the definition, it allows the Kimberley Process to continue evading responsibility.

However, by taking a firm stand against the worst abuses in diamond mining, by clarifying the diamonds it will and will not purchase, IndexIQ could subtly shift the Kimberley Process debate at a very important moment. We urge it to do so.

Like it or not, IndexIQ will become a major player in the diamond industry if it goes ahead and establishes a diamond ETF. We hope that as it enters the industry, the firm will join us in the fight to make diamond mining more ethical.

At this point, is there any reason to be hopeful about the KP? Not really, but we do see one potential glimmer of hope. Every year, a different country among the 75 nations comprising the KP assumes leadership responsibility. It happens that the United States holds this leadership baton in 2012. The U.S. and Europe are the strongest voices in the KP for building a more robust diamond certification system. With the U.S. leading the KP,  it may have a small chance to steer the KP in a different direction.

So far, the signs are encouraging that the U.S. will at least try. The Obama administration has chosen Gillian Milovanovic, an experienced diplomat and a former U.S. Ambassador to Mali and Macedonia, to lead the KP as Chair. Milovanovic seems to be making the right moves. In her first month on the job, she publicly indicated that she wants to tackle the KP’s most fundamental flaw – its narrow definition of “conflict diamond.” “One of the things which will certainly be looked at and which we certainly support looking at and believe should get a close look is whether that [conflict diamond] definition is still sufficiently encompassing or appropriate given today’s challenges,” she recently told CNN, using careful diplomatic language.

If Milovanovic is successful in changing the KP’s “conflict diamond” definition, that could be a very big deal. Under the KP, the only diamonds that count as “conflict diamonds” are those used by rebel movements to fund civil wars against national governments. This narrow definition is one reason why the KP has proven so toothless. With an uncertain mandate to tackle human rights abuses and corruption – problems which often occur outside the a civil war context – the KP ignores most of the ethical abuses tied to diamond mining. The definition may be one reason why the KP has allowed Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s brutal dictator, to use slave labor in Zimbabwe’s diamond fields and to steal his country’s diamond wealth.

There’s also another, less appreciated, negative consequence stemming from the KP’s narrow definition of “conflict diamond.” Such a narrow definition means that very few diamonds technically qualify as conflict diamonds – even though the diamond industry, in reality, is rife with problems such as violence, corruption, child labor, and environmental degradation. And this means that major companies in the diamond industry are able to spread what we at Brilliant Earth call the 1% myth – the assertion that conflict diamonds make up less than 1% of the world diamond supply. This claim misleads consumers about the high prevalence of ethical abuses in diamond mining and deflates consumer pressure for meaningful change.

Broadening the definition of “conflict diamond” could strengthen the KP’s ability to tackle Zimbabwe-type situations, while helping put an end to the 1% myth.  But it won’t be easy. The U.S. will only be KP Chair for a year. In addition, the KP makes decisions by consensus, meaning that a small number of countries could torpedo any definition change. An expanded definition also would raise difficult questions regarding Zimbabwe. We have to wonder whether the KP, after approving Zimbabwean diamonds, would so quickly turn around and adopt a definition that might require it to ban those diamonds once again.

Still, as long as the U.S. holds the KP reins, we hope it will push as hard and as skillfully as it can to broaden the “conflict diamond” definition. We’d like nothing more than to be proven wrong about the KP’s commitment to creating a more ethical diamond industry.

With the story now receiving a good deal of press attention, consumers have been making their voices heard. Protests have been staged at Apple stores around the world. A petition has been started at Change.org.  All of this negative public attention has caused Apple to react. The gadget-maker has invited an auditor to inspect its factories. Apple CEO Tim Cook has been emphasizing the company’s commitment to responsible business practices. “We care about every worker in our worldwide supply chain,” he wrote in an e-mail to Apple employees.

What, if anything, does this story have to do with the jewelry industry? First, we consider it a positive development any time consumers push for higher labor and environmental standards. It’s still too soon to say whether Apple will follow through on its pledges to make changes in its supply chain. But if Apple continues feeling public pressure, it will have no choice but to treat its workers more fairly. Apple will need to protect its reputation and brand. And if a major company such as Apple decides to revamp its supply chain, it could have reverberations in other industries – such as jewelry. Consumers will feel more empowered, and other corporations will feel a responsibility to meet to higher standards.

But there is actually a more direct way in which Apple’s supply chain and the jewelry supply chain are correlated. Apple CEO Tim Cook says Apple cares about “every worker” involved in making Apple products. If that’s truly the case, and if Apple’s sourcing practices continue to receive scrutiny, then the public spotlight may soon focus on other disconcerting aspects of Apple’s supply chain.

It happens many of the minerals that go into electronics such as iPads and iPhones – including gold, tin, tantalum, and tungsten – are fueling a deadly civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  To date, the war has claimed 5 million lives. About one million people have been displaced and more than 200,000 women and girls have been raped. Arguably, the biggest scandal in Apple’s supply chain is not its factories, but its inability to be certain that it is not selling “conflict iPhones” – or that its products are not contributing to Congo’s civil war.

What would happen if, in addition to requiring better conditions at its factories, Apple demanded more transparency from its minerals suppliers? Such a move might help reduce violence in Congo. But it might also create more transparency throughout the gold supply chain – which would have ripple effects in the jewelry industry, since most gold is used to make jewelry.

We don’t mean to overstate the connection between Apple and the jewelry industry. If Apple improves ethical standards in its supply chain, the biggest impact will be felt in Apple’s own sphere – in computers and consumer electronics. Still, we think it’s important to recognize that industries can be interrelated. The jewelry industry doesn’t stand completely apart. So, even as we fight to improve labor and environmental standards in the jewelry supply chain, we’re rooting for Apple to create products that are as ethical as they are innovative.

Let’s first take a look at some pendants.

The pendant on the top left is our new 18K White Gold Pavé Diamond Infinity Pendant. The one on the top right is our 18K White Gold Heart Diamond Pendant. Both pendants feature shimmering pavé-set diamonds. They are made of 18K white gold and come gracefully suspended from a delicate cable chain. These pendants, each in their own way, are shaped to convey love and dedication — making them great gifts for Valentine’s Day!

Now let’s take a look at two new engagement ring styles we’re extra excited about. If you’d like to make a proposal on Valentine’s Day — or any other day — these elegant rings are well worth considering.

The top left ring is our Platinum Unity Ring. A variation on the classic solitaire ring, this ring features a split-shank design. Four graceful prongs curve up to support the center gem in a low profile basket setting. The ring on the top right is our Platinum Cherish Ring. This elegant solitaire setting has a delicate band that tapers in toward the center gem. Split-prongs embellish and secure the gem in a low profile basket setting framed by graceful arches.

Both these rings are dazzling, yet practical. Low profile settings are ideal for active lifestyles. These rings ingeniously keep the diamond low and secure while maximizing the glittering diamond surface area that is exposed to the eye. They are each available in your choice of metals.

We’d like to recommend two more of our most romantic styles: our Platinum Celtic Love Knot Ring and our 18K White Gold True Heart Ring. These rings aren’t new to our collection, but they’re Customer Favorites.

See anything you like? For more ideas, visit our home page and browse our collection. To stay up to date on our latest designs, join our community on Facebook. And for personal recommendations from our jewelry specialists, feel free to contact us.  We’d be honored to help you make this a special Valentine’s Day!

Global Witness helped found the Kimberley Process back in 2003. The same year, the group was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for its pioneering work on conflict diamonds. So a sad milestone was reached in December when Global Witness decided it had had enough.  In the wake of the Kimberley Process decision on Zimbabwean diamonds, the group announced that it would no longer continue as a Kimberley Process participant and advisor. Global Witness did not mince words. In a press release, Global Witness founding director Charmian Gooch labeled the Kimberley Process “an accomplice to diamond laundering” and called the certification scheme’s approach to Zimbabwe “an outrage.”

Global Witness’s decision has sent shockwaves throughout the jewelry industry, while earning considerable press attention. Most coverage to date has focused on the consequences for the Kimberley Process itself – specifically, whether the Kimberley Process is coming apart at the seams. The participation of civil society organizations like Global Witness is crucial to the Kimberley Process’s credibility. (Without civil society groups, the Kimberley Process would be composed of only national governments and industry.) Farai Maguwu, a Zimbabwean human rights advocate, explained the impact of Global Witness’s withdrawal to The New York Times. “The Kimberley Process will never be the same,” said Maguwu, whose organization works closely with Brilliant Earth. “A very influential member of the Kimberley Process has cast a vote of no confidence.”

The Kimberley Process has been weakened, perhaps irreparably. But the consequences for the Kimberley Process are less important to us than the consequences for diamond industry reform efforts, as a whole. Evaluated in this light, we think that Global Witness’s withdrawal, on balance, is actually good news. The Kimberley Process has long been weak and ineffectual. With its latest decision to certify Zimbabwean diamonds as “conflict free,” the Kimberley Process may even be doing harm. Working from outside the Kimberley Process, rather trying to fight a hopeless battle within it, Global Witness may gain the freedom it needs to redirect its energies, experiment with new strategies, and have more impact.

We’re especially encouraged by the hints Global Witness has been giving about its future direction – which may place an enhanced emphasis on holding the diamond industry accountable. “Consumers have a right to know what they’re buying, and what was done to obtain it,” stated Gooch, in the press release. “The diamond industry must finally take responsibility for its supply chains and prove that the stones it sells are clean.” Annie Dunnebacke, a senior campaigner at Global Witness, echoed these sentiments.  “The industry taking responsibility and acting on cleaning up the diamond supply chain is really essential here,” she told The New York Times. “They’ve just been saying, ‘We have the Kimberley Process for diamonds, so that’s that — we’ve solved the problem of blood diamonds.’”

We couldn’t have said it better, and we couldn’t agree more. In fact, our recent blog series on the “1% myth” – the misleading notion that conflict diamonds make up less than one percent of the diamond supply – makes some of the same arguments: that the diamond industry isn’t taking responsibility, and that the industry relies on the Kimberley Process to lull consumers into believing that the conflict diamond problem is solved. Furthermore, we’re supportive of any and all efforts to hold the diamond industry accountable. At Brilliant Earth we’re trying to do exactly that – in our case, by educating consumers, by demonstrating that it’s possible for jewelers to provide an ethical product, and by using markets to incentivize change. As Global Witness enters a new era, we’re excited by how closely our visions align.

Last week, even before we’d gotten very far into our blog series, the diamond industry responded to us with a sharply worded message. The message is from the World Diamond Council (WDC), the organization representing most of the major corporations in the diamond industry. We’ve posted the WDC’s message below.

The diamond industry clearly isn’t happy with our blog series. But why is the diamond industry reacting so defensively? We believe it’s because our arguments ring true. We’ve been dismantling the one percent myth, point by point. And if consumers start to realize that they’ve been misled, a lot of them are going to react, with possibly disruptive consequences for the industry.

Before we get to the WDC’s response, let’s review what we’ve said in this blog series so far. We’ve shown how the only diamonds the diamond industry counts as conflict diamonds are the 0.2% of diamonds from Côte d’Ivoire. This statistic excludes diamonds tied to rape, torture, killings, and corruption in Angola and Zimbabwe – diamonds which could soon add up to 20% of the diamond supply, or more. The diamond industry’s statistic also fails to account for problems like child labor and the mass impoverishment of a million diamond diggers in Africa. In addition the one percent myth is an arbitrary statistic. A different statistic could easily be generated showing that almost all diamond jewelry is unethically sourced.

In the WDC’s response to our blog series, it states that it “stands by” the one percent myth. It points out that its definition of “conflict diamond” – a diamond used to finance rebels during a civil war – is the same definition used by the United Nations. Therefore, the WDC suggests, it is fair to tell consumers that the diamond supply is more than 99% conflict free.

The diamond industry misses our point. What we’re saying is that the diamond industry has taken a narrow definition of “conflict diamond” – a definition, incidentally, created eight years ago, in the aftermath of civil wars in Sierra Leone and Angola – and used that definition to avoid proper acknowledgement of the brutal violence that is happening today. It makes no difference to consumers whether diamonds are tainted by abuses by rebel soldiers during a civil war, or by despotic militaries that plunder and torture. And it’s wrong for the diamond industry to hide behind a technical, bureaucratic definition that produces a misleading statistic.

Furthermore, if we’re going to look to governmental sources of authority for definitions, a good place to start would be with the United States government. Because Zimbabwean diamonds support one of the most oppressive and ruthless governments on earth, the U.S. government maintains sanctions against the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation, the corrupt state entity that runs Zimbabwe’s diamond trade. (Unfortunately, the diamond trade is so haphazard and lacking in transparency that these sanctions don’t prevent Zimbabwean diamonds from reaching U.S. consumers.) Thus, the U.S. government considers Zimbabwean diamonds to be too tainted by violence and corruption to be sold to U.S. consumers. In other words, the U.S. government considers Zimbabwean diamonds to be blood diamonds.

The diamond industry needs to explain: Why does it adopt lower standards than the ones used by the U.S. government? And why is it not misleading to tell American consumers that the diamond supply is more than 99% conflict free, when the U.S. government believes that Zimbabwean diamonds – which could soon make up 10% to 15% of the diamond supply – are tainted and should be banned?

As far as international organizations are concerned, we should point out that Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s President, is widely considered a possible target for prosecution by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. If and when Mugabe and Zimbabwe’s generals are eventually rounded up and tried for their crimes, including crimes in Zimbabwe’s diamond fields, the diamond industry is going to look extremely foolish for having vouched for Zimbabwean diamonds.

Strangely, the WDC considers the Kimberley Process’s failures in Zimbabwe to have been a big success. The WDC states that through the Kimberley Process, it pushed for a halt to exports “until the situation changed on the ground.” This summation of what happened in Zimbabwe, again, is completely misleading.

True, we do not know of any large-scale massacres lately – such as in 2008, when the Zimbabwean military flew helicopters into the diamond fields and shot live ammunition down at diamond miners, killing an estimated 200 miners. But the military still patrols the diamond fields and even runs camps where diamond miners are tortured and raped. Robert Mugabe’s political party, Zanu-PF, is looting Zimbabwe’s diamonds, entrenching a despotic regime that has caused widespread suffering and misery. And the full extent of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe’s diamond fields – both ongoing and past – is not known, because the diamond fields are heavily guarded by Zimbabwean troops.

Despite Zimbabwe’s ongoing non-compliance with basic human rights standards, the WDC supports a recent decision by the Kimberley Process to lift the partial ban on Zimbabwean diamond exports and grant “conflict free” certification to Zimbabwean diamonds. Such a decision helps preserve the 1% myth, but it only prolongs the agony of Zimbabwe’s diamond miners and the Zimbabwean people under Mugabe.

In another of its main points, the WDC criticizes Brilliant Earth for following an “exclusionary diamond acquisition strategy.” The WDC argues that diamonds from countries such as Botswana and Namibia contribute to the economies of those countries and that Brilliant Earth’s “implied boycott” of African diamonds contributes to problems such as lack of access health care, housing, education, infrastructure, and good jobs.

This argument is completely off base. At Brilliant Earth, we offer diamonds not just from Canada, but from Namibia and Botswana as well. We agree that diamonds make a positive contribution to economic development in Botswana and Namibia. That’s why we are proud to offer diamonds from both these countries.

Where we disagree with the WDC is on how to best help the people who live in countries where diamonds are a curse, rather than a blessing. It is our firm belief that telling consumers the truth is the best way to generate the political momentum needed for major changes in how diamonds are mined. However, the WDC seems to think that it is defensible to tell consumers that the diamond supply is more than 99% conflict free – which has the effect of blunting consumer pressure for changes that could address problems like violence and poverty.

In sum, we believe it is the WDC, not Brilliant Earth, that is putting profits ahead of people when it tells consumers that the diamond supply is more than 99% conflict free.

************************************************************************

Below, please find the WDC’s response to our blog series:

DEBUNKING THE WORLD DIAMOND COUNCIL’S DEBUNKERS

The Brilliant Earth Blog attacks a statistic presented by the World Diamond Council, which is that considerably less than 1 percent of the rough diamonds traded today can be qualified as conflict diamonds. Such assaults on the reputation and motives of the diamond industry have become standard fair at the start of any shopping season, and frequently one may surmise that they are meant to serve the specific interests of the organization that is carrying them out. For its part Brilliant Earth is a jewelry retailer selling items including diamonds that it ensures its customers are “conflict free,” because they are sourced in Canada.

On its blog, Brilliant Earth criticizes the diamond industry for defining conflict diamonds “in the narrowest of terms,” because it says the industry insists that they only include merchandise that is “used by a rebel group to finance a civil war against a legitimate government.” For the record, this definition was devised by governments and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, which in its resolution calling for an end to the trade in conflict diamonds in January 2011 defined them as “rough diamonds which are used by rebel movements to finance their military activities, including attempts to undermine or overthrow legitimate governments.”

The World Diamond Council stands by its statement that only a small fraction of 1 percent of the rough diamonds sold today can be qualified as conflict diamonds. But at the same time the WDC does not contend that perfect conditions exist in all the countries and regions in which rough diamonds are mined. Violence and oppression certainly do occur, but rarely are they the only problems that ordinary people need to cope with. So are poverty, hunger, a lack of access to proper health care and education, insufficient housing, poor infrastructure, a shortage of jobs and minimal economic opportunity.

Brilliant Earth assures its customers that its diamonds are “conflict free” because they are exclusively Canadian. The jewelry retailer also states on its website that “5 percent of its profits are donated to Africa.” That is commendable, but for the millions of Africans, who depend on the diamond industry for their livelihood, it will be regarded merely as compensation for the possible consequence of Brilliant Earth’s implied boycott of the diamonds they mine.

The position of the World Diamond Council, is that while we have to work tirelessly to improve the human rights situation in the areas that diamonds are produced, at the same time we need to ensure that the revenues generated by diamond mining and processing serve to bring about positive economic development and social change. African success stories, like Botswana and Namibia, are good proof of this approach. Their situations would have been greatly different should the entire jewelry industry have followed Brilliant Earth’s exclusionary diamond acquisition strategy.

That is not to say that we should tolerate violence and oppression. As was most recently demonstrated concerning diamond from the Marange region of Zimbabwe, the World Diamond Council, through its involvement in the Kimberley Process, did not limit its attention only on goods sourced in regions caught up in a civil war. Even though there was no civil war in Zimbabwe the WDC pushed successfully for a halt to exports until the situation changed on the ground.

The recently concluded Kinshasa agreement, which the WDC supports, allows for the export of diamonds from three mines in the Marange region which are judged to meet Kimberley Process standards. There have been critics of the agreement, but it is worth noting that, after years of international boycotts and sanctions, the KP is the only organization that managed to address both human rights violations directly in Zimbabwe and also affect the way in which its government behaves.

We would suggest that, if there is a myth, it is the one of the industry’s alleged indifference to the plight of the people of Africa.

In prior blogs, we’ve shown how the only diamonds that the diamond industry counts as conflict diamonds are those from Cote d’Ivoire, a small country in West Africa that produces 0.2% of the world’s diamonds. Missing from this count are diamonds from Angola and Zimbabwe – diamonds which are tainted by killings, torture, and rape. Together, these two countries could soon produce 20% of the diamond supply. We’ve also highlighted how the diamond industry doesn’t count diamonds tied to other serious human rights abuses – such as child labor and the mass impoverishment of a million diamond diggers.

Unfortunately, when jewelry consumers go shopping, they are frequently told that the diamond supply, thanks to the Kimberley Process, is now more than 99% conflict free. Little extra explanation is provided, leaving consumers to assume that serious human rights violations have been rooted out of the diamond supply. This practice can’t go on. We believe that if the diamond industry is going to use any statistic purporting to describe ethical conditions in diamond mining, it has a responsibility to include the concerns we’ve just highlighted.

How might it do this? One approach would be to raise the percentage of conflict diamonds it publicizes to a more realistic level – at minimum, including diamonds from Angola and Zimbabwe. Or, it might be more helpful and accurate to try entirely different statistical approaches as a proxy for ethical conditions in diamond mining.

So far we’ve been calculating the percentage of conflict diamonds by value. That is, we’ve been taking the value of certain rough diamonds and comparing it to the value of all the rough diamonds being produced every year, according to Kimberley Process statistics. But since every diamond is different in terms of size and value, we’d get different results if we calculated our percentages by carat weight, rather than value. Zimbabwe, for instance, last year officially exported 3.0% of the world’s diamonds by value, but 6.6% by carat weight.

Furthermore, all our percentages thus far have focused on diamonds. But instead of calculating the percentage of diamonds tied to violence and exploitation, why not calculate the percentage of people working in diamond mining who are exploited? We don’t have accurate statistics on hand, but we’re willing to estimate that the one million diamond diggers in Africa earning less than $1 a day make up more than 50% of Africa’s diamond miners.

Another helpful type of statistic for consumers might focus less on diamonds, and more on diamond jewelry items as a whole. For instance, to what extent are diamond rings being responsibly produced? Any such statistic would need to evaluate all stages of the jewelry production process, as well as the source of the precious metals in the jewelry item. We haven’t done such a survey ourselves, but our experience suggests that most jewelry manufacturers today aren’t creating products free from worker and environmental exploitation. Indeed, any jewelry item made from newly-mined gold, rather than recycled gold or fair trade gold, is likely causing unnecessary environmental harm.

Surely, any of these statistical approaches would be preferable to telling consumers that the diamond supply is 99.8% conflict free – when, in fact, large portions of the diamond supply have histories linked to killings, torture, and rape. We believe that the diamond industry’s statistic is arbitrary, misleading, and entirely unhelpful to consumers trying to make an ethical diamond purchase. But short of revising the statistic, there is an easier step that the World Diamond Council (WDC), the group representing the global diamond industry, can take immediately: simply, stop promoting the statistic altogether.

We’re doubtful that the WDC will do this, however. For years the diamond industry has used the 1% myth to reassure consumers that the diamond supply is basically ethical. The 1% myth, we suspect, has taken on such a life of its own that the diamond industry is now afraid to abandon it. How do we know?

For one, the diamond industry has stuck by the 1% myth even in the wake of grave human rights violations – including torture, rape, killings, and the forced labor of adults and children – in Zimbabwe’s diamond fields. (Zimbabwe is so rich in diamonds that it could easily produce 10% to 15% of the world diamond supply.) If the diamond industry had any intention of letting go of the 1% myth based on Zimbabwean diamonds alone, it could have done so several years ago, when Zimbabwean diamonds first became embroiled in controversy.

Instead, the diamond industry has never retreated from the 1% myth – even in 2009, when the Kimberley Process, the international diamond certification scheme, itself refused to grant “conflict free” certification to Zimbabwean diamonds. Furthermore, when the Kimberley Process recently decided to restore that certification, the diamond industry threw its support behind the decision. Why? Partly, we suspect, because continuing to withhold conflict free certification from Zimbabwean diamonds would have destroyed the viability of the 1% myth.

But we don’t really have to guess how the diamond industry will respond to our calls for it to abandon the 1% myth. Already, the WDC has responded. Last week, the WDC sent us a formal response to our blog series – even before we’d finished. The diamond industry insists that the 1% myth is true. It also criticizes Brilliant Earth on various grounds.

We seem to have struck a deep nerve.  Even we may not have appreciated the extent to which  the diamond industry depends on the 1% myth. In our next blog, we’ll share with you what the WDC has to say, and we’ll issue our response.