The just completed Sotheby’s Magnificent Jewels sale in New York is the first auction to sell two items for more than $30 million.
The first is the “Estrela de Fura,” a 55.22-carat Mozambique ruby that sold for $34.8 million ($630,288 per carat), establishing a world record price for a ruby and any colored gemstone sold at auction. It is also the largest ruby to be sold at auction. Its pre-auction estimate was more than $30 million.
The finished ruby was cut and polished from a 101-carat rough discovered by Fura Gems, a colored gemstone mining and marketing company based in Dubai. It was unearthed at its ruby mine in Montepeuz, Mozambique, in July 2022. The company named the rough gem, Estrela de Fura (Star of Fura in Portuguese). Even in its rough, untouched state, the ruby “was considered by experts as an exceptional treasure of nature for its fluorescence, outstanding clarity and vivid red hue, known as ‘pigeon’s blood’ — a color traditionally associated only with Burmese rubies,” Sotheby’s said in a previous statement.
It’s rare for a mining company to cut and polish the gem and then sell it at auction. The usual route of recently found colored gems is to sell it to a company as a rough where they would cut and polish the gem, then it would sell it privately or at auction. However, Dev Shetty, founder and CEO of Fura Gems, chose to not only go on the auction route on his own, but to embark on a worldwide tour of the rare gem, promoting not only this stone, but rubies from Mozambique as equal to rubies from Burma, which has historically been considered the main source of the most sought-after rubies.
Quig Bruning, head of Sotheby’s Jewelry America, previously said the Estrela de Fura may signal a change of this perception.
“It is undoubtedly positioned to become the standard bearer for African rubies – and gemstones in general, bringing global awareness to their ability to be on par with, and even outshine, those from Burma,” Bruning said in a statement.
A 4.83 carat fancy vivid blue diamond ring sold for $8.8m at Christie’s Hong Kong as the Magnificent Jewels sale brought in a total of almost $60m.
The brilliant cut IF Type IIb gem (pictured) was surrounded by fancy-cut diamonds, in a gold setting. It sold between the low and high estimates of $7m to $10.2m.
The blue diamond led the sale, followed by two items which both sold for above their high estimates.
An octagonal step-cut 21.38 carat sapphire in a platinum ring set with tapered baguette cut diamonds sold for $4.5m (high estimate $2.3m).
And an 8.92 carats fancy vivid yellow orange pear modified brilliant cut diamond, in a platinum and gold ring, with pear brilliant-cut diamonds of 1.12 and 1.11 carat, sold for $4m (high estimate $3.8m).
G7 countries are imposing fresh sanctions against Russia to try to further hinder its war effort in Ukraine. “If the sanctions continue, then there will be a lot of uncertainty in the employment of one million workers,” said Vipul Shah, chairman of Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC).
A Swiss company claims it has developed technology that chemically profiles any diamond so it can identify the country – and even the specific mine – of origin.
Spacecode says it analyzes diamonds at a molecular level to determine where it was mined, so it doesn’t matter whether the stone has been registered earlier in the supply chain.
The company has been in talks with the G7 and EU nations about the possibility of using its technology to identify Russian diamonds.
“Our research started 10 years ago, but over the past three years we have developed a specific technology that identifies the provenance of any diamond,” said Pavlo Protopapa the company’s CEO.
“We are the first ever to hold such unique technology, which is a major game changer all along the diamond supply chain.”
“We plan to produce by the end of this year our initial units. By 2024, we will offer on a large scale to the global diamond and jewelry industries, a small easy-to-use device that will define the country of origin of rough and polished diamonds.”
Protopapa added that “in meetings with the G7 and the EU representatives, we have received enthusiastic interest. Within months, we will deliver a small, easy-to-use device that will identify Angolan, Botswanan, South-African and of course, any Russian diamonds. We will leave it for the politicians to decide what to do with it”.
Spacecode’s breakthrough technology analyzes the chemical composition of a diamond on a molecular level, and with Artificial Intelligence tools, creates a “chemical profile” of the run of the mine of a specific diamond mine.
The technology identifies not only the country of origin, but even the specific mine in which it was mined.
Spacecode’s diamond inventory management technology already tracks more than 25 million stones. The company has a team of 15 engineers and specialists, and over 300 clients. Its technology could be adopted by the G7 and the EU to impose effective sanctions on both rough and polished diamonds from Russia.
It could also be used by the Kimberley Process and other organizations, to end, for example, the export of Angolan diamonds through other African countries.
Diamonds have long been revered for their beauty, rarity, and association with luxury. However, traditional diamond mining comes with ethical concerns and environmental impacts. In recent years, laboratory-grown diamonds have emerged as an alternative, marketed as a sustainable and eco-friendly choice. This article explores whether laboratory-grown diamonds truly live up to their claims of sustainability and environmental friendliness.
The Process of Laboratory-Grown Diamonds: Laboratory-grown diamonds, also known as synthetic or cultured diamonds, are created in controlled environments using advanced technology. They are produced through two primary methods: High-Pressure High-Temperature (HPHT) and Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD). Both methods involve replicating the natural conditions that cause diamond formation but in a shorter time frame.
Environmental Impact: a) Land Disruption: Traditional diamond mining often requires extensive land clearing and excavation, leading to habitat destruction and soil erosion. In contrast, laboratory-grown diamonds are produced in labs, eliminating the need for land disruption.
b) Energy Consumption: The production of laboratory-grown diamonds does require significant energy inputs, mainly in the form of electricity. However, advancements in technology have made the process more efficient, reducing energy requirements over time. Renewable energy sources can also be used to power these facilities, further minimizing their carbon footprint.
c) Water Usage: Traditional diamond mining can consume substantial amounts of water, contributing to local water scarcity and ecosystem degradation. Laboratory-grown diamond production generally requires significantly less water, making it a more environmentally friendly option.
d) Chemical Usage: While the production of laboratory-grown diamonds involves the use of chemicals, the industry is continually striving to reduce their environmental impact. Responsible manufacturers are working on developing greener chemical processes and minimizing the use of harmful substances.
Ethical Considerations: Traditional diamond mining has long been associated with human rights issues, including exploitative labor practices and conflicts (so-called “blood diamonds”). Laboratory-grown diamonds, on the other hand, offer a more transparent and traceable supply chain. Consumers can be confident that their diamonds are not contributing to human suffering or funding conflicts.
Long-Term Sustainability: a) Repurposing Waste: Laboratory-grown diamond production generates significantly less waste compared to mining. Additionally, by-products from the manufacturing process can be repurposed, further reducing the ecological impact.
b) Circular Economy: As laboratory-grown diamonds gain popularity, a potential future advantage lies in their ability to be recycled and repurposed. This aligns with the principles of a circular economy, where materials are reused rather than discarded.
Conclusion:
Laboratory-grown diamonds offer an alternative to traditional diamond mining that addresses many of the ethical and environmental concerns associated with the industry. While there are energy and chemical inputs involved, the overall impact is significantly reduced compared to mining. Furthermore, the transparency and traceability of laboratory-grown diamonds provide assurance to consumers seeking an ethical and sustainable choice.
As with any industry, continuous improvements are needed to enhance the sustainability of laboratory-grown diamond production. Manufacturers should prioritize the use of renewable energy, minimize chemical usage, and explore recycling options. By doing so, laboratory-grown diamonds can truly become a more sustainable and eco-friendly option, offering consumers the beauty and luxury they desire without compromising the environment or human rights.
Western countries’ attempts to interfere with Russian diamond exports may lead to disruption of supply chains, which runs counter to the interests of the industry as a whole, Dmitry Birichevsky, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s economic cooperation department, told Sputnik.
“It is clear that the restrictive measures that are being developed, whatever they may be, risk disrupting established supply chains and thus inimical to the interests of the diamond industry as a whole. In this regard, Westerners are trying to provide a plausible pretext for their irresponsible actions, including on various international platforms,” Birichevsky said.
Russia is one of the largest diamond industry players, accounting for 30% of world production, the official noted.
“At the same time, Russian manufacturers are exceptionally responsible market participants, whose activities not only meet, but often exceed international standards and are in many ways a model for others,” Birichevsky said.
He noted that opponents should be aware that any attempts to prevent Russian diamond exports are non-market oriented.
“For our part, we consistently counter attempts to deliberately distort the foundations and principles of the relevant multilateral formats that determine the functioning of the global diamond market. It is encouraging that a vast majority of industry representatives share our approaches,” Birichevsky added.
Earlier this month, top US and European Commission officials met with diamond industry leaders to discuss ways to cut-off billions in revenue to Russia.
In February, the Group of Seven (G7) countries agreed to further sanction the Russian diamond industry in an attempt to slash Russian revenues amid Moscow’s special military operation in Ukraine. The G7 said in a joint statement that they would engage key partners on further measures on Russian diamonds, including rough and polished ones.
On Saturday, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said he expected the European Union’s 11th package of sanctions to target Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and Russian diamonds.
Diamonds have long been a symbol of love, luxury, and status. However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest in the production of laboratory-grown diamonds as a more ethical and sustainable alternative to mined diamonds. In this article, we will explore the differences between a mined diamond and a laboratory-grown diamond.
Mined Diamonds:
Mined diamonds are formed naturally over millions of years deep beneath the earth’s surface. These diamonds are found in mines, usually in remote locations, and are extracted using heavy machinery and explosives. The mining process is often associated with negative environmental and social impacts, such as habitat destruction, water pollution, and exploitation of workers.
Mined diamonds are valued for their rarity and unique characteristics. The quality of a diamond is determined by the 4Cs – cut, clarity, carat weight, and colour. The more perfect a diamond is in each of these categories, the more valuable it is considered to be.
Laboratory-grown Diamonds:
Laboratory-grown diamonds are created using advanced technological processes that mimic the natural formation of diamonds. These diamonds are produced in a laboratory environment, where conditions are controlled and monitored to ensure consistent quality and purity.
The process of creating a laboratory-grown diamond involves using a small diamond seed, which is placed in a chamber and exposed to extreme heat and pressure. Over a period of weeks, carbon atoms are deposited onto the seed, gradually building up the crystal structure of the diamond.
The resulting laboratory-grown diamond is physically and chemically identical to a mined diamond, and can be graded using the same 4Cs criteria.
Differences between Mined Diamonds and Laboratory-grown Diamonds:
Mined diamonds and laboratory-grown diamonds have very similar chemical properties, as they are both made of pure carbon atoms arranged in a crystalline structure. However, there are some subtle differences in the impurities and defects that can be present in each type of diamond.
Mined diamonds can contain trace elements such as nitrogen, boron, and hydrogen, which can affect the diamond’s colour and other properties. Laboratory-grown diamonds can also contain these impurities, but they can be controlled more precisely during the growth process to produce diamonds with specific colours and properties.
One key difference between mined and laboratory-grown diamonds is the presence of defects in the crystal structure. Mined diamonds can contain defects such as vacancies, dislocations, and impurity atoms, which can affect the diamond’s hardness and other physical properties. Laboratory-grown diamonds are typically more pure and have fewer defects, which can make them more consistent in their properties and easier to work with for industrial and scientific applications.
In terms of their chemical composition, both mined and laboratory-grown diamonds are made of pure carbon, with each carbon atom bonded to four neighboring carbon atoms in a tetrahedral arrangement. This gives diamonds their unique hardness and other physical properties, as well as their optical properties such as high refractive index and dispersion.
Overall, while there are some subtle differences in the impurities and defects that can be present in mined and laboratory-grown diamonds, they are both essentially the same material in terms of their chemical properties.
One of the key differences between mined diamonds and laboratory-grown diamonds is their origin. Mined diamonds are natural, formed over millions of years in the earth’s mantle. Laboratory-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are created using advanced technological processes in a laboratory.
Another difference is the environmental and social impact of the two types of diamonds. Mined diamonds are often associated with negative environmental and social impacts, such as habitat destruction, water pollution, and exploitation of workers. Laboratory-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are generally considered to be more sustainable and ethical, as they do not involve the same level of environmental destruction or human exploitation.
Finally, there is a difference in price between mined diamonds and laboratory-grown diamonds. Mined diamonds are generally more expensive, due to their rarity and the high costs associated with mining and extraction. Laboratory-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are often less expensive, as they can be produced in larger quantities and do not require the same level of mining and extraction.
Conclusion:
Mined diamonds and laboratory-grown diamonds both have their pros and cons. While mined diamonds are valued for their rarity and unique characteristics, they are often associated with negative environmental and social impacts. Laboratory-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are more sustainable and ethical, but may be less valuable due to their artificial origin. Ultimately, the choice between a mined diamond and a laboratory-grown diamond comes down to personal values and priorities.
G7 countries could oblige companies to affirm that their imported polished diamonds are not of Russian provenance, according to the US’s top sanctions official.
Leaders of the bloc will meet at a summit in mid-May and are looking to have a plan in place by then, according to a member alert the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC) released Tuesday summarizing remarks by Ambassador James O’Brien, who heads the US’s Office of Sanctions Coordination.
“There could be a required declaration that finished diamonds imported to the US and other G7 markets were not originally mined in Russia or other kinds of restrictions that apply to polished diamonds,” O’Brien said, according to the note. “The aim is to ensure this is phased in at a time and flow that will accommodate the work of the industry.”
O’Brien made his comments at last week’s annual JVC luncheon, where he was the guest speaker. The summary contained a mix of direct and paraphrased quotes, wrote JVC president and general counsel Tiffany Stevens.
The G7 includes the US, as well as Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK. The European Union is known as its “eighth member.”
Alrosa, in which the Kremlin holds a stake, “is deeply rooted to the power structure within Russia, and our government wants to make sure its revenue is not available for them to raid,” O’Brien explained. The state is seeking sources of funds to keep the war in Ukraine going, he added.
Important issues to tackle include how long to wait for Russian diamonds that are currently in the market to exit the system, the sizes of stones to which sanctions would apply, and how enforcement will work, the ambassador pointed out. “Having thoughts on these questions that can contribute to a framework in time for the mid-May meeting is a goal of the US government,” he said.
He also said that the US wanted to make sure Burma — also known as Myanmar — didn’t help Russia. The Asian country has been subject to various US sanctions since a military takeover in 2021.
“Russia is going to its allies and asking them to give back military equipment,” the official said, according to the JVC summary. “Burma supports Russia, so the government also wants to make sure Burma is restricted in its sources of revenue, so it doesn’t help Russia as well. This includes ensuring the regime does not earn money from the sale of rubies and other gemstones.”
HRD Antwerp has sued its former Turkish partner company following allegations the Belgian laboratory had routinely “upgraded” diamonds.
The organization is in a dispute with Enstitü Istanbul Bilim Akademisi Yönetim Danışmanlığı, with which it ended a longstanding collaboration in 2021.
The messy divorce intensified last week when the Belgian press reported allegations that HRD, in 2020, had introduced a strategy of giving diamonds higher grades than other laboratories. On Wednesday, HRD said it had taken legal action against its former partners in Turkey for “damaging its business reputation.”
Belgian lawsuit
The disagreement revolves around a civil lawsuit that Enstitü Istanbul Bilim Akademisi Yönetim Danışmanlığı filed in late 2021 against HRD at an Antwerp court, according to a March 9 report by Belgian newspaper De Tijd. Investigators have also been looking into whether there was anything suspicious about the HRD’s grading methods, the report added.
Nearly six years ago, according to De Tijd, the International Diamond Council (IDC) — which the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB) set up in the 1970s to unify diamond grading around the world — excluded HRD from its membership. In a letter to HRD’s then CEO Michel Janssens, IDC president Harry Levy wrote that it was “no longer the case” that HRD graded according to IDC rules, the newspaper reported.
By then, HRD was in a bad financial state, according to leaked internal slides that the newspaper cited. This was still the case in 2020, when another leaked document read: “With current results, HRD is out of business,” the Dutch-language report said.
In a new strategy, HRD determined that stones that already had Gemological Institute of America (GIA) reports were allowed to receive one or two color “upgrades” or one clarity “upgrade,” the report alleged. The lab was not to downgrade the diamonds unless there had been a genuine mistake, the report continued. Stones from IGI were not allowed to receive an upgrade, it said. The paper cited an internal online meeting in which Mike Davey, then director of HRD Antwerp Istanbul, shot down the policy as a “way to commit market fraud.”
In the same meeting, HRD Istanbul owner Mehmet Can Özdemir said, according to the report: “Valuing diamonds involves a certain amount of subjectivity. If things are really tight, graders can go higher or lower. But that is never about one full degree. In our scenario, we immediately jump up two.”
HRD performed an audit of its standards following the allegations and found no irregularities, its CEO, Ellen Joncheere, told Rapaport News Wednesday.
“We are in fact a bit more lenient [than the GIA] on color but stricter on cut and fluorescence, but this is known by the market,” Joncheere said.
Trademark disagreement
On Wednesday, HRD also responded with allegations that Özdemir had “made shady deals” and had used HRD’s power and reputation unfairly.
“One of the main reasons for the termination [of the partnership] was that the partners holding the management of the company did not transfer the trademark ‘HRD,’ which was unfairly registered in the name of HRD Istanbul, to the clients [HRD Antwerp], despite their previous commitments,” said Tuncay Çaltekin, HRD Antwerp’s attorney, in a statement Wednesday.
The partners also placed liens on the HRD trademark through other companies owned by their family members and transferred HRD’s assets into those companies, Çaltekin alleged. “In other words, they committed irregularities contrary to the agreement,” he claimed.
Meanwhile, Joncheere gave an interview to Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws (HLN), published Wednesday, in which she alleged there had been “tax and financial fraud” at the Turkish counterpart.
Özdemir dismissed the CEO’s claims as “pathetic, dishonest and desperate.”
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is another defining moment for the diamond industry.
On March 11, the US government banned imports of Russian diamonds. The sanctions extend to rough from Russia and stones cut and polished in the country. They do not include goods that were mined in Russia and polished elsewhere, which accounts for most of Russian supply.
The more extreme scenario would have been a ban on all Russian-origin diamonds, regardless of where they are manufactured. Such a move may still happen, the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC) warned, which would cut off an estimated 28% of global resources. That polished from Russian rough can still legally be imported to the US presents the industry with a lifeline — or loophole — preventing that consequence.
Many have understandably been calling for a blanket boycott of all Russian diamonds, or to label them as conflict or blood diamonds. After all, Alrosa — the world’s largest rough producer by volume, which accounts for most of Russian production — is 33% owned by the Russian government, which initiated the war.
However, according to the classic definition, these goods cannot be labeled as conflict diamonds as they are not funding a rebel movement engaged in civil war. They’re also not stained by torture or human-rights violations carried out at a mine site.
For now, the diamonds are simply sanctioned in the US. But the crisis certainly constitutes an ethical dilemma for the industry.
It therefore highlights the industry’s traceability efforts over the past few years, and the importance of being able to track a diamond through all stages of its journey from mine to market. The programs try to begin with the mine or country where the rough is recovered, whereas the sanctions account for “substantial transformation,” meaning that the source becomes the location at which the diamond changes its form from rough to polished.
Traceability challenges
While blockchain technology has enabled an easier tracking of transactions between various stages of the pipeline, no system is foolproof.
De Beers, the Gemological Institute of America (GIA), and Sarine Technologies are among the major players that have developed programs — as is Alrosa. Last year, the Russian miner introduced its provenance program to trace its production using nanotechnology. To its credit, Alrosa has arguably been most open to the idea of advanced diamond-tracking, providing rough for both the GIA and Sarine programs, and joining De Beers’ Tracr platform in its initial stages.
The fragmented nature of the industry effort is arguably necessary as it allows for better branding opportunities, at least in De Beers’ case. A centralized traceability platform, which was Tracr’s original goal, would also create logistical and trust issues regarding who has access to data, among other obstacles.
But the existing programs are in their beginning stages and have their own shortcomings.
The most famous challenge comes from De Beers since the company aggregates, or mixes, production from its various mines in Botswana, Canada, Namibia and South Africa. So, when sightholders want to disclose the provenance of their De Beers diamond, they must reference DTC, the miner’s program that assures those diamonds were responsibly sourced in one of its four host countries. Notably, one cannot market that production as De Beers diamonds due to complications related to the company’s retail brand. De Beers also has its Code of Origin program, launched last year, in which it inscribes diamonds of participating sightholders with a code that identifies it as ethically mined by De Beers.
Aggregation therefore presents a stumbling block for a retailer that wants to give specifics about the mine or country in which the diamond was recovered.
The GIA faces a similar challenge with its Diamond Origin Reports. Its program receives data from the lab’s own analysis of rough before it is polished. The owner of the rough — be it a participating miner, manufacturer, dealer or tender house — sends the stones to the institute, which relies on the supplier’s disclosure of origin. The GIA’s analysis then allows the resulting polished to be matched with its source when it is graded.
That’s fine if a miner directly sends the goods to the GIA. But what happens when the diamonds have multiple sources? For example, a sightholder or tender house might buy De Beers goods and mix them with supply from other miners, and then send the parcel for analysis. In that case, the stones have multiple sources. As a result, the GIA report has been known to list up to seven possible origins of a polished stone in its report.
Sarine claims to have solved the problem by working only with miners willing to scan the diamond into its system at the mine site, thus enabling it to trace its journey from the start.
Demand driven
Sarine also asserts that it is approaching the challenge from a demand angle rather than a supply one, arguably in contrast to the other programs. It is working with retailers to build their sustainability programs from the bottom up. So, if a jeweler such as Boucheron, which announced its partnership with Sarine in January, requires a certain amount of traceable inventory for a collection, Sarine can point to its channels that extend back to the mine.
Of course, each traceability provider has different considerations, and offers different added value. De Beers and the GIA are relying on their powerful brands to provide assurances on supply.
But it does raise the question of what is driving the market for responsibly sourced goods. If it is demand, as Sarine claims it should be, the market is still in its infancy, growing at a gradual pace. The Russia crisis may have given demand for traceable goods an unexpected boost.
After all, the US sanctions are limited, leaving jewelers and dealers to decide whether they’re willing to buy polished diamonds that came from Russian rough but were cut elsewhere. It is up to the trade to empower them to make confident choices with robust and clear traceability programs.
Some US jewelers have already made their positions clear. Immediately after the invasion, Brilliant Earth announced on Twitter it had removed all diamonds of Russian origin from its site. If more follow suit, as one might expect the longer the war continues, retail demand for origin disclosure will increase. The supply-chain dynamic will also shift.
Sales continue
The sanctions do not prevent Alrosa from selling its diamonds. The bigger concern for its rough buyers relates to paying for the goods, since the Russian banking system was taken off the international transfer system, Swift. But an Alrosa auction took place last week, and goods were paid for via banks in Italy and the United Arab Emirates, market sources confirmed.
The result, therefore, is not cutting off nearly 30% of global supply, as many feared. That would create shortages in the market and drive rough prices up even further. Rather, if more US jewelers refuse Russian-origin goods, manufacturers will need to change their operations accordingly. They would need to divert those goods to centers and clients willing to buy them and keep the remaining diamonds for those implementing their own ethical ban. It would bifurcate the market, but the net effect on supply would probably be zero in the long run.
The retail quandary
The bigger test falls on retail jewelers whose programs rely on the high volume of diamonds that Alrosa provides.
Signet Jewelers, for example, is said to be the largest buyer of piqué (I2- to I3-clarity) diamonds in the market, requiring consistent stock for collections that go in display cabinets across its approximately 2,800 stores. It is unlikely to fill its requirements without Russian goods.
While Signet said it had suspended business interactions with Russian-owned entities since the start of the invasion — including Alrosa, of which it is a contracted client — the jeweler did not clarify whether it still sources polished from manufacturers whose rough comes from Russia.
A Signet spokesperson instead referred to the company’s Responsible Sourcing Protocol, which points to direct supply of rough, urging buyers to insist on disclosures further along the distribution chain. It seems the protocols would consider the source of the polished diamond to be Russian, regardless of where it was polished — as all industry traceability programs do.
Signet also encourages its suppliers only to do business with members of the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC), to which Alrosa still belongs, even though the miner resigned from the board. A revocation of Alrosa’s RJC membership, as some are calling for, would add another layer to its considerations, along with the rest of the industry’s.
Tiffany & Co. also has a decision to make. In 2019, it started disclosing the region of origin for all its engagement rings. It still lists on its website that most of its rough diamonds come from five countries — Botswana, Canada, Namibia, Russia and South Africa; in other words, De Beers and Alrosa, from whom its manufacturing unit buys. The jeweler faces the same dilemma as Signet for goods that are not polished in-house. Tiffany did not respond to this column’s request for clarification on its policy. Parent company LVMH has reportedly closed all of its retail operations in Russia.
The brands are left in a quandary. They need the supply, but cannot risk being called out on their environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials. The potential backlash of being found out to be sourcing Russian-origin diamonds increases with the intensity of the fighting in Ukraine — especially if they remain cagey about their polished sourcing.
Inflection point
Of course, there are many more factors to consider: not least that Russian diamonds enable hundreds of thousands of jobs in India and elsewhere. That presents an ethical question to those calling for a blanket ban. Russian diamonds are part of an ecosystem upon which diamantaires and jewelers rely for their livelihood around the world — including in the US. Less supply to Signet could easily translate to lower sales, which affects all of its stakeholders, including employees. Then again, so would a consumer backlash.
The current crisis is an inflection point for the industry’s responsible-sourcing drive. It may even push the industry to stress the source of transformation over origin — as the US government has done. Maybe that needs to be debated.
Furthermore, it may push the industry to be more nuanced in its approach. For all the excellent work that has been done to bring the industry up to par on sustainability and responsible sourcing, perhaps it gets too bogged down in the technicalities of its due-diligence standards. As Brad Brooks-Rubin, the outspoken US adviser to the RJC and a former US State Department representative at the Kimberley Process, wrote in a blog post on LinkedIn, consumers will understand the dilemma if business leaders are honest.
It is indeed better to be forthright about one’s decision-making. It’s OK to disclose the dilemma. Consumers even appreciate the option to make their own choice, as Brooks-Rubin asserts. Transparency is good. The lack of clarity that is clouding the industry’s approach to Russian-origin goods will only create further uncertainty within the trade that will spill over to consumer confidence. That’s a crisis the industry can ill afford.
