The discovery of the Kimberley diamond fields of South Africa in 1871, [1] named after an English earl, marked the shift from artisanal digging to industrial-scale mining. Indigenous communities were dispossessed of their land, forced into low-wage labour, and diamonds suddenly flooded global markets. Seizing the opportunity, Cecil John Rhodes consolidated these now white-owned mines into the De Beers Company, which grew into a near-global monopoly, controlling up to 90% of the diamond trade by the late 1980s. [2] Today, De Beers is the world’s second-largest diamond company, holding an estimated 26% of global diamond mining. The largest is PJSC Alrosa - a partially state-owned Russian company. [3]
Since those early discoveries, the diamond trade has fueled violence and human rights abuses in numerous conflicts. A century later, the very system meant to address this legacy—the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), an international certification designed to prevent “conflict diamonds” from entering the global supply chain by verifying the diamond’s origin is not in one of their “blacklisted” zones—has become the industry’s perfect cover story. Established in 2003 by the United Nations, the Kimberley Process was hailed as the solution to “conflict diamonds.” In reality, it entrenched the same opaque practices and racial injustices under the guise of reform.
Why “Conflict-Free” Diamonds Aren’t What They Seem
The Two Fatal Flaws
The Kimberley Process has two major problems:
-
A narrow definition. It only bans “conflict diamonds,” defined as stones funding rebel movements against legitimate governments. It says nothing about diamonds linked to human rights abuses, child labour, environmental devastation, or governments brutalising their own people. By this definition, Zimbabwe’s blood-soaked Marange diamonds were certified as “conflict-free” in 2011, despite reports of torture, mass killings, and looting which financed Mugabe’s brutal military dictatorship. [4]
- No real traceability. The Process certifies batches of rough (uncut) diamonds, not individual stones. Once cut, polished, and shipped globally, the trail goes cold. Add in forged Kimberley certificates, and a thriving black market (estimated at up to 30% of global trade), and the system unravels. [5]
The impacts, both social and environmental, vary hugely from mine to mine.
A Convenient Narrative for Big Mining
De Beers didn’t create the Kimberley Process, but it played a central role in shaping it. [6] The company rebranded itself as a crusader for “conflict-free” diamonds while quietly sidelining small-scale miners. The narrative shifted to one where only diamonds from large, industrial mines under corporate control could be trusted.
Had the Kimberley Process been built on truth, reconciliation, and restitution, those profiting from blood diamonds would have faced their victims—miners with amputated limbs in Sierra Leone or families terrorised in Zimbabwe. [7] Instead, the voices of diggers and displaced communities were silenced while industry leaders and governments protected their interests.
“Conflict-Free” vs. “Non-Blood Diamonds”
Most consumers assume the two terms are interchangeable. However, they are far from it. “Conflict-free” only means Kimberley-Process compliant. “Blood diamonds,” as defined by campaigners like Seán Clinton, include any stones linked to war crimes, human rights abuses, or corruption—far beyond Kimberley’s narrow scope. [8]
Global Witness and IMPACT, two NGOs that helped create the system, have since walked away. As Joanne Lebert of IMPACT put it in 2018: “Consumers have been given a false confidence about where their diamonds come from.” [9]
The Way Forward
Kimberley Process Certification cannot be the point at which we wash our hands of the issue. It is, at best, a flawed starting point. What’s missing is the diamond equivalent of Fairtrade/Fairmined Gold: independently accredited schemes that centre communities, guarantee fair labour and environmental restoration, and provide full traceability.
Until that exists, the most powerful action consumers can take is deceptively simple: ask your jeweller which mine the diamond came from. If they can’t answer, the stone’s “conflict-free” label means little.
The truth is this: there are no truly “ethical” diamonds under the Kimberley Process. Only transparency, accountability, and community-led certification can begin to break the cycle of exploitation that started in Kimberley more than a century ago.
Note: The Kimberly Process was established for mined, rough diamonds. Lab-grown diamonds are not included in the certification scheme.
References:
[1] https://www.southafrica.net/gl/en/travel/article/the-diamond-fields-of-the-northern-cape
[3] https://rapaport.com/analysis/whats-next-for-de-beers/
[4] https://www.fairplanet.org/story/the-unending-curse-of-zimbabwes-marange-diamonds/
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/diamonds-blood-kimberley-process-mines-ethical
[6] https://www.environmentalpeacebuilding.org/assets/documents/3342d549e0b4.pdf?
[7][8][9] https://www.reflectivejewelry.com/news/ethical-jewelry-expose-kimberley-process-damn-lies?