Global Witness and Amnesty International have surveyed top retailers’ policies on combatting Conflict Diamonds. In the aftermath of the butchering of men, women and children that literally went on in Sierra Leone, many retailers have felt the need to place a “conflict-free diamonds” badge on their site to re-assure the public that the Diamonds they are buying has not caused suffering to human beings.

Whether this is effective is debatable. But before we get to the question of the effectiveness and the meaning of the pledge, let’s take a look at how widely the pledge is implemented.

The industry is saying that Conflict Diamonds represent 1% of total diamond sales. So you would think that retailers’ are serious about pledging not to deal in Conflict Diamonds.

What percentage of the major retailers do you think are ensuring their goods are conflict free? You will soon find out. The raw statistics are in the survey, but let’s look at it in more detail. And if you buy from a firm who isn’t doing enough in your eyes, don’t be shy about expressing your feelings.

Among other things, the survey breaks down:

1. Written response to GW/AI received from the company management?
2. Does the company in its letter to GW/AI outline adoption of the system of warranties?
3. Does the company in its letter to GW/AI outline auditing and other measures taken to combat conflict diamonds?
4. Is a policy on conflict diamond described on the company’s website?

I’ve researched the websites of the companies listed. Here are the url’s where each company mentioned in the survey outlines their policy on Blood/Conflict Diamonds:

1. Walmart
2. Signet: Kay/Jared/H. Samuel PDF (internal & 3rd party auditing, & extensive documentation provided)
3. Zales
4. QVC (although report says there is one online, I couldn’t find it)
5. JC Penney
6. Tiffany (”mine of origin” for rough diamonds and “chain of custody”)
7. Sears
8. Finlay (to be fair, their online presence seems limited to corporate news, not selling Jewelry)
9. Helzberg (internal & 3rd party auditing, dedicated Kimberly Process officer)
   
10. Fred Meyer: Littman
11. Costco
12. Home Shopping Network
13. Target
14. ShopNBC
15. Jewelry Television (although report says there is one online, I couldn’t find it)
16. Neiman Marcus
17. Macy’s East
18. Macy’s West
    
19. Whitehall Jewelers (although report says there is one online, I couldn’t find it)
20. Friedman’s: Crescent Jewelers
21. Ross-Simons
22. Tourneau
23. Ben Bridge
24. Blue Nile
25. Kohl’s
26. KMart
27. Saks Fifth Avenue
28. Fortunoff
29. Meijer
30. Birks and Mayors PDF
31. Goldenwest Diamond Corp (i.e. The Jewelry Exchange)
32. Mervyn’s
33. TJMaxx
34. Army/Air Force
35. Reeds Jewelers
36. Samuels Jewelers
37. Hannoush Jewelers.

Of the retailers surveyed, more than half, 19 of the 37, couldn’t be bothered to even respond to the survey. Those 19 retailers have total yearly sales of $5,466,000,000. Yes, that’s right. 5½ BILLION DOLLARS a year.

Of the retailers surveyed, how many are missing an online conflict diamond policy? I’m going by my count above, not the PDF file of Global Witness. 23 of 37. I’m pretty cynical, but that figure surprised even me.

You can quibble with a couple of these figures. Macy’s East and Macy’s West were surveyed as separate companies. Finlay doesn’t have an online presence. I wasn’t sure where to look for the Army/Air Force store. But overall, too many of these companies aren’t even trying.

The one pure play e-tailer on the list did not respond to the survey. You would expect Internet companies to be very strong on the issue. They can’t show customers actual merchandise. People research online companies more. Image is everything. But the reason a purely Internet retailer cannot have a strong guarantee is that they don’t actually see the merchandise they sell. When you have 60,000 diamonds listed from hundreds or a couple thousand suppliers, how can you really guarantee anything?

Realistically speaking, even if all the companies were following the Kimberly Process, does the process have any teeth? Personally I doubt it. The participating countries are required to provide a certificate that the diamonds exported are conflict-free. If people are willing to cut off their own people’s limbs for money, do you really think it will be hard to get them to supply blank authentic certificates to smugglers who need them in order to market conflict goods?

Which retailer is going to send someone to Africa to check out the operation? None. And even if they did send someone, where would they go? What would they be able to prove? Nothing.

What is far more effective is the fear that diamonds being associated with blood kills sales. The industry can stop tribal warfare. And they will do so when the industry is under threat.

Does it matter that half the top retailers don’t have a conflict diamond policy? Yes and no. No, because all these certifications mean little. But yes, because if they are making sales of over 5 Billion without any assurance to you that the diamond you bought to symbolize love hasn’t killed anyone, that means you the consumer has not done enough to show that you care about this issue. For me, it’s a reflection of public concern more than anything else.

So please, go out there and ask questions.

Like why DiamondFacts.org is trying to make it sound like Africa depends on Diamonds for their livelihood, that the presence of Diamonds has been a net positive to the poor peoples of Africa. And yet one region in Sierra Leone, called Kono, has provided Billions of Dollars in Diamonds, yet to this day, after the Blood Diamonds movie has been released, with all the world attention on Blood Diamonds in Sierra Leone, there is little water, or electricity, and the Internet connection for the whole country goes down for two days and no one in the West even notices these things.