By Udi Sheintal
President
CIBJO Diamond Commission
Jean-Pierre Chalain
Vice President
CIBJO Diamond Commission
SEPTEMBER 11, 2025
Our industry is currently undergoing a period of significant transition. Amidst declining consumer demand for natural diamonds, falling prices and reduced production, the business finds itself at a crossroads.
In response, many stakeholders are seeking to re-establish clearer boundaries between natural diamonds and synthetic diamonds — a move that I believe is essential to restoring consumer confidence and ensuring the long-term integrity of the natural diamond market.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is now evident that some of our well-intentioned decisions in the past have had unintended consequences. I refer specifically to the joint decision made years ago by CIBJO, the International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA) and the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB).
It was at the CIBJO Congress in Munich, Germany, in 2010 that a resolution was proposed by the Diamond Commission, and consequently approved by the CIBJO Board of Directors, which stated that “In the best interest of consumer protection and industry harmonisation, CIBJO accepts the terms ‘laboratory-grown’ diamond, ‘laboratory-created’ diamond and ‘synthetic’ diamond to describe non-natural diamond.” There were certainly misgivings then, particularly among our European members, but the majority opinion was that CIBJO should come in in line with the position adopted earlier by other major industry groups.
But it was more than that. At the time, we believed we were acknowledging a commercial reality and extending a constructive hand to a new segment of the industry. Our intention was to integrate synthetic diamond producers into our structured framework — much like the successful coexistence we have seen within CIBJO between the natural and synthetic coloured gemstone sectors. We hoped for a spirit of cooperation, with shared standards, ethics and transparency.
A fundamentally flawed practice
Unfortunately, that cooperation did not materialise as we had envisioned.
Many in the synthetic diamond sector — along with some grading laboratories and major retail chains — took advantage of our inclusive approach to advance their commercial interests, often at the expense of the natural diamond industry’s reputation and market share. Most laboratories quickly began applying the 4Cs grading system, originally developed for natural diamonds, to synthetic stones.
Grading in this manner is a practice that I believe is fundamentally flawed and misleading. A natural diamond’s grade is ultimately the result of random geological processes, with the rough stone having formed without any human intervention. Synthetic diamonds, on the other hand, are produced under tightly managed conditions. The features of a man-made stone can be predetermined, and ensured through strict quality control in the factory.
Indeed, on occasion, the presence in synthetic diamonds of inclusions or other characteristics that typically are examined for when grading natural stones can be the result of intentional engineering — often to imitate natural imperfections. This is why I strongly feel that the 4Cs, which reflect the geological rarity and complexity of natural diamonds, are inappropriate for synthetic products.
In addition, the marketing narrative around synthetic diamonds has been aggressively shaped to position them as the more ethical, sustainable, and conflict-free choice, almost always without substantiation — implying that there is doubt about the values and origins of natural diamonds. This messaging has caused lasting damage to the natural diamond sector and has misled many well-meaning consumers.
Revisting the Diamond Blue Book
Even today, there are those within our industry who hesitate to confront this issue directly. But if we are to uphold CIBJO’s core mission — safeguarding consumer trust and maintaining the integrity of our industry — then now is the time to act.
I therefore respectfully propose the following considerations for this upcoming congress:
- Revisit and revise the Diamond Blue Book and the relevant ISO Standards, removing the terms “laboratory-grown” and “laboratory-created” as synonyms for “synthetic.” A synthetic diamond should be labelled clearly and consistently as such — just as we do with synthetic emeralds, sapphires, and rubies.
- Restrict use of the 4Cs grading system exclusively to natural diamonds. Synthetic diamonds, given their industrial origin, should be subject to a separate grading methodology that reflects their nature as man-made products. This approach has recently been adopted by the Gemological Institute of America (GIA), which announced on August 26 that it would begin using descriptive terms more appropriate for describing the quality of synthetic diamonds, because “most fall into a very narrow range of color and clarity.”
- Enhance consumer transparency by requiring that all descriptions and marketing of synthetic diamonds reflect the reality of their origin: they are not grown or created in a “laboratory,” but rather are manufactured in industrial facilities through artificial processes. I would suggest that the preferred term “laboratory grown” was always euphemistic, imparting a sense of scientific mysticism.
As we prepare to mark the centenary of CIBJO — 100 years dedicated to protecting consumer confidence — I believe it is both timely and necessary to reflect on our past decisions, acknowledging where we may have erred, and take decisive steps toward a more transparent and responsible future.
The Diamond Commission stands ready to support this important discussion, and work collaboratively toward meaningful reform that reflects our shared values and the evolving needs of our industry.
Taxing diamond imports
The imposition by the government of the United States of punitive tariffs on rough and polished diamonds is already reshaping the contours of the American consumer environment and the global diamond trade. This is not surprising, for the country is home to the world’s largest market for diamond jewellery.
There is a particular focus on goods originating from India. It’s a policy shift that demands our careful attention and a coordinated response.
Starting earlier this year, the U.S. government implemented a series of escalating tariffs on diamond imports. Beginning with a 10 percent baseline, duties on Indian-origin rough and polished diamonds were raised to 25 percent and, most recently, to 50 percent, as of late August 2025.
While legal challenges are ongoing in U.S. courts, the tariffs remain in effect pending appeal, creating profound uncertainty for suppliers, traders and retailers alike.
India, which holds an estimated 90 percent share of the world’s polished diamond manufacturing capacity, has been disproportionately affected. Export volumes to the United States have dropped sharply, and there have reportedly been significant job losses in key hubs such as Surat. Analysts forecast that the country’s diamond polishing industry may see its revenues contract by nearly a third this year.
Other diamond processing countries, in which a substantial transformation of the diamonds occurs, thus rendering them countries of origin according to U.S. customs standards, have also been subject to tariffs. While theirs are lower than India’s, their exports are also being impacted.
Indeed, the disruption brought on by the tariff policy is reverberating through the entire global value chain, as supply to the United States, traditionally the industry’s most robust retail destination, has tightened. Rough diamond demand has weakened as manufacturing output slows, and many smaller traders and family-owned firms face existential pressure.
Industry concerned, but sees opportunities as well
The immediate effect for American retailers and consumers has been rising prices. Effectively the tariff is a consumption tax, which has increased the end-cost of diamonds, particularly in the mid- to higher-value segment. Retailers report concerns about the upcoming holiday season, with many anticipating weaker sales.
At the same time, there are opportunities emerging. For certain categories, the higher cost may reinforce the perception of natural diamonds as rare and precious, creating a counter-narrative that could differentiate them from laboratory-grown alternatives. However, this dynamic will not offset the broader contraction in affordability and demand.
Despite these challenges, the industry is demonstrating resilience:
- Market Diversification: Indian exporters and other trading centres are exploring alternative consumer markets, including China, the Middle East and Europe. Early signs indicate rising demand in these regions.
- Domestic Demand Growth: India’s internal market for diamond jewellery continues to expand, providing some cushion for manufacturers.
- Global Advocacy: The Word Diamond Council, along with CIBJO, IDMA and WFDB, as well as other industry partners, are intensifying engagements with policymakers to highlight the disproportionate and unintended consequences of these tariffs on employment, consumer choice and trade fairness.
The road ahead
The tariff issue will remain fluid in the coming months.
Court rulings in the United States, legislative initiatives in Congress such as the proposed Trade Review Act, and diplomatic discussions between Washington and New Delhi may alter the trajectory.
In early September, a new Annex III was added to the U.S. President’s Executive Order concerning tariffs. Unlike Annex II, which listed critical minerals and their derivatives that would be exempt from tariffs under any circumstances, Annex III lists minerals that may be eligible for exemptions or modifications to the tariffs, in accordance with bilateral trade agreements and other factors. Among the minerals listed in Annex III, which is titled “Potential Tariff Adjustments for Aligned Partners Annex,” are loose natural diamonds (HS Codes 7102.10; 7102.31 and 7102.39) and natural gemstones (HS Codes 7103.10.20; 7103.40; 7103.91.00; 7103.99.10 and 7103.99.50). India had not concluded a new bilateral trade agreement with the United States at the time of preparing this report, but discussions are ongoing.
In the meantime, thus, volatility will continue to characterize the marketplace.
But, during these moments of uncertainty, it is vital that the international diamond and jewellery community speaks with a united voice. Our industry has always been global by nature, and actions taken unilaterally in one country reverberate across continents.
I urge all members to remain engaged with the monitoring and advocacy efforts being led by WDC, to share information from their respective markets, and to contribute actively to shaping a collective response.
Together, we must ensure that our trade remains fair, transparent, and sustainable, and that consumers in all markets continue to enjoy access to the beauty and symbolism of diamonds.
CIBJO CONGRESS 2025 HOST
CIBJO CONGRESS 2025 SPONSORS
PRIME SPONSORS
TIER 1 SPONSORS
TIER 2 SPONSORS
