Editor’s Note
This article explores the paradox of synthetic diamonds, which are gemologically identical to natural stones but face market resistance. It highlights that the sustainability debate extends beyond environmental claims to broader economic and social factors, as discussed in a recent EHL roundtable.
Perfectly similar from a gemological standpoint to its natural counterpart, the synthetic diamond struggles to attract buyers, despite its presumably lower ecological footprint. However, the question of sustainability is more comprehensive, as recently demonstrated during a roundtable discussion at the Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne (EHL).
Symbols of eternal love, diamonds often come under fire for criticism. Notably for their origin from conflict zones, but also due to the environmental impact linked to their extraction. Science, however, allows for the creation of diamonds in laboratories that are perfectly similar to their natural counterparts from a gemological perspective. They are called lab-grown diamonds. For now, they are shunned by major jewelry houses, but some brands are successfully entering the market.
The most well-known method for creating a diamond in a laboratory is HPHT (High Pressure, High Temperature). It involves subjecting graphite (composed of pure carbon) to intense heat and pressure. This method most closely resembles the natural diamond production process. This leads Charlotte Daehn, a member of the board of the International Grown Diamond Association (IGDA), to argue that it would be wise to no longer refer to them as synthetic diamonds, as the carbon is 100% natural. Also in charge of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at Courbet, the first jeweler to sell synthetic diamonds on Place Vendôme in Paris, she participated in a roundtable organized by EHL on Tuesday evening as part of its sustainability week.
In terms of visible ecological impact, there is no doubt: mines disfigure landscapes, unlike laboratories in urban environments. However, regarding CO2 emissions, it’s a war of numbers. And there is no independent study to rely on. For example, some diamond growers mention 57 kilograms of CO2 per extracted carat versus 0.028 grams per synthetic carat. At the other extreme, the Diamond Producers Association (DPA), an organization representing 75% of global production, commissioned a study concluding that a natural diamond emits 160 kilograms of CO2 compared to 511 for a synthetic diamond. But this facet of sustainability was not the focus of the EHL roundtable.
Facing Charlotte Daehn, Pauline Evequoz, Head of Sustainability at Chopard, defended a different approach, more societal than environmental.
She reminded that the Chopard house has existed for over 160 years and that it carries with it, along with its values, an entire ecosystem of suppliers and artisans.
Rather than boycotting, Chopard prefers to commit to driving change and continuously improving the diamond industry.
For its part, Courbet advocates for ecological jewelry. Charlotte Daehn emphasizes that there are now more diamonds above ground than below.
An argument that primarily appeals to a millennial clientele.
Price-wise, natural diamonds indeed cannot compete, costing about 30 to 40% more. But traditional jewelry houses play on another aspect: emotions.
argues Pauline Evequoz from Chopard. But the Courbet representative counters:
Two very different approaches, but each, in its own way, defends a form of sustainability.
However, if laboratory production is growing rapidly while extraction is plummeting, it will take time before the curves intersect. Indeed, according to 2020 figures, synthetic gemstones represent 7 million carats produced, compared to 111 million for mined diamonds.
Search keywords: sustainable jewelry sourcing practices