Code of Practice Favoring “Cultured Ambiguity”
September 21, 06The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices (CRJP) has released today its Final Version of its Code of Practices. The 18-page document is the culmination of a worldwide consultation with stakeholders and many meetings by the CRJP key players. A quick perusal of the document shows that there are still some gaps and shortcomings – and it also leaves quite a few things “unsaid.” It would be helpful if the CRJP would also publish protocols of the meetings that lead to the final version, so that the industry would have the benefit of “legislative intent” (if I may apply that term).
At the last day-and-a-half meeting of the CRJP’s Standards Committee, which is in charge of putting together the Code of Practices, there was a lively discussion – and some concrete decisions – on the use of the world “cultured” in reference to synthetic diamonds. The meeting, held on September 6-7 at De Beers in London, was attended by representatives of the CRJP, Signet, DTC, Bulgari, Rosy Blue, Cartier, BHP, Rio and a Swiss company whose name I didn’t get confirmed.
In the last draft before the final version of the code, in the clause about terms that disguise the fact a stone is synthetic or mislead the consumer, it states: “For example the term “cultured diamond” must not be used to describe a Synthetic.” That line has been deleted in the Final Version of the Code of Practices.
Actually, the word “cultured” does not appear anywhere in the 18-page document. When trying to find out the reason for the “disappearance” of any reference to the world “cultured,” I learned that this is the “compromise” – a compromise all the Standards Committee members know about; but it hasn’t been publicized. The committee had reached the conclusion that prohibiting the word “cultured” has no basis in law; it would open the CRJP or the parties fighting the word to legal challenges. Actually, De Beers had its anti-trust lawyer participating in the meeting – and the possibility of anti-trust actions just around a CRJP prohibition against the word “cultured” was, in fact, discussed at the meeting.
So a compromise was reached. The CRJP Code will not prohibit the use of the word “cultured,” but it will also not come out and say so. At the same time, it will not state that the term is allowed. But a comparison between the Final Version and the last draft preceding the version says it all. There were no changes in the clause on Synthetic diamonds, except for taking out the cultured prohibition clause.
The members of the Standards Committee are “real people” who live and breathe the industry, day in and day out. They must have known, especially after the GIA Symposium and the World Diamond Congress (both events were attended by the CRJP managing director Michael Rae), that the “cultured” issue is a very hot industry discussion item. It was apparently felt that it is best to leave some “intentional ambiguity.”
I think that it weakens the Code of Practice. The whole purpose of the Code is to “embody the standards of practice to which Council Members aspire and which they wish to promote throughout the Diamond and Gold jewelry supply chain.” Why perpetuate “ambiguity” – especially in a situation in which clarity is needed – especially since the decision not to disallow it was already taken?
Have a nice weekend.