The Kimberley Process

A Reality Check on Its Role, Strengths, and the Future of Ethical Diamond Trade

In recent weeks, discussions surrounding the Kimberley Process (KP) have resurfaced, fueled by a combination of emotional arguments, selective interpretations of data, and unrealistic expectations – and perhaps an attempt to induce financial gain. A forensic analysis by Budhai and Kumar (2025) has identified pricing discrepancies, trade anomalies, and financial loopholes within the diamond industry, raising valid concerns. However, some critics have wrongly attributed these financial irregularities to the KP itself, misrepresenting its role and purpose.

Let me be absolutely clear: The Kimberley Process was never designed to be a global financial watchdog, an anti-money laundering agency, or a tax enforcement mechanism. Expecting the KP to solve challenges outside its jurisdiction is as illogical as blaming Interpol for failing to regulate corporate tax fraud.

Yet, the debate surrounding the KP has taken on an emotional tone, particularly in claims that it is a “massive greenwashing operation” or that it “certifies blood diamonds as legitimate.” These statements are false and misleading. They do not serve the interests of responsible stakeholders seeking real reform.

The KP remains the most significant global initiative to prevent diamonds from financing armed conflict, and its impact is measurable. However, there is an urgent need to separate what the KP is actually responsible for from what should be addressed by financial regulators, customs authorities, and industry initiatives.