The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme through the Lens of Fashion Law

The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) emerged in response to global outrage over the role of diamonds in funding armed conflict, particularly in parts of Africa. While widely recognised for establishing a framework to verify the origin of rough diamonds, the KPCS is increasingly seen as insufficient for meeting today’s ethical, legal, and human rights expectations. This article re-evaluates the KPCS from a fashion law perspective, interrogating its adequacy in regulating the global diamond supply chain, especially within the context of the fashion, jewellery, and beauty industries. It argues for a reformed, interdisciplinary model that aligns legal mechanisms with evolving consumer expectations, corporate accountability, and the African continent's economic empowerment.

Introduction

At the intersection of human rights, international trade, and luxury markets lies the enduring issue of conflict minerals. The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), launched in 2003, was heralded as a diplomatic and legal innovation aimed at curbing the circulation of conflict diamonds. For the fashion and jewellery industries, where diamonds are both aesthetic centrepieces and brand-defining assets, the KPCS offered a veneer of legitimacy to sourcing practices.

Yet two decades later, fashion law scholars, consumer advocates, and African policymakers are increasingly questioning whether the KPCS delivers on its promise. Can a regime that certifies only rough diamonds, ignores downstream abuses, and excludes critical human rights concerns genuinely safeguard ethics in luxury? This article contends that it cannot—and that legal and policy reform is overdue.

The Kimberley Process: Legal Genesis and Structure

Origins and Objectives

The Kimberley Process was born from the urgent need to disconnect the diamond trade from civil wars in Angola, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Liberia. With pressure from civil society and the United Nations, diamond-producing and consuming nations developed a certification system to verify that traded rough diamonds were conflict-free.

The legal framework was enshrined in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/56 and later operationalised through a voluntary agreement among participating countries, supported by national legislation in member states.

Membership and Compliance

The scheme now boasts over 80 participants, representing nearly all significant players in the diamond trade. Member countries commit to:

Trading only with other KP participants.
Implementing import/export controls.
Issuing uniquely numbered KP certificates for rough diamond shipments.

Compliance, however, is monitored through self-reporting, peer review, and infrequent inspections—rendering enforcement lax at best.

Africa as Nexus: Resource, Victim, and Policy Actor

The Continental Footprint

Africa is the primary source of the world’s rough diamonds, with countries like Botswana, South Africa, Angola, Namibia, and the DRC at the centre of the global supply chain. While diamonds have brought wealth to nations like Botswana, they have also funded atrocities in others.

The KPCS, though framed as a development safeguard, has too often failed to protect African communities from environmental degradation, forced labour, or illicit trade.

The Illusion of Empowerment

Although African states are technically equal participants in the KP, their influence remains limited. Key decisions are often swayed by the economic interests of major diamond-consuming nations and industry stakeholders. This undermines African agency in crafting policies that reflect local realities, including:

Child labour in artisanal mining.
Absence of value-addition and beneficiation industries.
Inadequate environmental remediation measures.

The KP's narrow definition of “conflict” excludes abuses by state actors and non-conflict-related violations, perpetuating exploitation under a cloak of legality.

The Fashion and Jewellery Industries: Stakeholders with Power

Diamonds in Luxury

In the world of luxury jewellery and fashion, diamonds are not merely materials—they are cultural and financial signifiers. Major houses like Cartier, Tiffany & Co., and De Beers have staked their reputations on responsible sourcing. Their reliance on the KPCS, however, can obscure continuing human rights abuses in the supply chain.

Fashion Law Implications

From a fashion law perspective, the KPCS operates at the intersection of:

Trade law: Regulating transnational diamond flows.
Consumer protection: Claims of ethical sourcing must meet advertising and marketing law standards.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Brands face legal and reputational risks for failing to conduct due diligence.

Yet many brands use the KPCS as a legal shield, claiming “conflict-free” compliance without investigating broader violations—an issue of growing concern under emerging laws like the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and France’s Duty of Vigilance Law.

Beyond the KPCS: Legal Gaps and the Push for Reform

Limitations of the Current Framework

Scope: Covers only rough diamonds, not cut/polished stones or coloured gemstones.
Conflict Definition: Limited to rebel-group funded conflict; excludes state violence or structural exploitation.
Verification: Weak auditing, no independent oversight.
Labour and Environmental Standards: Entirely absent from the certification process.

Reimagining Regulation

Legal reform must integrate:

Expanded definitions of conflict and harm that include environmental destruction, forced labour, and gendered violence.
Stronger monitoring mechanisms—including third-party audits, digital traceability, and whistleblower protections.
Binding human rights due diligence obligations for companies under international and domestic laws.
Empowerment of African states in rule-making, valuation, and beneficiation.

The Road Ahead: Interdisciplinary Legal Solutions

Fashion law, as an emerging field, is uniquely positioned to critique the intersection of aesthetics, ethics, and commerce. It can provide:

Legal frameworks for traceability in jewellery and fashion supply chains.
Intellectual property protections for Africa’s cultural resources, especially when gemstones are embedded in traditional craftsmanship.
Trade agreements and soft law instruments that elevate ethical sourcing to a legal mandate rather than a voluntary principle.

If the fashion and beauty industries are to meet their sustainability claims, they must go beyond the Kimberley Process and embrace a broader legal architecture grounded in human rights and international accountability.

Conclusion

The Kimberley Process once marked a turning point in global trade regulation, offering a path forward after decades of war financed by diamonds. But today, its insufficiencies are undeniable. It no longer reflects the ethical imperatives of our time, nor the legal standards expected of luxury industries. For African nations, fashion law scholars, and corporate actors alike, the moment demands not only critique but transformation. The future of ethical luxury, indeed, the future of fashion law, depends on it.

Keywords: Kimberley Process, fashion law, conflict diamonds, Africa, jewellery industry, human rights, sustainability, supply chain law, luxury ethics, international trade.