The article was published by The Observer, a UK newspaper, on 9 September and was penned by journalist Alex Diggins. At the time of publication (22 September), the story was headlined ‘Twenty years on from Blood Diamond, it’s hard to tell which diamonds are ethical’.
Interestingly, promotional posts on social media feature an alternative version of this headline - ‘Twenty years after Blood Diamond, most stones are still not ethical.’
With that said, the piece is framed as an examination of the diamond industry’s ethical standards on the 20th anniversary of the release of the film Blood Diamond (2006), directed by Edward Zwick.
Famously, the Leonardo DiCaprio film brought the diamond trade’s association with conflict and exploitation into the public spotlight, and while many in the industry feared it would have a long-term impact on diamond jewellery sales, ultimately it did not. The article examines whether reforms have gone far enough with a specific focus on mining in war-torn Sierra Leone.
It suggests that while initiatives such as the Kimberley Process and the GemFair scheme, led by the De Beers Group, have reduced the likelihood of conflict diamonds reaching consumers, poor wages, unsafe working conditions and limited supply-chain transparency remain concerns.
Among the article's critics is Raymond Alpha of GemFair, an organisation that trains miners in safer, more environmentally responsible mining standards. It contributed to the report's research.
“It is no secret that Sierra Leone's diamond industry has a painful history related to the country’s civil war. And the country paid a very heavy price for it,” Alpha wrote.
“Sierra Leone in 2026 is significantly different from Sierra Leone in the 1990s. Significant changes have taken place in regulations, government reforms and responsible sourcing. These are efforts to place Sierra Leone’s diamond into legitimate markets and contribute to livelihood and national development.
“Misrepresenting a country in an article as such portrays the entire country as though nothing has changed.”
Joining the chorus of criticism was Feriel Zerouki, president of the World Diamond Council. Zerouki has written in the past about the widespread misrepresentation of African diamond mining communities, and said that the evidence presented in the article failed to justify such an incendiary headline.
“Progress should not be dismissed simply because it disrupts a journalist’s preferred narrative. In Sierra Leone and across Africa, diamonds support jobs, education, infrastructure, public revenues and entire communities. Diamonds are nation building,” Zerouki explained.
“I am tired of seeing journalists chase provocative headlines at the expense of context, evidence and African livelihoods. This is not brave journalism. It is lazy, damaging and profoundly discouraging to the people doing the difficult work of creating change.
“You cannot claim to care about Africans while carelessly attacking the livelihoods upon which millions of Africans depend.”
Following suit, Amber Pepper of the Natural Diamond Council said that a headline which reduces an entire industry to its worst examples was ‘deeply misleading’.
“Consumers deserve the full natural diamond story, not a sensationalised version of it which is why I have written to The Observer UK to call for reporting that reflects both the challenges that remain and the transformation, livelihoods and development that responsible diamond production can support,” Pepper wrote.
Pepper acknowledged that the story raised many valid concerns about the contemporary diamond industry, but said that the sensationalist framing reduced the impact of this messaging.
More reading
World Diamond Council president pushes for conflict diamond reform
Kimberley Process critics highlight structural flaws
Conflict Diamonds: Kimberley Process fails to reach agreement yet again
‘Meaningful’ progress made in conflict diamond language debate
Diamond sanctions: Tensions mounting at Kimberley Process