As the lab-grown debate widens, natural diamond stakeholders are sharpening the case for clearer differentiation, arguing that rarity, origin and long-term value set natural diamonds apart as a distinct category.
The lab-grown diamond industry has long sought to position its product as the more environmentally friendly alternative to natural diamonds, with varying success as it gained market share and established itself in the mainstream jewellery market.
That messaging initially gained traction in popular culture. Actresses Penélope Cruz and Emma Watson were among those who endorsed lab-grown diamonds, citing their perceived sustainability credentials.
The narrative has become less prominent in recent years as the natural diamond industry pushed back against the notion that growing a diamond in a factory is inherently more carbon efficient than mining one from the ground.
The Natural Diamond Council’s 2023 Myth Busting campaign was somewhat effective in countering those claims. The NDC also argued in its 2025 report, Lab-Grown Diamond Facts, that sustainability comparisons often overlook the employment, tax revenue and community development generated by natural diamond mining in producer countries.
As a result, the lab-grown industry’s marketing shifted more heavily toward price and size advantages, while the broader debate focused on market share, category positioning and consumer demand.
In recent weeks, however, the environmental argument has re-emerged alongside renewed debate about grading standards, nomenclature, and the definition of the category itself.
Carbon Claims
Several developments in recent weeks have highlighted the shift in that dynamic.
The first was Pandora’s announcement that it would begin publishing carbon footprint disclosures alongside the traditional 4Cs grading information for its lab-grown diamonds.
The company said a 1-carat Pandora lab-grown diamond generates 12.58 kilograms of CO2-equivalent emissions, claiming that is about 90% lower than a mined diamond of the same size. Pandora added that it would share its methodology with the wider jewellery industry in an effort to encourage greater transparency.
The NDC quickly dismissed the move as a publicity stunt “that unfairly attacks the natural diamond industry to promote synthetic diamonds.” It argued that Pandora relied on outdated data and that such comparisons are inaccurate and inconsistent with credible sustainability marketing standards.
Regulator Rules
The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints filed by the NDC against Novita Diamonds and Linjer Ltd for advertising synthetic diamonds without clearly identifying them as laboratory grown. The regulator ruled that the ads breached advertising rules by describing the products simply as “diamonds” without a sufficiently prominent qualifier.
The UK’s National Association of Jewellers references the Diamond Terminology Guideline as its primary authority on the issue, requiring that synthetic diamonds be described using terms such as synthetic, laboratory-grown or laboratory-created. The NDC successfully pursued similar complaints against other jewellers in 2024.
The significance of the ruling lies in its recognition that terminology matters. Regulators are effectively acknowledging that consumers may interpret the word “diamond” differently when a product’s synthetic origin is not made immediately clear.
Drawing Distinctions
The African Diamond Producers Association (ADPA) echoed that sentiment, seeking to add another layer to disclosure requirements. The organization called for the exclusive use of the 4Cs grading system and carat measurements for natural diamonds, arguing that lab-grown products should instead be labelled simply as “synthetic” and measured in grams or kilograms.
While such measures are unlikely to gain universal acceptance, they reflect a growing effort among natural diamond stakeholders to reinforce the distinction between the two categories.
Botswana President Duma Boko has taken a similar position, pushing for stricter labelling requirements in the US that more clearly distinguish natural diamonds from their synthetic counterparts.
“Manufactured abundance is qualitatively different from a stone forged over millennia beneath the earth’s surface,” Boko said in an interview with Newsweek.
Different Products
What makes these developments notable is that they extend beyond a debate about environmental impact. Price, value and sustainability may have been the primary selling points used by the lab-grown industry, but the response from natural diamond stakeholders suggests a broader concern about how the two products are presented to consumers.
The pushback against Pandora’s carbon footprint claims, the UK regulator’s ruling on terminology, and calls for stricter disclosure standards all stem from a common belief that natural and lab-grown diamonds should not simply be viewed as interchangeable versions of the same product. They have different origins, different value propositions, different pricing dynamics and, arguably, different sustainability credentials. The natural diamond industry’s efforts to reinforce those distinctions are therefore both understandable and justified.
That sentiment was perhaps best captured in the NDC’s response to Pandora, which argued that the debate is not simply about sustainability, but about recognizing natural and lab-grown diamonds as distinct product categories.
“One is a factory-made product of technology that can be manufactured in virtually unlimited quantities,” the NDC stressed. “The other is a rare and finite product of nature. Comparing the two solely on value, meaning, or impact misleads consumers and fuels misinformation.”
Avi Krawitz is the Founder of ‘The Diamond Press’ and a leading content creator and consultant in the diamond industry. He is widely recognised for his insightful analysis and storytelling, offering clarity to both industry professionals and curious consumers navigating a complex and evolving market. See more of Avi’s work at www.thediamondpress.com
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the GJEPC.