Ethics and Trust in Singapore Fine Jewellery Buying

My professional journey has allowed me to see the business from rather different sides of the counter. I have sat with suppliers and manufacturers, visited trade centres and exhibitions, discussed diamonds across dealing tables and, later, spent considerably more time listening to individual clients explain why a particular stone or piece of jewellery mattered to them. One thing that experience has taught me is that consumer attitudes rarely change as dramatically as industry headlines suggest. They evolve gradually, and often in ways that are much more nuanced.

That is why I am cautious when I hear that today's jewellery consumer is “demanding ethical jewellery”. There is certainly greater awareness of responsible sourcing, provenance and sustainability, but I do not believe the Singapore consumer has suddenly stopped caring about beauty, design, rarity, craftsmanship, emotion or price. Those remain extraordinarily powerful influences when somebody is choosing a fine jewel. What has changed, in my observation, is that the story behind the jewel has become more important — and consumers are increasingly prepared to ask whether that story can actually be substantiated.

ETHICAL JEWELLERY IN SINGAPORE

Singapore is an interesting market in this respect. It is a sophisticated international trading centre with a long-established diamond and jewellery ecosystem, and it has participated in the Kimberley Process since 2004. Singapore Customs requires a Kimberley Process licence for the import and export of rough diamonds, together with the relevant certificates, permits and supporting documentation. These are important safeguards, but they should not be misunderstood. The Kimberley Process is specifically aimed at preventing conflict diamonds from financing rebel movements; it does not, by itself, certify that a diamond's entire journey has met every conceivable ethical or environmental standard.

WHAT DOES ‘ETHICAL’ MEAN?

That broader distinction is becoming increasingly relevant because “ethical” has become one of those words that can mean almost anything — and therefore, sometimes, very little. Responsible sourcing, human rights, environmental impact, labour conditions, traceability and sustainability are all legitimate subjects, but they are not interchangeable.

If a jewellery company tells me that a particular product is responsibly sourced, I want to know what that assertion is based upon. Who defines it? What evidence supports it? Is the information independently verified? Or is it simply a well-written sentence designed to make the consumer feel comfortable?

I think the industry should be rather more demanding of itself here. Singapore's advertising and consumer-protection framework already reflects the principle that commercial claims should not mislead consumers. For a business whose most valuable asset is trust, however, compliance should be the floor, not the ceiling. A fine-jewellery professional should be able to answer a client's questions honestly and clearly without hiding behind fashionable terminology.

NATURAL VS LABORATORY-GROWN DIAMONDS

The natural-versus-laboratory-grown diamond discussion illustrates this particularly well. I remain firmly a proponent of natural diamonds. I find their geological origin, rarity and finite nature central to their fascination and value, and after decades in this business I have no difficulty explaining why they remain extraordinary products of nature. But I also have no wish to disparage laboratory-grown diamonds. They are legitimate products created through sophisticated technology, and consumers are perfectly entitled to choose them for reasons that may include price, size, appearance or personal preference.

What I object to is ambiguity. A laboratory-grown diamond should be properly disclosed as such and should never be described as “real”, “genuine” or “natural”. The established CIBJO terminology guideline distinguishes a diamond — by definition a natural mineral — from a synthetic diamond and calls for clear qualifying terminology. At the same time, this is an area where the international industry itself is currently debating its language. CIBJO's 2026 Diamond Commission report proposes moving away from “laboratory-grown” and “laboratory-created” towards “synthetic”, arguing that these products are manufactured industrially through HPHT or CVD processes rather than formed in a laboratory in the way the terminology might imply. That proposal is still going through the industry's standards process, so I would not pretend that the matter is settled.

I actually regard that debate as healthy. Consumers deserve terminology that describes what they are buying accurately, regardless of whether the product is natural or synthetic. Transparency should not depend on which side of the commercial argument one happens to occupy.

ARE CONSUMERS PRIORITISING ETHICS?

So, are Singapore consumers prioritising ethics?

I would say they are giving it greater weight, but usually as part of a wider assessment of trust rather than as a stand-alone purchase criterion. A customer may first fall in love with a jewel because of its design or a particularly beautiful gemstone. They may then ask about its origin, treatment, sourcing or documentation. Ethics may not have brought them to the piece, but it can influence whether they are comfortable proceeding with the purchase.

That distinction is important because there is still a considerable gap between what consumers say they care about and what ultimately determines purchasing behaviour. I would be particularly wary of taking sustainability statistics from Europe or North America and presenting them as if they describe Singapore. The independent Singapore-specific evidence is simply not strong enough to justify sweeping claims about what percentage of local fine-jewellery consumers will pay a premium for ethical sourcing.

TRANSPARENCY BUILDS TRUST

My own experience tells me something more modest, but perhaps more useful. The Singapore consumer is becoming better informed, more questioning and less willing to accept vague assurances. The customer increasingly wants to know what a claim means, where information comes from and whether the person selling the jewel actually understands the subject.

That, to me, is a positive development.

Fine jewellery has always been an emotional purchase, and I do not see that changing. The design still has to be beautiful. The gemstone still has to possess something that captures the imagination. Craftsmanship still matters enormously. Rarity still matters. Value still matters. But increasingly, so does the confidence that the story accompanying the jewel is an honest one.

I would therefore put it quite simply: ethics may not yet be what sells the jewel in Singapore, but transparency is increasingly becoming part of what allows the consumer to trust the jewel.

And in a business built around objects that are supposed to endure for generations, I can think of few standards more appropriate than that.

Read more about the Singapore jewellery industry in our Stories Section