Morality is Bad for Business

Since 2003 and 2004, diamonds have been becoming linked with death, torture and all the rest of the non-glamorous images associated with conflict stones. I suppose it took that long for the knowledge about the death and havoc that was going on to filter into some diamond circles. Yet what bothers me is not only the fact that some diamond companies, namely De Beers, waited a good ten years before implementing any sort of strategy to combat the issue along with the bad press conflict diamonds would bring to their industry, but the fact that they saw the issue as just that; bad press that would hurt profits.

In Greg Campbell’s book, Blood Diamonds, he talks about De Beers’ attitude regarding the conflict diamond issue. Campbell wrote that De Beers “noted, the potential financial impacts were ‘enormous’ and therefore everyone involved was sincere about ending the trade” (pg 116). He goes on to add that “the potential commercial loss is ‘enormous’, but the moral dimension is merely ‘big’, as if it were an afterthought….Very little, if anything, has been done in the company’s lifetime that didn’t further its commercial potential, even if it meant funding warfare to do it” (pg 116).

So I guess as soon as it becomes an issue of bad press in conjuncture with the loss of monetary gain should De Beers worry about the implications of conflict diamonds. The immoral action of funding war and death doesn’t seam to be of great concern. The morality comes only second to the threat of a declining economic growth for De Beers. And this is the company that wants consumers to believe that the diamonds they sell are symbols of eternal love and devotion? Well De Beers’ devotion is obvious: money first and foremost. Not the welfare of human life.