WORDS FOR THE WISE
JULY 11, 2025
On May 5, 2025, the World Jewellery Confederation (CIBJO) released a draft document called The Blue List, which it described as a “Responsible Jewelry Supply Chain Lexicon.” It also announced the start of a four-month public consultation period, following which the first approved dictionary of terminology used to describe responsibly sourced products and sustainable practices in the jewelry, gemstone and precious metals supply chains will be made available for public use.
The commencement of the public consultation represented the penultimate stage of a project that had begun in late 2018 but was shelved temporarily with the outbreak of the COVID epidemic and then resumed in 2022. The draft document was compiled by a dedicated working group within the trade association called the Jewelry Industry Supply Chain Nomenclature Committee, co-chaired by Gaetano Cavalieri, the CIBJO President, and Feriel Zerouki, the Chief Trade and Industry Officer at the De Beers Group, who today also serves as President of the World Diamond Council. The World Diamond Council itself was represented on the committee by its Executive Director, Elodie Daguzan.
The WDC discussed The Blue List with Purvi Shah, the Jewelry Industry Supply Chain Nomenclature Committee Lead, who coordinated the work of the body, including the public consultation that is currently underway.
Why is The Blue List necessary? What was happening in the marketplace and the supply chain that instigated the need to develop a lexicon of recommended terminology for responsible and sustainable behavior?
PURVI SHAH: The Blue List was born out of a pressing need for clarity and consistency in how ESG (Environmental, Sustainability and Governance) terms are used across the jewelry industry to the consumer. As sustainability claims became more common, so did the confusion. Vague language, inconsistent definitions and unsubstantiated marketing claims increase the risk of eroding consumer trust. It was clear that there was an absence of publicly available resources for companies to lean on for reference, or robust legal guidance that was relevant to our unique sector.
The Blue List is designed to cut through the noise. It provides a clear, credible lexicon for responsible and sustainable terminology in the jewelry industry, providing recommendations for language that can be used in marketing campaigns, if truthful, accurate and substantiated. It is also backed by guidance on how to substantiate claims.
The Blue List helps businesses speak the same language, enabling us to “sing from the same hymn sheet.” It helps us to meet growing regulatory expectations, and most importantly, build trust with increasingly socially and environmentally conscious consumers.
Purvi Shah, the CIBJO Jewelry Industry Supply Chain Nomenclature Committee Lead.
What were the processes by which you selected words and terms for entry into The Blue List, and then debated and discussed how they should be defined?
PURVI SHAH: The Blue List was developed by the Jewelry Industry Supply Chain Nomenclature Committee, which is a multi-stakeholder group that was created within CIBJO expressly to create the lexicon. We focused on the terms that are most widely used across the jewelry industry in ESG reporting and marketing communications. These are the words that shape consumer perception about our industry, so getting them right is non-negotiable.
We selected specific terms after researching the main claims being made by companies when marketing their ethical and sustainability credentials, and how they talked about the origin and provenance of their products.
Once we had these, we started by unpacking the meaning and intent of these words, and this started with the various dictionary definitions. From there, the definitions were scrutinized and broken down from an industry perspective. This needed to be inclusive, covering all industry supply chains. Thus, we developed a process that encouraged input from across the spectrum, including all jewelry industry product categories. Each term was debated with a focus on practical application, substantiation requirements, and, importantly, clarity for both business and consumer audiences.
The drafting process also involved a review against international legislation and guidance, including the U.S. FTC Green Guides, the EU Green Claims Directive, and the UK CMA’s Green Claims Code.
It’s important to clarify, though, that all businesses need to undertake their own reviews against the applicable laws and for their own contexts. The lexicon is presented as a guidance document only. It is not a legal guide, and its use is purely voluntary.
How did you structure the committee to ensure that inputs did not favor any jewelry product sector or geographic region?
PURVI SHAH: The committee was intentionally structured to reflect the diversity of the global jewelry supply chain. It included representatives from different product categories, with diamonds, colored gemstones and pearls represented through their respective CIBJO Commissions. We made sure that voices from the various stages of the supply chain were heard, from mining to retail, and there was always a broad geographic spread.
Committee members represented trade associations, like the World Diamond Council, the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC), the International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA), Initiatives in Arts and Culture and the Jewelers Vigilance Committee from the United States, which also provided legal expertise. There also were large industry players represented, including De Beers and Richemont, as well as SMEs.
This inclusive approach ensured that no single sector or region dominated the discussion. But as mentioned, the committee had to remain mindful of the regulatory and consumer expectations in major jewelry markets, particularly the United States, EU, and UK, which are driving the need for both transparency and substantiated ESG claims.
The draft of The Blue List, currently the subject of a public review.
To what degree did you find that there were differences of perception that were culturally based, or influenced by the product category or stage in the supply chain in which the committee member operated?
PURVI SHAH: Cultural context and sector-specific nuances played a significant role in shaping the discussions around several terms in The Blue List.
There was, for example, an interesting debate concerning the term “grandfathered.” For most of us, it is a commonly used legal term, particularly in regulatory contexts, referring to exempting materials from having to comply with a legal or trade-related rule, because they existed in the supply chain before the rule was created. During the discussion, we learned that “grandfathered” sometimes has racially charged connotations in the United States, dating back to before the emancipation of slaves. We therefore included an alternative neutral term, “legacy,” reflecting a broader sensitivity to the cultural and historical context. But, after substantial debate, we also decided to maintain the “grandfathered” term because internationally it is a widely used legal term, and outside of the United States it is not considered sensitive.
We also learned that the use of certain words, in particular tracing-related terms, had different practical implications, depending on the product category and the stage of the supply chain. For instance, the diamond sector already has more established tracing systems, due to various emerging stakeholder and industry needs, but this is not the case in the colored gemstone sector, where supply chains and drivers are different. Therefore, in recognition of the unique characteristics of the coloured gemstone sector, we included a contextual note in the introduction to acknowledge its circumstances.
These differences between operating conditions in the different sectors highlighted the importance of crafting definitions that are inclusive, adaptable, and reflective of the full diversity of the jewelry industry. The committee worked to ensure that The Blue List is not only technically sound but also culturally aware and practically applicable across the global jewelry value chain.
How is the proposed first edition of The Blue List structured?
PURVI SHAH: The Blue List is organized into thematic sections that reflect the key areas of ESG-related terminology in the jewelry supply chain. These include:
- Business Claims (Responsible, Ethical, Sustainable)
- Origin, Source, and Provenance Terms
- Tracing Terms
- Terms to Avoid Using
Each term is defined, and accompanied by guidance on how to substantiate its use. Appropriate cases are supplied to demonstrate how terms should be applied, as are examples of how not to use them. This structure ensures that businesses can apply the guidance simply, practically and consistently.
The Blue List is said to take the bold step of defining the terms “responsible,” “ethical,” and “sustainable” for the jewelry industry. How has this been approached?
PURVI SHAH: That was a really challenging exercise, because we were acutely aware that the terms “responsible,” “ethical,” and “sustainable” are frequently used across the jewelry industry, and often interchangeably, without clear, substantiated understanding of how they differ, and how they relate to one another.
In The Blue List, the Committee addressed this by offering distinct yet interconnected definitions, structured in a hierarchical framework that reflects the progression of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) maturity:
- “Responsible” is the foundational level. It refers to meeting internationally recognized baseline standards—such as legal compliance, business integrity, respect for human rights, and supply chain due diligence.
- “Ethical” moves one step up, building on the “responsible” level. It proposes the proactive implementation of frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and initiatives that go beyond legal minimums to create positive social impact, like, for example, paternal leave policies that exceed the legal requirement.
- “Sustainable” sits at the top of the hierarchy. It encompasses both “responsible” and “ethical” practices, but additionally requires that businesses positively account for long-term impacts, including enduring socio-economic benefits and robust environmental stewardship.
Each definition is supported by clear criteria for substantiation. This means that any claims made in a marketing campaign or ESG report are evidence-based, report on progress and are not merely aspirational.
We’re particularly interested in stakeholder feedback on this hierarchical model and the definitions themselves. This is a key objective of the consultation process we currently are involved in. We are confident that, with thoughtful input, we can ensure these terms are both practical and powerful.
PURVI SHAH: You mention the public consultation underway for The Blue List. Can you explain why this is necessary, how it is being done, and when the first edition will be brought up for approval?
The public consultation for The Blue List began on May 5 this year, with a public presentation in Paris, and it will end on September 6, 2025, with a seminar in Vicenza. Italy. We deliberately have cast a very wide net to gauge industry opinion. We consider this a vital step in ensuring that the final document truly reflects the realities, needs, and diversity of the global jewelry industry.
This process is not simply procedural; it’s foundational. By inviting feedback from across the industry, we aim to validate and refine the proposed definitions and guidance so that they are both practical and inclusive, and it is critical to achieving our objective. We need something that is strong, practical and can withstand scrutiny.
Other public presentations of The Blue List’s draft document included one at the JCK Show in Las Vegas in early June, and another scheduled for July 15 during Initiatives in Art and Culture’s 2025 Gold + Diamond Conference in New York. But from the functional perspective, the consultation is being conducted online via the CIBJO website, where stakeholders can access the draft version of The Blue List and submit their feedback via a structured survey. This open approach ensures that voices from all corners of the industry, large and small, local and international, can contribute meaningfully.
We invite all readers of the WDC Newsletter to participate. If you wish to be part of the project and have your voice and opinion heard, please register to participate in the public consultation by CLICKING HERE.
Once the consultation period closes, all feedback will be carefully reviewed and considered by the Committee. Constructive insights will be incorporated into a final version, which will then be presented to the CIBJO Board of Directors for formal approval. It is planned to release the first official edition of The Blue List during the 2025 CIBJO Congress in Paris on October 28.
We strongly encourage the industry to engage in this process. It’s an opportunity to share what resonates, highlights what doesn’t, and offer real-world examples that can help sharpen and clarify the language. So far, the feedback has been encouragingly aligned with our proposed guidance, and we’ve received some excellent suggestions for refining the terminology.
We’ve made significant progress to reach this stage, but we believe that with thoughtful, contextual input from the wider community, we can deliver a much stronger and more representative final product.
Several of the members of the Jewelry Industry Supply Chain Nomenclature Committee at the presentation at the Union Française de la Bijouterie, Joaillerie, Orfèvrerie, des Pierres & des Perles (UFBJOP) in Paris on May 5, 2025, where the public consultation of The Blue List began (from left): Arantxa Arias, Steven Benson, Faye Caris, Committee Lead Purvi Shah, Committee Co-Chair Feriel Zerouki, UFBJOP Executive President Bernadette Pinet-Cuoq, Committee Co-Chair Gaetano Cavalieri, UFBJOP President Daniel Cambour, Elodie Daguzan and Raluca Anghel.
Times change and so do the understood meanings of words and terms. What happens to The Blue List moving forward?
PURVI SHAH: The Blue List is intentionally designed as a living document. This means that it should evolve alongside the jewelry industry and the broader social, environmental, and regulatory landscape. It will be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect changes in legislation, business practices, cultural norms and stakeholder expectations. This ensures that the lexicon remains relevant and continues to support the industry’s commitment to responsible, ethical, and sustainable practices.
Looking ahead, future iterations of The Blue List will ideally be informed by consumer testing and behavioral research, helping to ensure that the language resonates not only within the industry but also with the public. Additionally, we will consider sharing the framework with government authorities involved in shaping regulatory guidance, such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, the UK’s Green Claims Code, and the EU’s Green Claims Directive. This will help demonstrate how the jewelry sector is proactively advancing in this space.
By remaining dynamic and responsive, The Blue List aims to be both a practical tool for today and a strategic guide for the future.