Diamond Sector Turns to Social Impact, Traceability as Lab-Grown Rise

Sales of lab-grown diamonds exploded by 375% between 2018 and 2023, Mdmetalsdiamonds reports, and the firm says lab-grown stones now represent 20% of the total diamond jewelry sector compared with 3% in 2018. That surge, combined with “falling wholesale and retail prices in mainstream categories” and shrinking retail demand, has pushed the natural-diamond industry to reframe its value proposition around traceability, social impact and scarcity.

Younger buyers are driving the shift. Mdmetalsdiamonds states that Gen Z and Millennials accounted for 87% of lab-grown purchases in 2024, with 73% of Gen Z citing cost-effectiveness as their reason and 82% saying environmental and ethical factors influence luxury purchases. The price gap is stark: Mdmetalsdiamonds reports lab-grown diamonds typically cost 40 to 50% less than natural stones of equivalent quality, and retailers such as Metals & Diamonds now list lab-grown options alongside mined goods as part of broader digital-first strategies like virtual try-ons and online customization tools.

Environmental claims are contested and hinge on energy sources. Mdmetalsdiamonds asserts lab-grown diamonds require seven times less water and produce ten times fewer carbon emissions than traditional mining operations, and it highlights mitigation steps used by leading brands such as digital tracking systems, certified sustainable energy usage and published environmental impact reports. By contrast, Nektanewyork calculates that mined diamonds generate roughly 160 kg of CO2 per polished carat while lab-grown diamonds can emit about 511 kg per polished carat when powered by fossil fuels, and notes that traditional mining displaces roughly 250 tons of earth for every single carat produced, contributing “hundreds of millions of tons” of mineral waste industry-wide each year.

Faced with these numbers, the natural-diamond sector is explicitly pivoting to narrative and verification. Daily Maverick has posed the question “Can a shift to social impact polish the diamond industry’s future?” and argues that “the industry’s response is to sell nation building, social impact and scarcity itself.” Industry messaging now foregrounds traceability and storytelling tied to producer countries such as Botswana and Angola, which have built public infrastructure and livelihoods on diamond revenues.

Concrete practices promoted by brands include solar-powered facilities, water recycling systems, zero-waste packaging solutions and recycled precious metals “sourced from existing jewelry, electronics, and other sources and refined and reused in new jewelry designs,” as Aidi describes. Trade pages and social posts reflect the debate: Daily Maverick’s LinkedIn page has 59,273 followers and its Facebook excerpt recently drew 29 reactions, 10 comments and 5 shares, while smaller players such as Luxerra Jewellery show more modest followings, for example 219 followers on LinkedIn.

The numbers present a testable choice for consumers and producers alike. With lab-grown stones already claiming a large share of young buyers and offering a 40–50% price advantage, the industry’s bet is that verified traceability, published impact reports and nation-building narratives will preserve a premium for mined diamonds. Reconciliation of conflicting life-cycle assessments and clearer market-share and pricing indices will determine whether that bet restores value or whether lab-grown stones become the default for cost- and climate-conscious shoppers.