today i went with seth to see the movie blood diamond, starring leonardo dicaprio and djimon hounsou. i started to reflect back on my peacebuilding course at mcgill and noticed that inspite of its narrative plot, the scenario described seemed to coincide with my prior learnings. simply put, i thought the movie was excellently done (although the semi-romantic story line between dicaprio’s character and jennifer connolly’s character was a little overdone). that said, i was reading mixed reviews on the movie as an awkwardly long and botched thriller. but the point of this movie was not about a thrilling story so much as it was a hollywood foothold into an aspect of business that is oft overlooked.
for starters, many of the people who should be seeing this movie to learn something about the diamonds they own do not. and the movie makes sharp jabs against humanitarians who find it easy to write a cheque and hope that by doing so, the problem will go away. as they say in the movie, “TIA” (this is africa). the fact of the matter is, most of the world’s diamond purchasers (us twentysomethings who shell out our 2 month salary for an engagement ring) do not know about the trials and tribulations of those who forcibly must find these diamonds at the expense of their wives and children. as economists would agree that there becomes a black market for anything of commodity value, it is hard not to argue a 100% foolproof method of eradicating conflicts. as they also point out in the movie, if it was oil instead, the same conflicts would be going on.
the fact of the matter is, that also means that the kimberly process of conflict-free diamond certification is not without flaw. but being with some flaws is better than being totally flawed in having no way of ensuring the diamond trade is secure. conflict always seems to come at the expense of those who have the least to gain. but by illustrating one person’s story, director howard zwick was able to atleast cut through some of the cynicism and show more of the reality behind blood diamonds. and perhaps it is true, if more people knew about the diamonds they were getting, more people might stand up to make a difference (eg, kanye west).
that said, it seems to fall largely in line with the realm of corporate social responsibility. one of the things i had started to read was that 84% of americans would switch brands to one associated with a good cause if the price and quality were the same. to me, thats a telling statistic – one that shows that there is the potential for brands to market a product and also produce some human value. for instance, i wonder about the diamond industry and the way it markets diamonds. only 71 countries have agreed to the kimberly process certification scheme and that’s not to say that antwerp and london don’t find their share of post-certified conflict diamonds. however, what if there was a way to make diamonds marketed to those consumers who are still socially conscious citizens? what if the way to use the markets to drive out conflict diamonds was to create exemplary working conditions that make diamonds from production companies such as debeers more valuable, completely devaluing the worth of conflict diamond? or would that even be feasible?
im no economist and perhaps i sound a little bit altruistic here, but i approach CSR from that altrustic side. im not the type of person who could work for an ngo, however i do see CSR as profitable, not only for the wallet, but for social capital and human beings as well. keep reading…
keep reading…
