Monitoring of macro-environment factors that may have an impact on DE Beers

Gold and silver are precious and expensive, but not as expensive as a diamond. In 1859, the diamond was first discovered in South Africa at Cape North. Since its inception, Diamond has become very renowned for its expanded product range, as well as advanced technology that has enabled diamond cutting, shaping, polishing and finishing.

Diamonds are truly precious and can be damaged by the diamond itself and very few other stones. This case concerns De Beers and several other diamond companies that have become better known than De Beers.

These competing companies lurked the global market in their space than De Beers. They are known for their reputation for bullying and unethical business practices. De Beers partnered with ruthless regimes to supply their diamonds, but when market pressure finally took over.

De Beers faced a number of challenges to maintain its share of the diamond market. De Beers faces a number of challenges, including violations of US antitrust laws. Progress has been made in achieving parity and in providing diamond buyers with a comprehensive education in diamond manufacturing.

It is interesting to see that De Beers faces stiff competition and has to overcome market pressures due to their standard manufacturing practices. Based on the case study, a PESTEL and Five Forces analysis was carried out for DeBeers.

PESTEL analysis (structure or tool used to analyze and monitor macroenvironmental factors that can have a profound impact on the activities of an organization) DE Beers.

Political factors

Over the decades, De Beers has faced a number of global political factors in an effort to maintain its market share.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified

Proficient in: Economics

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

De Beers held a monopoly on diamonds for decades and could use punitive measures against other countries that stood in their way. For example, after Zaire decided to stop selling diamonds of its grade to the De Beers group in 1981, De Beers flooded the market with synthetic diamonds, reducing the price of Zaire diamonds by 40%.

This supply of diamonds was influenced by political factors. Second, DeBeers was banned from doing business in the US for several years because they violated US antitrust law. India dominated the $ 19 billion diamond manufacturing industry. Government conflicts and restrictions have played an active role among diamond countries – Angola, Australia, Botswana, Canada, Democratic Republic of Congo, Russia and South Africa, which account for 88% of the cost of diamond production and 96% of global production. For example, in 1999, Namibia sought to gain control of the manufacturing industry by passing a new law allowing the government to force miners to sell some of their diamonds to local cutters instead of sending them to India.

Governments have played an active role in influencing De Beers’ decisions and behavior. With a focus on protecting De Beers, South Africa passed the Amended Diamond Act in 2005 establishing responsibilities for diamond producers who exported rough diamonds out of the country. The goal was to prevent the export of diamonds to India for polishing. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the diamond industry was in chaos as the contracts that De Beers entered into with countries no longer existed.

Economic forces

The creation of synthetic diamonds has sharply reduced the price of diamonds compared to the prices of natural diamonds, which De Beers specialized in selling. A one-carat natural pink diamond could be sold for over $ 100,000, while an identical synthetic diamond could be sold for about $ 4,000. Synthetic diamonds are currently used for industrial purposes (semiconductor industry, thermal conductivity, next-generation optics and digital storage), and their growth is between 10% and 15% per year.

Sociocultural factors

The Blood Diamonds was a phase that began after the rebel forces toppled the government of Angola, the world’s third largest diamond producer. The rebels then flooded the market with rough diamonds worth up to $ 1.2 billion. These foundations then supported their respective armed conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Congo. As news of these armed conflicts spread and information about the abuse of workers spread, buyers wanted to know where their diamonds came from and if they had been tainted with money as a result of the armed conflicts.

Technological factors

The greatest technological advance in the diamond industry was the creation of synthetic diamonds in 1955 using high pressure and temperature. It usually took 4 days to grow a 2.5-carat diamond. These synthetic diamonds also come in colors that really suit the natural diamond market. All of these technological factors have indeed negatively impacted De Beers’ financial growth.

Environmental factors

Natural diamonds have been detrimental to the environment when mined. For every carat of natural diamonds, several hundred tons of land were required. The diamond mining has caused habitat destruction for fish and land-based wildlife, and has caused caribou and grizzly bears to flee. The natural diamond mining machines used diesel fuel, which increased the production of greenhouse gases.

Legal factors

In 2004, De Beers pleaded guilty to conspiracy with industrial diamond prices and agreed to pay a $ 10 million fine. The following year, De Beers agreed to settle a $ 250 million class action lawsuit to monopolize the international diamond business. The company was also found guilty of violating US antitrust laws.

De Beers’ analysis using porters involves five forces:

1. Substitution threats include the social history involved, the lack of diamond substitution, cultural implications or position, and the high cost of entry. These threats prompted changes in the natural diamond market, and De Beers signed an agreement with the government of Botswana to establish the Diamond Trading Company Botswana and with the government of Namibia to create Namdeb. As a result of the deal, Botswana moved up the value chain from mining and sorting to sales and marketing.
2. The bargaining power of suppliers includes the value chain, the presence of a dispersion distribution channel, mutual understanding from international governments, falling cash, declaration of non-renewal, emphasis on the right to market space of 25% of the near-gem, and organization and insolvent securities holders pay the price. stocks. All of this contributed to a sharp increase in synthetic diamond suppliers in the United States and their penetration into the natural diamond market. American synthetic diamond makers such as Adia Diamonds, Gemesis, Apollo, Chatham and Life Gem have contributed.
3. New entry threats that are slightly fascinating include a well-known entry price, a surrounded market, a significant brand name, ongoing excavations as well as relations with the government, approaching new mines, rising interest rates, marketing on the open market and merchandising of products from various manufacturers have paved the way to the introduction of synthetic diamonds to the market and influenced De Beers as an industry leader.
4. An exciting consumer stance includes an exclusive stake in the village, no diamond substitution, customs duties or customs, hostilities, scale production, growing divorce ranges, rising global interest rates, reduced retail claims and marriage ranges.
5. Existing consumer rivalry was observed with rivalry between existing competitors, that is, the emergence of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. ALROSA began to take market share from DeBeers after their Soviet contracts became invalid. They began to cut diamonds in Russia, not in India. Australia’s Diamond Mind has canceled its contract with DeBeers, causing serious concern.

Conclusions

I feel that the strategic vulnerability of De Beers will be affected by political, social and legal implications. There are many government policies that can reveal De Beers trade secrets. Social factors such as the blood diamond problem and the wrong impression it made on the market affect De Beers branding. The diamonds were tainted due to the “blood diamond” condition, which meant that the proceeds from the excavation as well as from the sale of diamonds in several African countries helped finance the war along with violations of the war law. Third, fighting US antitrust law is another case, as local and international governments may have an interest in preserving. A loophole may be created strategically for the company.

If you were the CEO of DeBeers, what two actions would you take to mitigate the vulnerability?

If I were the CEO, I would be wise to continue to educate the public about the origin of their natural diamonds and that natural diamonds are much more valuable than synthetic ones. They own this unique niche and if they decide to enter the synthetic diamond market it will damage their brand. Moreover, De Beers is encouraged to comply with US policies to weaken US antitrust laws. The CEO may request the advancement of US controversy policymakers, as well as suggest the ease of US antitrust laws and restrictions.