Transparency in Conflict Mineral Supply Chains
In 2010, section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act introduced a legal requirement for companies that file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to report on their due diligence to ensure that their sourcing of certain minerals does not fund armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The publication of such reports represents an opportunity to increase corporate transparency, but to validate and realise this potential, the reports must be analysed.
We have defined a set of questions about how companies that produce electronic goods source the minerals required to produce those goods, and created metrics to record the answers to those questions. To contribute to this project, choose a company from the list on the bottom-right of this page, click the “Research” button, and try to find the answers to each question in their Conflict Minerals Report(s).
Each metric has a methodology section which explains how the answer for a company should be determined and includes tips for finding answers quickly.
Please include comments that support the answers you’re adding (e.g. by quoting from the source or explaining your reasoning). Good comments are very useful when checking answers or refining metrics.
To evaluate the quality of Conflict Mineral Statements that are produced by companies in accordance with section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act. This year we want to establish a baseline against which we can measure the impact on companies, and in turn, on conflict mineral sourcing.
SEC Factsheet on ‘Disclosing the Use of Conflict Minerals’
OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas
Time to Recharge: Corporate Action and Inaction to Tackle Abuses in the Cobalt Supply Chain by Amnesty International
Check out the following example company to see how the project organisers have used these metrics: