In the world of economics, having perspective beyond the present is difficult. No longer do we have factories hoarding ample supplies of equipment, making one item at a time, but since the creation of the assembly line and advancement of transportation technologies, it is possible to have items shipped around the world overnight. The creation of just-in-time production has left the world operating on a 24-hour clock. This same immediacy has crept into almost every area of business.
Such is the case with the controversy surrounding the Dodd-Frank legislation. An article recently released in the New York Times claimed that the actions of NGOs and the US congress to instate regulations requiring business to monitor the origins of their minerals is essentially creating a boycott of minerals deriving from the Congo. (The article can be read here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/opinion/how-congress-devastated-congo.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
The article continues on to say that the Dodd-Frank Act is doing nothing but hurting individual miners and improving the lives of corrupt warlords. Ignoring the fact that the Dodd-Frank Act has not been enforced as of yet, what is the alternative? To do nothing? To ignore the 5 million+ that have died thus far and accept the status quo as less damaging? Undermining 15 years of violent conflict will take time, it will take time for the Congolese government to create a stable mining sector. As well, many corporations are interested in investing in the Congolese mining sector under these new regulations (http://congosiasa.blogspot.com/2011/08/thoughts-about-conflict-minerals.html). The key, along with providing alternative sources of work, is to look at the big picture. North America was once teeming with sweatshops, but through the actions of individuals and unions, minimum wage, child labour law and equal (in theory) pay for women were created. Change is possible...and an economically thriving economy is better for business (and the people of the Congo) in the long run, then a war ridden economy.
Enough Project's response to article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sasha-lezhnev/what-conflict-minerals-le_b_922566.html
More info on conflict minerals:
http://www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/conflict/conflict-minerals
Friday, August 12, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
When the rubber meets the road...
We have once again returned to a topic that is near and dear to my heart - the plight of those living near or within conflict mineral zones.
Since the creation in July 2010 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, there has been some level of hope. There has been the hope that, some form of mineral regulation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo could be instated and that this momentum could be built upon to one day create a stable society.
The Dodd-Frank Act requires companies to conduct "due diligence" and disclose annually if they use the minerals cassiterite, columbite-tantalite, gold, wolframite or their derivatives (tin, tanatalum or tungsten) in products that originate from the DRC or adjoining countries. But now, as implementation comes under way, questions such as what constitutes "due diligence" have arisen.
As well, some retailers, such as Wal-Mart and AT&T, have been trying to exempt themselves from the Act, arguing that they have minimal contact with the manufacturing process. Theodore Kingsley, the general attorney for AT&T states that, “AT&T believes that retailers who merely place their marks on goods or who do no more than order goods with particular features should not be subject to the rules,” However large corporations, such as AT&T and Walmart, as well as being able to afford to bring such suits against the Act, are those who could afford to monitor the origins of the minerals they use in electronic products. This is as opposed to smaller companies who, it is hypothesized, could suffer financially. David Johnson a corporate lawyer in New York states that, “No one in the United States condones what’s happening in the Congo, but the requirements are so expensive compared to the effect it might actually have in the Congo.”
In opposition to such claims of non-responsibility on the part of corporations, the "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the 'Protect, Respect and Remedy' Framework" (Endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council as of June 2011), state that "Business enterprises should respect human rights, which means to avoid infringing on the human rights of others and to address adverse human rights impacts they may cause or contribute to. The responsibility to respect human rights applies across a business enterprise’s activities and through its relationships with third parties associated with those activities". Corporations are thus answerable for the actions of any manufactures they are employing.
I hate that there is there is a price to human life, and financially speaking, much of the world is not willing to shell out the cost. There are however exceptions, companies such as Intel, who have taken the issue seriously and are endeavoring to track the where abouts of the minerals they use to produce their electronics (source: enough project).
http://www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/Protect-Respect-Remedy-Framework
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportID=93396
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-UN-draft-Guiding-Principles-22-Nov-2010.pdf
http://www2.americanprogress.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=154&link=2
Since the creation in July 2010 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, there has been some level of hope. There has been the hope that, some form of mineral regulation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo could be instated and that this momentum could be built upon to one day create a stable society.
The Dodd-Frank Act requires companies to conduct "due diligence" and disclose annually if they use the minerals cassiterite, columbite-tantalite, gold, wolframite or their derivatives (tin, tanatalum or tungsten) in products that originate from the DRC or adjoining countries. But now, as implementation comes under way, questions such as what constitutes "due diligence" have arisen.
As well, some retailers, such as Wal-Mart and AT&T, have been trying to exempt themselves from the Act, arguing that they have minimal contact with the manufacturing process. Theodore Kingsley, the general attorney for AT&T states that, “AT&T believes that retailers who merely place their marks on goods or who do no more than order goods with particular features should not be subject to the rules,” However large corporations, such as AT&T and Walmart, as well as being able to afford to bring such suits against the Act, are those who could afford to monitor the origins of the minerals they use in electronic products. This is as opposed to smaller companies who, it is hypothesized, could suffer financially. David Johnson a corporate lawyer in New York states that, “No one in the United States condones what’s happening in the Congo, but the requirements are so expensive compared to the effect it might actually have in the Congo.”
In opposition to such claims of non-responsibility on the part of corporations, the "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the 'Protect, Respect and Remedy' Framework" (Endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council as of June 2011), state that "Business enterprises should respect human rights, which means to avoid infringing on the human rights of others and to address adverse human rights impacts they may cause or contribute to. The responsibility to respect human rights applies across a business enterprise’s activities and through its relationships with third parties associated with those activities". Corporations are thus answerable for the actions of any manufactures they are employing.
I hate that there is there is a price to human life, and financially speaking, much of the world is not willing to shell out the cost. There are however exceptions, companies such as Intel, who have taken the issue seriously and are endeavoring to track the where abouts of the minerals they use to produce their electronics (source: enough project).
http://www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/Protect-Respect-Remedy-Framework
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportID=93396
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-UN-draft-Guiding-Principles-22-Nov-2010.pdf
http://www2.americanprogress.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=154&link=2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)