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