Press "Enter" to skip to content

Upcoming battle minerals regulation doesn’t cowl main know-how firms

Technology firms are unlikely to sort out the controversial use of so-called battle minerals of their merchandise due to weaknesses in a forthcoming EU regulation.

The European Union’s (EU) upcoming Conflict Minerals Regulation will come into drive in January 2021 to clamp down on the mining of 3TG minerals (tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold) used to fund preventing in ‘conflict-affected and high-risk areas’.

3TG minerals are very important parts in on a regular basis digital merchandise reminiscent of telephones and laptops, however due to how the Regulation is ready up many know-how firms, starting from {hardware} producers to multinational software program firms, may have no incentive to vary their behaviour  regardless of being main customers of those sources.

This is as a result of know-how firms is not going to be obliged to observe, monitor or in any other case act to take away the minerals from their world provide chains, quite a lot of minerals key to the tech {industry} are ignored by the regulation, and firms is not going to even be penalised if discovered to be in breach of the principles.

On prime of this, like earlier regulatory or legislative makes an attempt to take care of battle minerals, the regulation will do little to change situations for these on the bottom dwelling and dealing in conflict-affected areas, nor drive the tech firms that profit from the minerals to play their half in tackling the issue.

According to Laurent Ruessmann, a contest, regulatory and commerce companion from Fieldfisher’s Brussels workplace, one of many regulation’s major shortcomings is in how its due diligence obligations have been “watered down”.

“To put it bluntly, they don’t apply to everyone in the supply chain,” he says. “Downstream players are encouraged to conduct due diligence, but they’re not obliged.”

Importers and upstream actors

The regulation’s obligations solely apply to importers and “upstream” actors, that means firms that extract and refine the uncooked supplies within the first place.

However, know-how firms typically have expansive provide chains that span a number of continents and, as “downstream” actors, most of the minerals they use are exported elsewhere from the nation of origin for refining and meeting earlier than they attain Europe as completed merchandise.

Hala Zeine, chief product officer at course of mining software program agency Celonis, additionally factors to the worldwide nature of contemporary provide chains, saying the regulation ought to be extra “product-centric” to incorporate each firm that makes use of these parts of their finish merchandise.

“Ultimately, if something gets fed into a product, what any government should be worried about is ‘what did it take for that product to enter my market?’” she says.

“My question would be why is the regulator going on the list of metals or minerals? Why are they not going on the action? It’s not the mineral that bothers us it’s how people are extracting it.”

Regulatory blind spots

Ben Radley, a fellow in Development Studies at London School of Economics who has spent a big period of time on the bottom within the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) researching the affect of transnational mining companies, agreed this restricted scope represents a “blind spot” within the regulation.

“It undermines a lot of the power and leverage the Regulation has given the nature of these value chains,” he says: “I also think it’s interesting that the EU isn’t thinking about cobalt and lithium.”

Both cobalt and lithium are important for electrical batteries and, because the {industry} shifts in the direction of greener applied sciences, there shall be an enormous improve in demand for these minerals, which has already been constructing steadily over the previous few years.

In December 2019, Congolese households of youngsters killed or injured whereas mining for cobalt within the DRC launched a landmark authorized case in opposition to the world’s largest tech firms, together with Google, Apple, Microsoft, Dell and Tesla, exhibiting that human rights abuses will not be restricted to 3TG extraction.

“The supply chain is, by design, hidden and secretive to allow all participants to profit from cheap cobalt mined under extremely hazardous conditions by desperate children forced to perform extremely hazardous labour,” the criticism states.

Speaking to Computer Weekly, the chief director of International Rights Advocates (IRA) Terrence Collingsworth, who’s representing the Congolese households, says the abuse within the cobalt sector is by far a few of the worst he has even seen.

“I additionally advocate in opposition to firms like Nestle for utilizing little one labour within the cocoa sectors of West Africa. It’s horrible – the children are utilizing machetes and get minimize, the working situations are horrible, however they’re not getting maimed and dying daily like within the cobalt mines,” he says. “It was just a shocking upgrade of the level of willingness to profit from misery.”

No penalties for non-compliance

However, even when these further minerals had been lined by the regulation, there are additionally presently no penalties for non-compliance.

“Why you would even go through the trouble of putting in place legislation if there is no provision for effective penalties? Its counterintuitive and a waste of time, unless it is seen as merely a first step,” says Ruessmann

Dynda Thomas, a companion at legislation agency Squire Patton Boggs, disputes this level, saying only a few items of due diligence laws, together with a wide range of fashionable slavery legal guidelines, truly carry monetary or felony penalties.

“For the US conflict minerals rule and the EU regulation there are no financial or criminal penalties involved at this point, they are very much seen as name and shame schemes,” she says. 

“The intent and hope is that providing this information and making disclosure mandatory means customers and consumers will put pressure on companies.”

A foot within the door

While they differ in opinion over whether or not the dearth of penalties is “normal”, each agreed it’s a “foot in the door” and could be shocked if the regulation was not strengthened down the road underneath stress from activist and civil society teams, in addition to customers.

The regulation is ready to be reviewed for effectiveness by 1 January 2023, in addition to each three years after that, by the European Commission, which has reserved the correct to introduce necessary due diligence obligations additional down the provision chain if the Regulation is later discovered to be missing.

However, till then, solely upstream actors may have due diligence obligations, whereas most downstream gamers will proceed to be locked into voluntary reporting initiatives.

This is regardless of the European Commission publishing a research on 20 February 2020 about due diligence necessities all through the provision chain, which discovered the present voluntary measures constructed to mitigate antagonistic company behaviour (together with human rights abuses) have didn’t considerably change the way in which companies handle their social, environmental and governance impacts.

Only one in three European companies that responded to the research stated they presently undertake some type of due diligence which takes under consideration all human rights and environmental impacts.

Previous battle minerals rules and initiatives

While laws and voluntary industry-led initiatives exist already to particularly fight using battle minerals, they’ve carried out little to vary situations on the bottom within the battle zones they cowl, particularly the DRC the place the overwhelming majority focus.

Section 1502 of the Dodd Frank Act, in any other case generally known as the US Conflict Minerals Rule, got here into impact in 2014 and wholly centered on stemming the circulate of conflict-tied 3TG minerals from the Great Lakes area of East Africa.

This is basically as a result of extremely publicised and brutal nature of the DRC’s battle, which the International Rescue Committee has known as “the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II” – 5.four million individuals had been killed between 1998 and 2008, with roughly 45,000 deaths occurring every month.

Under Dodd Frank, publicly listed firms (a lot of that are labeled as “downstream” actors) needed to conduct necessary due diligence and report back to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about whether or not their provide chains contained 3TG minerals from the DRC.

Numerous voluntary industry-led initiatives have additionally been arrange during the last 20 years to take care of provide chain due diligence and or compliance with Dodd Frank, however these too will not be topic to penalties past public naming and shaming.

An instance of those initiatives embrace the Responsible Business Alliance’s (RBA) Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI), previously generally known as the Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative.

“Dodd-Frank requires companies that are publicly listed to disclose certain types of information about their sourcing practices and due diligence processes,” says Leah Butler, vice-president of the RBA and head of its Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI). “Then it’s up to customers and others to take that information and use it in their decision making.”

Audit now not required

However, in April 2017, the Trump administration started making strikes to restrict enforcement of the Conflict Minerals Rule, culminating in SEC chairman Mike Piwowar saying firms is not going to be required to conduct a due diligence evaluate or an audit any longer.

“Even before these statements were made by the SEC, there really had not been ‘enforcement’ from them in anyway,” says Thomas. “I’m only aware of a few times, in rare instances, of the SEC asking about the [conflict minerals] disclosure when asking about other filings from companies, so it really wasn’t enforcement per se, even before that statement was made.”

“I think it’s true to say the electronics industries have very much lead the way in diligence and disclosure and emphasis on responsible sourcing, working with smelters and refiners around the world to make sure there was pressure on them to go through the auditing process, and to have good due diligence procedures.”

“RMI is very committed to continuing to support company due diligence regardless of what regulations are in place,” says Butler.

According to Thomas, the EU Regulation regarded to fill gaps that Dodd Frank didn’t cowl – particularly imports and upstream actors – in addition to develop its geographical scope to incorporate any “high-risk, conflict-affected area” on the earth.

“When you look at it there were a lot of issues being discussed and those who wanted a broader role to cover more things, and to be more broad overall, were not entirely successful, and also the people who wanted to narrow the regulation were not 100% successful either.”

As it stands, the EU Regulation will enable the European Commission to attract up a world “white list” of licensed smelters and refiners.

“Anyone who is not sourcing from smelters or refiners on that list will have to provide additional disclosure and in that way will be subject to their member states coming to them with further questions,” stated Thomas, stating this was extra of a consequence than “a penalty per se”.

A poor course of

However, in line with Radley, the static nature of present auditing processes leaves a lot to be desired, and solely apply to at least one battle area whereas new auditing programs might want to apply globally.

“You go to a mine, audit for a few days every few years, but of course if you’re an operator all the children can stay at home and you can be on your best behaviour,” he says. “But the situation is also fluid, so in two or three months’ time it might be completely different – somewhere that was classified as a green mine and ‘conflict free’ may very quickly change.”

“My own research documented the continuation of human rights abuses in the mine sites that had been certified as conflict free, and so just the inherent nature of this quite static audit system makes it difficult to continue to determine what is going on at the level of the mine sites.”

He provides that an enormous quantity of funding could be required to correctly acquire visibility of the state of affairs on the bottom in a location as huge because the DRC.

As of but, it’s unclear how the EU will keep away from the identical issues with auditing smelters and refiners which shall be much more geographically unfold out, and what measures are in place to confirm that the minerals delivered to those organisations are coming from “conflict-free” mines.

What are the options?

According to Collingsworth and Radley, a greater method could be to maneuver away from voluntary company governance and social accountability fashions to give attention to growing the productive capability of these dwelling in battle zones to allow them to develop their very own options to what are primarily deeply political conflicts.

For Radley, “corporate social responsibility” and its related governance fashions, whereby the options are pushed in a prime down trend by personal actors, started to emerge within the late 1970s and early 80s.

“I think you can see the whole conflict minerals movement as an extension of this move towards corporate governance, where you’re essentially expecting private sector actors to take the lead on these sorts of issues, and the state is often squeezed out or overlooked in these contexts,” he says.

A consequence of that is the emphasis positioned on industrial mining operations over artisanal mining operations, which aren’t solely much less dangerous to the setting, however immediately linked to the financial prospects of employees on the bottom.

“I think there is a tension there between the extent to which [the regulation] can be used as a platform by companies to ease the fear of consumers who have concerns, while at the same time failing to have a meaningful impact on the ground, which is where it is meant to be providing tangible benefits,” says Radley.

To ship correct, significant advantages, Collingsworth and Radley agree it’s important that each issues and options, within the DRC and different battle zones, are historicised within the correct context. For the Congo, this implies speaking a few violent colonial historical past the place it was forcibly built-in into the worldwide economic system by European imperial powers.

“Where are those sorts of discussions and who is willing to take it on? Pretty resounding silence on that when you look around,” says Radley. “I think the historical context highlights that this [regulation] is essentially a narrow exercise – it’s not challenging the structural integration of the Congolese economy globally, which has historically been a huge source of injustice and inequity.”

Since the Belgium Conference in 1885, the place central Africa was divided up amongst 14 competing European powers with out enter from any African representatives, international interference by each nation states and multinational companies have been mainstays in Congolese affairs.

Radley provides that a lot of the battle minerals dialog that has performed out during the last decade has centered an excessive amount of on making the mineral exports palatable to Western customers, with out addressing how one can restructure the Congo’s integration into the worldwide economic system.

“We need to move beyond this idea of just improving the ethical way in which the Congo supplies its minerals to the rest of the world, and think about how to actually increase the productive capacity of the Congolese economy to, for example, develop its own green technologies and use its minerals to develop supply chains around which it can move the economy forward on a stronger footing,” he says.

“That [historical] perspective is very important for that and produces very different solutions and ways which we can think about reversing that history – which is very much on the agenda of many of the Congolese you speak to, but seems to be quite absent from these current [industry-led] solutions around conflict minerals.”

The criticism submitted by Collingsworth and IRA on behalf of the Congolese miners additionally particulars the brutality of this colonial historical past within the DRC.

“I think it’s very important to point out how little things have changed, and how the level of cruelty and abuse is really consistent with what is an attitude or a mindset that these are ‘just’ Africans,” says Collingsworth.

“I think there’s a racial component to how these executives go home at night and pat their own kids on the head, knowing what’s going on over there.”

Source hyperlink

Be First to Comment

    Leave a Reply