(Photo courtesy of Julien Harneis under a Creative Commons license)
Part 1 of this series highlighted the issues, regulatory and supply chain complexities and efforts by industry to tighten the control of precious minerals sourcing. Part 2 of the series dove a bit deeper into efforts by key manufacturers in how they are auditing, validating and tracing the conflict minerals supply chain. The post also presented some ideas on and what responsibilities non-governmental organizations have had in shaping the debate over conflict minerals, and the roles or responsibilities that we as consumers should take in this thorny human rights- environmental impacts meets consumer products issue.
The final part of this series highlights specific international guidance and steps that industries and consumers can and are taking to proactively address supply chain minerals sourcing and maintain a high level of corporate social responsibility.
But before I go further, a postscript to Part 2. Following my second post, I was contacted by Suzanne Fallender of Intel with an update on the company’s efforts that I described in the second post. In her response, for which he apologized for the delay, she provided a copy of a white paper prepared and posted in late April. In it, the company states “we continue to work diligently to put the systems and processes in place that will enable us, with a high degree of confidence, to declare that our products are conflict-free. Our efforts on conflict minerals are focused in three main areas: (1) driving accountability and ownership within our own supply chain through smelter reviews and validation audits; (2) partnering with key industry associations, including the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI); and (3) working with both governmental agencies and NGOs to achieve in-region sourcing”.
The Intel white paper concludes by stating “From the time we became aware of the potential for conflict-metals from the DRC to enter our supply chain, we have responded to this issue with a sense of urgency and resolve. We have approached this issue like we would address other significant business challenges at Intel.” I believe Intel and their efforts to date bear that out. They are encouraging comments on their plans and efforts, which can be submitted at http://www.intel.com/about/corporateresponsibility/contactus/index.htm.
By the way, I am still waiting on Apples reply to my inquiries.
Comparing Proposed Steps to Action
As mentioned in the second post, the OECD guidance, Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, serves as a common reference for all suppliers and other stakeholders in the mineral supply chain. The guidance also meshes well with current industry-driven schemes like the EICC and GeSi and AIGG guidance, and clarifies expectations regarding responsible supply chain management of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas.
The OECD guidance approaches minerals sourcing and supply chain management from a “risk management” and “due diligence” perspective and offers a framework to promote accountability and transparency. A fundamental problem with the OECD guidance is that it’s voluntary. And with any voluntary guidance, there’s reluctance or little pressure to fully commit to implementation, unless key market or financial drivers threaten or pressure companies to do so. Also, what is challenging as mentioned before are the many steps and sometimes fragmented nature of the minerals sourcing supply chain. The myriad of hands that minerals often pass through on the way to the smelter, and in turn on to intermediate and final product manufacturers is numerous and admittedly difficult to accurately trace. Risk levels are particularly high when minerals are derived from the artisanal mining operations (as compared to larger scale operations). Consequently, being able to control and influence risk along the entire minerals sourcing network and assure that adequate due diligence mechanisms are in place to keep track of intermediary activities is daunting to say the least. All the more reason to seek ways to streamline the sourcing process by limiting the number of materials exchanges, stepping up oversight, and disengaging activities with underperforming or high risk suppliers
The OECD suggests a five step framework for risk-based due diligence in the mineral supply chain that strongly advocates for traceability and accounting systems for both upstream and downstream supply chain organizations:
Step 1: Establish strong company management systems
Step 2: Identify and assess risks in the supply chain
Step 3: Design and implement a strategy to respond to identified risks
Step 4: Carry out independent third-party audit of smelter/refiner’s due diligence practices
Step 5: Report annually on supply chain due diligence
In some contrast to the OECD guidance, the Enough Project offers its own set of valuable ideas and frameworks for the electronics sector and others working in east Africa to follow. Enough Project, in its recent report entitled Certification: The Path to Conflict-Free Minerals from Congo , states that international certification efforts are vital to long-term solutions to conflict minerals issues and on assuring revenue “transparency”. The Enough Project offers its “five key lessons that should be incorporated into a certification scheme for conflict minerals:
- A “conductor” is needed to convene a high-level diplomatic partnership on certification and help transform words into action. A “conductor”—a leader with gravitas and political support—is needed to bring stakeholders to the table and to issue a call to action. President Bill Clinton provided a precedent for this when he called together companies and sweatshop labor campaigners in 1996, resulting in the Fair Labor Association certification process.
- Certification should be governed and funded by a multi-stakeholder body that includes companies, governments, and NGOs. The legitimacy of a process rests on a multi-stakeholder governing and funding framework that ensures accountability.
- Certification must include independent third-party auditing and monitoring. Regular independent audits assure the public that the process is credible, and on-the-ground monitoring ensures accuracy.
- Transparency of audits and data is essential to making certification work. Certification processes are moving rapidly towards full disclosure of data and audits.
- Certification must have teeth. Certification can only work if its standards have meaning on the ground and are enforced through penalties for noncompliance.”
The Enough Project report calls on the United States, through Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, to convene a senior partnership on certification with industry and the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR). The report also states that “the United States must act quickly, as minerals traders in Congo are already seeking alternative, opaque markets for their minerals. An internationally accepted certification process would deter this development.” Last week, a letter writing campaign launched encouraging U.S. Secretary of State Clinton to state a public U.S. position on this issue and convene a high-level partnership on certification with leading electronics and end-user companies, together with Congolese President Kabila and regional governments. The goal of this summit would be “aimed at unifying the regional and industry-led initiatives and gaining consensus on a system of independent checks on the ground”.
Meantime, Conflict-Free Smelter the industry protocols proposed and under development by the EICC and GeSi are focused on two key areas targeted at what they characterize as the “pinch point” in the supply chain- the smelter:
Business Process Review: Evaluate company policies and or codes of conduct relating to conflict minerals
Material Analysis Review: 1) Conduct a complete material analysis to demonstrate that all sources of materials procured by the smelting company are conflict-free; 2) Evaluate whether source locations are consistent with known mining locations; and 3) Establish whether material identified as “recycled” meets the definition of recycled materials.
The CFS program is moving forward in spite of the delay by the SEC for final rulemaking. CFS assessments for tantalum began in the fourth quarter, 2010 and are expected to be posted on the EICC website starting this month. Tin, tungsten and gold are planned to commence later this year.
What Makes a Good Auditor?
In addition to “what” types of certification schemes are needed and how they should be administered or governed, there’s the matter of “who” should do the auditing and third- part certifying. What I see as critical here is Step 4 of the OECD process and Step 3 of the Enough Projects documents, both of which the EICC and GeSi programs are attempting to fulfill. However, key to this audit process is the “independence” and competency factor as well as what qualifications auditors have to perform these assessments. The Enough Project gleaned through numerous frameworks in order to develop its proposed certification approach, which deserves careful consideration. In addition, while the SEC has yet to clarify the specifics of the Dodd-Frank provision, ELM Consulting’s Lawrence Heim in a recent AgMetal Miner series, notes:
… There are a number of auditor certifications that could be considered applicable to this scope of audit, but none should be considered to automatically qualify an auditor for these engagements. These audits require a unique blend of expertise in general auditing processes/procedures, environmental knowledge, accounting basics, chemistry/industrial processes, procurement controls, contracts and supply chain fundamentals. Finally, the auditor must be able to execute the engagement in accordance with the auditor/engagement standards of the Government Auditing Standards, such as the standards for Attestation Engagements or the standards for Performance Audits (GAO–07–731G) GAO-07-731G contains standards on auditor independence.
Associations consist of multiple members who have varying degrees of business relationships with each other and the audited entities, putting the auditor in a position of serving “multiple masters” relative to influence over the audit scope, process, information, report and payment. Our research and inquiries to qualified experts in SEC auditing requirements indicates that there appears to be no precedent in any other legally-required audit in the US that has been fulfilled in this manner.
Comparisons and Contrasts
I had the chance last week to listen in on an informative webinar by STR Responsible Sourcing. The company is an accredited monitor for numerous social certification programs, and partners with many organizations that share our mission of assuring responsible sourcing practices. The company compared governmental, regional, industry schemes for addressing minerals mined in conflict regions. The figure below summarizes each of the initiatives and target areas.
According to STR, there are a series of challenges lying ahead for both upstream suppliers (e.g. miners (artisanal and small-scale or large-scale producers), local traders or exporters from the country of mineral origin, international concentrate traders, mineral re-processors and smelters/refiners) and downstream users (e.g. metal traders and exchanges, component manufacturers, product manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and retailers) of precious minerals. Downstream Supply Chain parties are faced with some unique challenges, namely:
- No clearly defined requirements of “due diligence”
- No guarantees for “conflict-free”
- Limited transparency in upstream supply chain
- No traceability in downstream supply chain
- No generally accepted standard / certification
For the upstream supply chain, primary challenges include:
- Complexity of the supply chain
- Difficulty to include small and artisanal mining
- Challenges for implementation of traceability schemes in the DRC due to militarization of mines and widespread lack of formalization of small scale mining
Meanwhile, according to STR, the downstream supply chain might consider the following approaches to start on the path of responsible sourcing of precious minerals:
- Implement a procurement policy and due diligence procedures
- Develop consistent supplier engagement processes (awareness raising, communication and training) throughout the supply chain
- Monitor downstream suppliers’ due diligence procedures and gather data on organization of supply chain (desktop or onsite)
For the upstream supply chain consider the following:
- Support certification schemes and industry efforts
- Join certified trading chains / buy certified products
- Government lobbying
Where to Start
If you are a manufacturer of electronics, jewelry, automotive parts or other goods that may be subject to sourcing through the DRC or other conflict prone areas of the world, consider (at a minimum), the following steps:
- Read the OECD and Enough Project guidance documents to understand the issues and risks associated with responsible sourcing
- Stay tuned into the progress that your industry associations are achieving to bring a better sense of responsible management to this issue
- Follow the development of the SEC conflict mineral guidelines
- Work with procurement, operations, legal, environmental and communications staff to craft a procurement policy & selection of supplier selection process (along the lines that Intel, HP, Motorola and others have)
- Request origin and chain of custody documentation for purchases to assure traceability
- Establish adequate record-keeping system
- Ensure that relevant staff is trained on procurement policies, procedures to receive material and identification of potential conflict material
If I were to look at where industry was a few short years ago on this issue compared to now, there’s no doubt that increased minerals sourcing tracing and accountability in conflict-free minerals is improved. The system as presently planned, in pilot stages or in process certainly has some flaws as most new initiatives have. But given the industry, region, national and international levels of cooperation that is rapidly becoming evident, I’ve no doubt that the positive outcomes will be great.
Aaron Hall, Policy Analyst at the Enough Project in a recent interview with Resource Investing News said “It’s a start. You have to take small steps forward. The fact that governments and industry are thinking about this shows concern and to a large extent they are willing to tackle the problem,” said Hall. “I think it’s remarkable that the multiple stakeholders involved in this process have been able to come together in such a short amount of time and make progress towards setting up a regional certification regime for these minerals.”
Tags: africa, Apple, asia, business, collaboration, conflict_free_smelter, conflict_minerals, congo, corporate social responsibility, csr, dell, dodd-frank, drc, eicc, Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition, electronics, Enough Project, extended_producer_responsibility, gesi, global, Global E-Sustainability Initiative, green, green supply chain, green supply chain management, GSCM, Hewlett-Packard, high-tech, industrial, Intel, logistics, management, mining, OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, policy, politics, procurement, product_stewardship, STR Responsible Sourcing, supply, supply_chain, sustainability, sustainable, systems, transparency
As we approach the mid-point in 2011, the tea leaves of the economic recovery have ‘sustainability’ in supply chain planning and management firming up as a key “rebuilding” block in company activities. Two recent studies from two different continents bear that notion out. First, consultancy BearingPoint Ireland has released a report which says two-thirds of companies surveyed in Europe believe that a green supply chain is a strategic priority. The report, entitled Green Supply Chain: from awareness to action, is the fourth of a series of “supply chain monitors” from the private consultancy. The study was conducted among about 600 European decision-makers by Novamétrie between 2010 and 2011, with a position within Supply Chain, Sustainable Development or Industrial Divisions. Key industries captured includes: consumer goods, transportation, construction, automotive, industrial goods, retail, energy and utilities, chemicals, IT/electronics and pharmaceuticals, among others.
The Bearing Point study made a statement that caught my eye and for which I wholeheartedly agree. Identifying with a systems-based mindset that recognizes the intrinsic and realized value sustainability-focused business management is a critical fulcrum for green supply chain practices. I noted in a post last fall that The Fifth Discipline and The Necessary Revolution author Peter Senge argued (in the October Harvard Business Review) that to make progress on environmental issues, organizations must understand that they’re part of a larger system. Senge also makes a great point that companies will be in a better competitive position if they understand the larger system that they operate within and to work with people you haven’t worked with before.
ValueStreaming 
Recent Comments