How to Make Your Supply Chain Human Rights Friendly

Your cell phone could be promoting child warfare. Your laptop could be a product of illegal trade. Your MP3 player could be linked to human rights abuse. Some of the materials used to produce these gadgets, that is.

Apple, Dell, HP, Intel and Nokia are among the companies that trade materials through supply chains in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which contributes to basic human rights abuse in the region, according to a recent paper by the U.K.-based non-governmental organization Global Witness. The main raw material in this region is cassiterite, from which tin is made. Tin is a popular material in mobile phones and electronic circuit boards.

At various points in the trading process, from the mining site, where miners often work at gunpoint, to the transport of materials, when illegal taxes are implemented by rebel armies along footpaths and main roads, human rights abuse occurs. The revenue generated by these illegal activities funds the rebel and government armies, which “commit serious human rights abuses, such as killing, rape, torture, recruitment of child soldiers and other crimes.” Military control has been going on for about 12 years.

An ad campaign for RaiseHopeforCongo.org spoofs the omnipresent Mac vs. PC commercials, showing that what these two have in common is "conflict minerals." The ad has garnered half a million views on YouTube and raised awareness about this issue in the DRC region.

Instead of simply pointing an accusatory finger, Global Witness presents a solution for these huge international companies. The paper, titled “DO NO HARM,” vehemently suggests the companies perform due diligence on their entire supply chain. Companies that actively choose to source materials from these conflict regions can then clearly show the public that they have no involvement, either directly or indirectly, with crimes and human rights abuses associated with trade.

Some companies use the International Tin Research Institute to vet their trading practices. But this program does not account for illegal taxation or abuse by the national army. Intel, meanwhile, plans to create an industry-led "smelter-validation" scheme, but it's still in the planning stage.

Global Witness says that companies already employ this supply chain process in other areas of their business. They’re the ones choosing to trade in these regions. If they cannot demonstrate safe trade procedures, they should find their materials elsewhere.

According to the report, "Failure by companies to carry out supply chain due diligence can damage their reputations and make them legally liable." In 2008, the British government upheld a complaint filed by Global Witness against Afrimex, a British mineral company that uses resources from the DRC. The government discovered rebel soldiers profited from Afrimex's supply chain.

Global Witness's proposed measures are: 

• A conflict minerals policy
• Supply chain risk assessments, including on the ground checks on suppliers
•  Remedial action to deal with any problems identified
•  Independent third party audits of their due diligence measures
•  Public reporting

How realistic is it for companies to simply stop using these suppliers? It's not quite as simple as finding another supplier--which would most likely raise the cost of production. And companies might need to hire new staff teams to implement the due diligence process. All of which leads to higher prices for the consumer.

The question then becomes: Would you pay a premium for knowing that no one was harmed in the making of your gadget?