The Enough Project’s Raise Hope for Congo Campaign is sounding the alarm: minerals vital to cell phones, computers, digital cameras and other electronics products are fueling the deadliest war in the world in eastern Congo.

As a first step toward educating electronics companies about their role in ensuring that Congo's minerals don't continue to fuel the ongoing crisis, a coalition of 32 organizations, including human rights, labor, environmental, conflict resolution, consumer advocacy, conservation, fair trade, faith-based, and other advocacy groups, sent a letter outlining our concerns to the 21 largest consumer electronics companies.

In response to this letter, and to the thousands of emails sent by activists, Enough has received replies from 15 of the 21 companies, as well as a response from the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition, or EICC, a corporate social responsibility industry association. These responses provide an opening for dialogue with the industry, but they also show how much work still needs to be done.

Here is a summary of the most common responses from the electronics industry:

1) Industry-wide initiatives like the EICC suffice to solve the problem

Twelve of the 15 replies referenced company involvement with corporate social responsibility industry associations: the EICC and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative, or GeSI. Because companies are concerned about being the first to incur the costs related to tracing and auditing their supply chains, it makes sense for them to delegate this issue to industry associations.

These industry initiatives have been responsible for some important first steps on sharing information, as they have:
• established a working group on extractives and mining
• commissioned a research paper on the role of metals in electronics products; and
• launched research on a transparency model showing the supply chains for tin, tantalum, and cobalt.

But industry associations move very cautiously and operate on a lowest common denominator consensus, and the EICC actions fall far short of making electronic devices verifiably conflict-free. The EICC/GeSI have not committed to the Conflict Minerals Pledge and progress toward their 2009 goals has moved slowly, given that industry associations can only move as quickly as their least nimble members. Enough and its partners believe that individual companies have a responsibility to their consumers and must adjust their policies and procedures to make sure their products are conflict-free.

2) We have something in writing

Eight of the 15 responses from companies reference corporate policies that have been adopted to ensure that tantalum from Congo is not used in their products. There are a couple of major problems with these policies. First, in nearly all cases these policies only cover tantalum and do not mention the other conflict minerals from Congo: tin, tungsten, and gold. Second, suppliers are merely required to confirm – without independent verification or independent auditing - that they do not source from Congo. Given the shady middlemen engaged in the conflict minerals trade, companies need to disclose more information about how they implement this policy to assure consumers that it is more than just a piece of paper.

Some companies have taken more extensive action on this issue that could serve as a model for others. Hewlett-Packard has published a complete list of their first tier suppliers. Apple says it has an extensive audit and monitoring program that is more stringent than industry standards.

3) Supply chains are too complicated for tracing and audits

Companies are quick to point out the challenges associated with tracing their supply chains. Companies refer to the ‘countless components’ that go into their products and the ‘long and complex’ supply chain for each product.

Supply chains are complex, but that is hardly an excuse for inaction. Tracing and auditing is possible. There are many components and suppliers who contribute to a given phone or computer, but there are also major chokepoints in the supply chain for these metals. For instance, the majority of world tin production flows through just a dozen smelting companies. Tin and tantalum companies have discussed tracing and supply chain audits. Jewelry companies, including Tiffany and Signet, have already had independent audits conducted of their supply chains for diamonds. And Wal-Mart has done tracing to mines of origin for gold, partnering with several mining companies.

Electronics companies can use their leverage to demand that these companies comply with independently verifiable tracing and auditing schemes.

4) There is no uniform standard for independent verification at present

Companies are quick to point out the lack of existing verification mechanism that could certify minerals from Congo along the lines of the Kimberley Process for diamonds. Standards for independently verifiable tracing and auditing need to be developed, and electronics companies need to show leadership to help make this happen.

Electronics companies can move this process forward by working with their suppliers, engaging with companies, governments, and development agencies working in the Great Lakes region, and collaborating with international accounting firms capable of performing audits.

We are encouraged by the high number of companies to respond to date, and their willingness to engage in constructive dialogue, but it is clear that it will take the engagement of activists and consumers to help keep the pressure on to ensure that all our electronics products are conflict free. If you haven’t already contacted these companies you can do so in one easy step here.