Lisa Reisman and Jason Busch, subject-matter experts in their respective fields for MetalMiner and Spend Matters, recently came together to make sense of where US manufacturing companies stood on conflict minerals compliance as we approach the halfway mark of 2013, in the wake of Conflict Minerals EDGE, the first-of-its-kind conference hosted earlier this week by the two leading sites.
What were the takeaways from an audience perspective? Watch:
Below is an excerpt of Lisa’s key takeaways from the conference:
Jason Busch: How prepared are most companies to tackle conflict minerals compliance based on what you heard and saw?
Lisa Reisman: One point I came away with was that many companies have greater capability than they think to pursue conflict minerals compliance initiatives. For example, if you’re in pharmaceutical or aerospace, you’re likely doing part- or lot-level traceability already. Some companies might be able to piggy-pack on these initiatives.
The audience was a self-selecting bunch of over 50 from the manufacturing world (classic early adopters, given the timing of the event). In this demographic, [they] appeared to be headed down the right path to tackle conflict minerals compliance.
But the big question is: what about all of the other companies who have not yet started initiatives? It was notable that nearly all of the attendees were OEMs and not their suppliers. Suppliers are going to need to get their programs in place quickly this year and into , as the OEM programs steam into full gear. The traceability requirements cascade to them, and much of the real force of the regulation will hit Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers (and lower-tier). This group seems most unprepared as a general rule.”
The rest of this PRO research brief can be found on Spend Matters PRO. If you’d like to become a Spend Matters PRO member, please subscribe. If you’re not into paying for content, we totally get that too.