Bayer: Dodd-Frank Conflict Minerals Requirements Effective

by on

Dr. Christopher Bayer, Ph.D., of the Payson Center for International Development of Tulane University Law School, recently responded to an e-mail interview with MetalMiner Editor Jeff Yoders about the recent Conflict Mineral Benchmarking Study he led of Dodd-Frank Conflict Minerals compliance.

Two-Month Trial: Metal Buying Outlook

More than three years after U.S. companies began filing reports about their efforts to find conflict minerals linked to armed militias in Africa in their supply chains, 65% say they still can’t make a determination about what minerals are in those chains. Bayer explained more in this MetalMiner Q&A.

Chris Bayer. Image courtesy of Tulane University.

Chris Bayer. Image: Tulane University.

Jeff Yoders: Analysis of the reports shows that conflict-minerals reports are boosting supply-chain transparency for many of these companies. Is that an added benefit to reporting?

Chris Bayer, PhD: Yes, a company can use Dodd-Frank Section 1502 to gain insight into its own supply chain, to a degree that would probably not have been previously possible. Whether and how companies may leverage that to their advantage is up to them, but without question, information is power. Quite a number of companies are weeding out non-performing suppliers in their supply chain according to their defined parameters on conflict minerals.

JY: 10% Of all filers said, or implied, they had conflict-free products. What did you and your team’s research tell you about these claims?

CB: First off, it is in fact an extraordinary claim for a company to make. A whole lot of work would go into ruling out the possibility that the company is indeed not — through its procurement practices — fueling conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Your due diligence inquiry is, by definition, very involved, given the sheer amount of tiers and suppliers to traverse on average. But as per the Securities and Exchange Commission, a company should take care not to designate is products as DRC conflict-free unless it can also provide independent assurance that would lend credibility to such a claim.

JY: Incomplete reports were still an issue. How long do you think it will be until companies can, at least, fill out complete reports?

CB: Since many companies are already able to achieve full compliance — including reporting smelter Or Refiner (SOR) and Country of Origin (COO) data — the we-need-more time argument becomes less plausible.

JY: More companies underwent product audits this year. Are outside product audits necessary for full compliance?

Free Download: Last Chance for the July 2016 MMI Report

CB: A company that does not opt to use the “DRC conflict free” designation is, as per the SEC statement of April 29, 2014, not required to have an independent, private-sector audit performed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.