Social Networking for the Microelectronics Industry
Do your semiconductors contain 'conflict minerals' ?
Thanks to Sean Moynagh of Mirics for raising this one.
Some large customers are wanting to know whether semiconductor devices contain what are known as 'conflict minerals'. Specifically, these are Gold and the three Ts (Tin, Tantalum and Tungsten) mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). For those who don't know, there is a long-running genocide and widespread sexual violence going on there that is financed in large part by the Electronics Industry, (our companies ?), and ultimately by consumers. For a brief overview see: http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/27/news/international/congo.fortune/in...
The issue has been raised by the Enough Project (see http://www.enoughproject.org/publications/comprehensive-approach-co...) who are challenging the industry to change it's ways. One of the approaches they have adopted is to write to top electronics companies (e.g. http://www.raisehopeforcongo.org/files/pdf/Steve-Jobs-letter.pdf) and get them to agree amongst other things, that they "will no longer do business with companies in the minerals supply chain until they can certify (subject to independent verification) that they are no longer purchasing raw materials that benefit militant groups in Congo".
To see a response from Nokia on this: http://conversations.nokia.com/2009/04/15/we-have-no-taste-for-unet...
So how does this relate to us ? Well at some point, if we have a large electronic company as a customer we will be requested to check our supply chain for these 'conflict minerals'. This will be time-consuming so it would be good to have started the process at least. Of course some smaller companies may well take this up as well. I mean, who wants to be thought of as funding genocide ? Like other environmental issues, knowing that our products are clean of conflict minerals can be be a marketing advantage.
What can we do ? Well we can approach our suppliers and simply ask whether they are aware of this issue and what they are doing about it ? Many of the large suppliers will not want to be excluded by large electronics companies.
But can we realistically do more ? Thoughts ?
For many of us we've had RoHS, Corporate Social Responsibility Policies and Green requirements, all of which require lots of work to check whether our devices contain certain materials. So we can see this as just another hassle. However, think of it this way. Together, we might be in the unique situation of being able to do significant good i.e. influence the outcome of mass suffering. It's not often we can say that.
Chris Watts
Some large customers are wanting to know whether semiconductor devices contain what are known as 'conflict minerals'. Specifically, these are Gold and the three Ts (Tin, Tantalum and Tungsten) mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). For those who don't know, there is a long-running genocide and widespread sexual violence going on there that is financed in large part by the Electronics Industry, (our companies ?), and ultimately by consumers. For a brief overview see: http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/27/news/international/congo.fortune/in...
The issue has been raised by the Enough Project (see http://www.enoughproject.org/publications/comprehensive-approach-co...) who are challenging the industry to change it's ways. One of the approaches they have adopted is to write to top electronics companies (e.g. http://www.raisehopeforcongo.org/files/pdf/Steve-Jobs-letter.pdf) and get them to agree amongst other things, that they "will no longer do business with companies in the minerals supply chain until they can certify (subject to independent verification) that they are no longer purchasing raw materials that benefit militant groups in Congo".
To see a response from Nokia on this: http://conversations.nokia.com/2009/04/15/we-have-no-taste-for-unet...
So how does this relate to us ? Well at some point, if we have a large electronic company as a customer we will be requested to check our supply chain for these 'conflict minerals'. This will be time-consuming so it would be good to have started the process at least. Of course some smaller companies may well take this up as well. I mean, who wants to be thought of as funding genocide ? Like other environmental issues, knowing that our products are clean of conflict minerals can be be a marketing advantage.
What can we do ? Well we can approach our suppliers and simply ask whether they are aware of this issue and what they are doing about it ? Many of the large suppliers will not want to be excluded by large electronics companies.
But can we realistically do more ? Thoughts ?
For many of us we've had RoHS, Corporate Social Responsibility Policies and Green requirements, all of which require lots of work to check whether our devices contain certain materials. So we can see this as just another hassle. However, think of it this way. Together, we might be in the unique situation of being able to do significant good i.e. influence the outcome of mass suffering. It's not often we can say that.
Chris Watts
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Dr Trevor Gainey on September 12, 2011 at 8:48am -
I came across a recent article which reminded me of this NMI discussion.
After recent US legislation changes, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, publicly traded companies must report the use of tin, tantalum, gold, and tungsten from conflicted regions. However there is so far no standard to enable standardised reporting of these elements and their sources.
Industry associations IPC, the EICC (Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition), and the GeSI (Global e-Sustainability Initiative) are developing a standard that will allow businesses to demonstrate compliance with this legal obligation.
Hopefully this will provide better clarity on the requirements that some key U.S. customers are already demanding.
http://www.edn.com/article/519288-Tool_is_in_the_works_to_standardi...
-
Comment by Stephen Meats on October 13, 2010 at 3:52pm -
I just stumbled upon this post again a number of months from the last posting. Chris, when we met in person at NPL earlier in the year I suggested the idea of an "ethical branding" of electronics products along the lines of the Fairtrade model.
The concept was that anything from an electronic component right up to a complete consumer product could carry some kind of ethical branding label. Have you discussed this with anyone ?
I like this idea because it encourages the consumer to buy into a branding rather than forcing legislation on the manufacturer.
-
Comment by Chris Watts on February 17, 2010 at 3:40pm -
Interesting comments, Trevor and Stephen. The Kimberley approach used by the diamond industry to try to eliminate 'blood diamonds' may be a useful model for this.
There has also been a development in the US regarding 'Conflict Minerals'. Congressman Jim McDermott has introduced a bill to help stop this trade. See http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr091119.shtml. "The bill requires importers of potential conflict goods to certify whether or not their imports contain conflict minerals and USTR will report to Congress and the public which companies are. The legislation provides a two year period before implementation to enable industries to implement successfully, and it requires industry to use outside auditors to determine whether refiners are indeed conflict-free". Interestingly, the Kimberley Process served as a model for this bill. The bill needs to pass in both houses to become law.
The NMI Fabless Semiconductors Operations Group have formed a small sub-committee to discuss Conflict Minerals and various other material composition issues.
-
Comment by Dr Trevor Gainey on November 2, 2009 at 11:53am
-
The sentiments of this endeavor are very noble, but the practicalities of tracing all your raw materials is considerable. I have been involved in one such survey for a client. In one case we came up against a brick wall when the wafer fab's chemical supplier could not tell us where the Ta or W was smelted or mined as they buy the commodity from a metals exchange. Despite being a well respected chemical company they either could not or would not reveal their ultimate source. In another case Au for wire bonds was from recycled scrap. Who can actually tell the original mining origins of this material?
Until this movement gets more momentum and is widely known throughout the supply chain I think it is going to be much more difficult than any of the other environmental or other Corporate Social Responsibility questionnaires.
-
Comment by Stephen Meats on October 22, 2009 at 4:02pm
-
A similar situation exists in the jewellery industry which is trying to eliminate 'conflict diamonds', also mined in the DRC. Suppliers are being asked for certificates to verify the origin of materials. In my view the electonics industry needs an internationally recognised system for verifying the origins of materials which could potentially be 'conflict minerals'.
© 2012 Created by John Moor.
Powered by 
.
You need to be a member of NMInet to add comments!
Join NMInet