Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.5399491/tech-giants-sued-over-appalling-deaths-of-children-who-mine-their-cobalt-1.5399492
292 comments
Just for the sake of completeness, "knowingly" is a specific legalese term. It means you know the goods are coming from the prohibited source, but still decide to buy it.
The total spectrum looks like this:
- purposefully: you won't buy cobalt, unless it says "mined by slave children" on the tin
- knowingly: you buy cobalt even if it says "mined by slave children" on the tin
- recklessly: you know that 90% of world cobalt is mined by slave children. You hope that yours comes from the remaining 10%
- negligently: you know that 10% of world cobalt is mined by slave children, so you decided to take a chance and bought yours without checking
The total spectrum looks like this:
- purposefully: you won't buy cobalt, unless it says "mined by slave children" on the tin
- knowingly: you buy cobalt even if it says "mined by slave children" on the tin
- recklessly: you know that 90% of world cobalt is mined by slave children. You hope that yours comes from the remaining 10%
- negligently: you know that 10% of world cobalt is mined by slave children, so you decided to take a chance and bought yours without checking
Isn't there another level which is only sufficient for crime if it is a Strict Liability law?
- accidentally: you know there's a risk of buying cobalt mined by slave children. So, you took the actions of a reasonable person to avoid that risk, but you failed.
- accidentally: you know there's a risk of buying cobalt mined by slave children. So, you took the actions of a reasonable person to avoid that risk, but you failed.
Not sure I understand the difference between recklessly and negligently? Don't both amount to you not knowing and not wanting to find out?
Negligent means you didn't know and didn't want to, reckless meant you didn't know but accepted the possibility that it could happen or the possibility was extremely high.
A quick search shows that past lawsuits against Nestle and other companies for child labor in their supply chain listed consumers as the plaintiffs claiming damage from false advertising and non -disclosure [1]. These cases have ended up being dismissed.
The difference is that in this case the children and their families are the actual plaintiffs which presumably changes the legal merits. I still suspect that this case will also be dismissed.
I think the point is that these lawsuits are intended to raise public awareness of the issue which will ideally put pressure the companies being sued to institute voluntary policing of their supply chain. Nestle, for example, has done a lot over the last decade to eliminate child labor in their supply chain.
(Edit) It looks like there is a supreme Court precedent related to the Nestle case that held that child/family plaintiffs did have standing to sue for child labor in the supply chain [2]
[1] https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-...
[2] https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-gives-boost-child-sla...
The difference is that in this case the children and their families are the actual plaintiffs which presumably changes the legal merits. I still suspect that this case will also be dismissed.
I think the point is that these lawsuits are intended to raise public awareness of the issue which will ideally put pressure the companies being sued to institute voluntary policing of their supply chain. Nestle, for example, has done a lot over the last decade to eliminate child labor in their supply chain.
(Edit) It looks like there is a supreme Court precedent related to the Nestle case that held that child/family plaintiffs did have standing to sue for child labor in the supply chain [2]
[1] https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-...
[2] https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-gives-boost-child-sla...
> I think the point is that these lawsuits are intended to raise public awareness of the issue which will ideally put pressure the companies being sued to institute voluntary policing of their supply chain.
Beyond the legal merits, tech companies have been talking about "conflict minerals" for a while. You could certainly doubt how seriously committed they are to resolving the minerals-sourcing issues, or even what their motivations are: my unconfirmed assumptions are that "conflict minerals" https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/policy/policy-confli... was conceived by Intel as an adaptation of the "conflict diamonds" campaign, and that the "conflict diamonds" campaign was in turn something contrived by De Beers as a marketing effort. But what's remarkable is how little consumers seem to have cared or responded even when manufacturers made the running on the issue. It seems it's much easier to get consumers on an ethical-sourcing bandwagon when the product is a luxury good bought for social-signaling purposes (like fur coats or diamonds) than when it's something they look on as a quotidian expense or something to get the most bang for the buck in. Which is unfortunate, I think: consumers probably should get off their arses and on the likely-somewhat-sleazy "conflict minerals" bandwagon, because it's likely the best chance to meet our responsibilities and effect real change in the sourcing of minerals for electronic devices.
Beyond the legal merits, tech companies have been talking about "conflict minerals" for a while. You could certainly doubt how seriously committed they are to resolving the minerals-sourcing issues, or even what their motivations are: my unconfirmed assumptions are that "conflict minerals" https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/policy/policy-confli... was conceived by Intel as an adaptation of the "conflict diamonds" campaign, and that the "conflict diamonds" campaign was in turn something contrived by De Beers as a marketing effort. But what's remarkable is how little consumers seem to have cared or responded even when manufacturers made the running on the issue. It seems it's much easier to get consumers on an ethical-sourcing bandwagon when the product is a luxury good bought for social-signaling purposes (like fur coats or diamonds) than when it's something they look on as a quotidian expense or something to get the most bang for the buck in. Which is unfortunate, I think: consumers probably should get off their arses and on the likely-somewhat-sleazy "conflict minerals" bandwagon, because it's likely the best chance to meet our responsibilities and effect real change in the sourcing of minerals for electronic devices.
Are you aware of any organizations that rate electronic companies or battery manufacturers supply chains based on the use of child labor and or other morally questionable behavior? I would like to direct my purchasing power to companies that act ethically to source their materials. It doesn't seem like we can trust companies' own assertions in these areas.
Fairphone [1] has been doing some good work in this area, so you could take a look at which organisations rated them.
[1] https://www.fairphone.com/
[1] https://www.fairphone.com/
Raise public awareness? I think they are seeking remedy.
Sad that the courts are so slanted in the favor of corporate interests. Why do these cases get dismissed?
Sad that the courts are so slanted in the favor of corporate interests. Why do these cases get dismissed?
Because they are seeking remedy from the wrong parties in a fungible market without proof of more direct involvement. It being in "corporate interest" doesn't mean it is wrong. To be frank they are acting a lot like extortionists.
That's pretty harsh language to use against families whose children died mining the materials for your smart phone, electric bike and green energy grid.
A "fungible market" does not make slavery ok, nor does it excuse child labor. Indeed, the availability of alternative sources would seem to make patronizing companies that support this type of bevaior more inexcusable.
A "fungible market" does not make slavery ok, nor does it excuse child labor. Indeed, the availability of alternative sources would seem to make patronizing companies that support this type of bevaior more inexcusable.
Slavery is, of course, not okay. But tell me this: Are you confident that all your home electronics have zero slave-produced cobalt in it? If not, why not? The availability of alternative cobalt sources would seem to make this type of behavior inexcusable.
What's this you say? You don't have a direct relationship with the cobalt mine? You buy your phone from some company, and you don't know their exact sources of components, or whether they switch suppliers from time to time? Gasp!
What's this you say? You don't have a direct relationship with the cobalt mine? You buy your phone from some company, and you don't know their exact sources of components, or whether they switch suppliers from time to time? Gasp!
> Are you confident that all your home electronics have zero slave-produced cobalt in it?
I am confident that my electronics do indeed contain some cobalt from the exact same sort of mines referenced in the article and I do feel culpable. I wish there was an organization that tracked the degree to which the electronic companies that I purchase products from make an effort to source ethical cobalt and other sources (hence my prior question elsewhere in this thread.) I wish that Fairphone sold their products in my country. I wish that I, as an individual consumer had the level of market power that a company like samsung or google has over their supply chain and could incentivize the cobalt mining companies to behave more ethically.
You sarcasm doesn't make any actual point and to me it indicates that the reason that you are so willing to argue against the culpability of the electronics, battery and cobalt mining companies that make so much money from this is because you are unwilling to acknowledge your own culpability in the deaths of these children and the suffering of their families.
I am confident that my electronics do indeed contain some cobalt from the exact same sort of mines referenced in the article and I do feel culpable. I wish there was an organization that tracked the degree to which the electronic companies that I purchase products from make an effort to source ethical cobalt and other sources (hence my prior question elsewhere in this thread.) I wish that Fairphone sold their products in my country. I wish that I, as an individual consumer had the level of market power that a company like samsung or google has over their supply chain and could incentivize the cobalt mining companies to behave more ethically.
You sarcasm doesn't make any actual point and to me it indicates that the reason that you are so willing to argue against the culpability of the electronics, battery and cobalt mining companies that make so much money from this is because you are unwilling to acknowledge your own culpability in the deaths of these children and the suffering of their families.
The point is that you are not criminally liable for trafficking in slaves under 18 U.S. Code § 1589 because you have some quantity of cobalt, and neither are the companies in question, in all likelihood. This is important because the lawsuit seeks to say that the companies are criminally liable for trafficking in slaves under 18 U.S. Code § 1589 and the lawsuit will be rendered on the merits under 18 U.S. Code § 1589.
The point is a limited one. Besides this point, reform efforts are a great idea.
The point is a limited one. Besides this point, reform efforts are a great idea.
The legal system needs to catch up with the laundering effects of global and fungible markets. There are "know your customer" rules for other things. Eventually we need to get serious about goods' provenance.
> Sad that the courts are so slanted in the favor of corporate interests.
The courts are in favor of upholding the law, not about exacting righteousness from all people.
Cobalt is a commodity which fungible and generally available on the world market. It may be refined at several steps, purchased by one company, put in storage with cobalt from other suppliers, and resold to another company. There may be general purchase records, but there are no specific records of how the physical cobalt ore was stored in a mineral silo. There is also the possibility that records that do exist could be faked for the purpose of fraud.
It is thus not common for the law to mandate that the manufacturers know exactly what has happened to every ounce of the substances that make up their product, or for the law to make this criminality contagious, such that anyone who does business with anyone who does business with anyone who does business with slave labor goes to jail.
The courts are in favor of upholding the law, not about exacting righteousness from all people.
Cobalt is a commodity which fungible and generally available on the world market. It may be refined at several steps, purchased by one company, put in storage with cobalt from other suppliers, and resold to another company. There may be general purchase records, but there are no specific records of how the physical cobalt ore was stored in a mineral silo. There is also the possibility that records that do exist could be faked for the purpose of fraud.
It is thus not common for the law to mandate that the manufacturers know exactly what has happened to every ounce of the substances that make up their product, or for the law to make this criminality contagious, such that anyone who does business with anyone who does business with anyone who does business with slave labor goes to jail.
> It is thus not common for the law to mandate that the manufacturers know exactly what has happened to every ounce of the substances that make up their product, or for the law to make this criminality contagious, such that anyone who does business with anyone who does business with anyone who does business with slave labor goes to jail.
That is a strawman argument. The article quite clearly states the the claim lawsuit aims to prove is this:
"knowingly benefiting from and aiding and abetting the cruel and brutal use of young children."
Specifically, they claim there is evidence of a direct links in the supply chain:
"Certainly the supply chain is opaque. It is complex. But the plaintiffs all were injured and killed at mines owned by companies that have been publicly disclosed as sellers of cobalt to our defendants.
There is quite a bit more evidence contained in the complaint linked in the article. It is pretty clear that any "opaqueness" that does exist in the sourcing of Cobalt is a deliberate attempt to limit the perception of culpability.
That is a strawman argument. The article quite clearly states the the claim lawsuit aims to prove is this:
"knowingly benefiting from and aiding and abetting the cruel and brutal use of young children."
Specifically, they claim there is evidence of a direct links in the supply chain:
"Certainly the supply chain is opaque. It is complex. But the plaintiffs all were injured and killed at mines owned by companies that have been publicly disclosed as sellers of cobalt to our defendants.
There is quite a bit more evidence contained in the complaint linked in the article. It is pretty clear that any "opaqueness" that does exist in the sourcing of Cobalt is a deliberate attempt to limit the perception of culpability.
This is not a strawman argument, this is an argument of the merits of the suit. It is relevant insofar as the structure of the suit is a thing. If you sue a company for trafficking in slaves under 18 U.S. Code § 1589, the question is whether they trafficked in slaves under 18 U.S. Code § 1589, and not whether they're morally culpable. It is possible the plaintiffs will overcome the opacity, but "being injured at a company that you bought stuff from" remains, to the best of my knowledge, a highly unusual form of contagious liability, and not a feature of our current jurisprudence.
When this suit is resolved and the company is found not to be liable, as is likely, then we can talk reform efforts and opacity all day long, and we can draft new laws, and discuss the extent to which they actually help.
When this suit is resolved and the company is found not to be liable, as is likely, then we can talk reform efforts and opacity all day long, and we can draft new laws, and discuss the extent to which they actually help.
I found this is very insightful thread on this lawsuit and context behind it:
https://mobile.twitter.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1206896495993...
0) lawyers suing have questionable history
BUT 1) Child labor in Africa is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, and just about anything sourced from Africa will have this problem.
2) The Kamoto mine in question is a copper mine. Cobalt is a secondary product. (One could just about as legitimately call attention to products using copper.)
3) Tesla is targeted in the lawsuit but does not use Congolese cobalt.
4) Possible exception to this is some possible future Tesla cells could come from LGChem which gets some of its lithium from Umicore. However, LGChem is the primary supplier of cells for GM and several other EV producers... Yet they are not named in this lawsuit.
5) Kamoto is a modern industrial mine. Artisanal mines are where child labor is used. Unskilled child labor is of dubious use in highly mechanized industrial mining sites.
6) However, Kamoto has had problems with pirate artisanal mines on its property and has tried to get the Congolese army to help keep them out. (So I guess the lawsuit would be that Kamoto has not been able to keep out illegal artisanal mines from its property?)
7) Regardless of all these points, we NEED to stop this dangerous child labor in Africa, and it's probably a good thing that this sort of thing is drawing attention to the issue.
(Note, I'm mentioning Tesla here because I'm most familiar with it and it's also mentioned most in the thread, but it's possible similar arguments apply to other companies listed: It seems they're listed because they're well-known, large tech companies, not necessarily due to amount of cobalt use or even use of unethical cobalt at all.)
0) lawyers suing have questionable history
BUT 1) Child labor in Africa is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, and just about anything sourced from Africa will have this problem.
2) The Kamoto mine in question is a copper mine. Cobalt is a secondary product. (One could just about as legitimately call attention to products using copper.)
3) Tesla is targeted in the lawsuit but does not use Congolese cobalt.
4) Possible exception to this is some possible future Tesla cells could come from LGChem which gets some of its lithium from Umicore. However, LGChem is the primary supplier of cells for GM and several other EV producers... Yet they are not named in this lawsuit.
5) Kamoto is a modern industrial mine. Artisanal mines are where child labor is used. Unskilled child labor is of dubious use in highly mechanized industrial mining sites.
6) However, Kamoto has had problems with pirate artisanal mines on its property and has tried to get the Congolese army to help keep them out. (So I guess the lawsuit would be that Kamoto has not been able to keep out illegal artisanal mines from its property?)
7) Regardless of all these points, we NEED to stop this dangerous child labor in Africa, and it's probably a good thing that this sort of thing is drawing attention to the issue.
(Note, I'm mentioning Tesla here because I'm most familiar with it and it's also mentioned most in the thread, but it's possible similar arguments apply to other companies listed: It seems they're listed because they're well-known, large tech companies, not necessarily due to amount of cobalt use or even use of unethical cobalt at all.)
The fact they'd even need to have to try to get the Congolese army to enforce what happens on their own mine property says a lot about the problem.
It's largely just a security problem. But I'm sure the activists don't want violent military guys pushing off the pirate mines.
The other question is the pipelines that purchase from the 'artisanal' mines. Those people could be targeted and better regulated.
But as we've seen in the diamond and gold industries that's been a very hard thing to do in African countries without stable governments or strong incentives to stop them.
If the goal is to actually stop it and not some vindictive pursuit of western companies who people want to take all of the blame, then upping security and oversight of the mines with financial goals and on-sight oversight teams to measure progress. Plus some financial incentives to the various players to reports the dangerous supply lines which are using kids, so it's not putting a poor person between having something and total poverty out for some moral purpose which they will disregard.
It's largely just a security problem. But I'm sure the activists don't want violent military guys pushing off the pirate mines.
The other question is the pipelines that purchase from the 'artisanal' mines. Those people could be targeted and better regulated.
But as we've seen in the diamond and gold industries that's been a very hard thing to do in African countries without stable governments or strong incentives to stop them.
If the goal is to actually stop it and not some vindictive pursuit of western companies who people want to take all of the blame, then upping security and oversight of the mines with financial goals and on-sight oversight teams to measure progress. Plus some financial incentives to the various players to reports the dangerous supply lines which are using kids, so it's not putting a poor person between having something and total poverty out for some moral purpose which they will disregard.
I think stable government and general development (education, economic) is really the ultimate solution to this and everything else will either be largely ineffective or have significant downsides.
There needs to be some international/African Union pressure to stop some of the proxy warfare going on in central Africa and some way to ensure stability in Congo.
There needs to be some international/African Union pressure to stop some of the proxy warfare going on in central Africa and some way to ensure stability in Congo.
This is what trade tariffs should be used for -- to level the playing field to prevent the global arbitrage of labor based on unfair or shady practices.
If the DRC is going to allow (or ignore) child labor for Cobalt mining, then there should be tariffs that would make it so expensive that it would make Australian or Canadian Cobalt mines profitable (where we know the workers are fairly compensated and can work in safe environments).
If India is going to look the other way for poor labor practices in ship breaking then there should be a big tariff on the recycled steel that drives that industry. Making properly managed, safe ship breaking in well regulated countries competitive.
If China wants to allow heavy industrial production with no environmental protections, then there should be tariffs on that to make countries that do regulate industrial pollution competitive.
When these countries finally clean up their labor practices and make things safe and equitable for their workers and the environment, then the tariffs go away.
Companies should NOT be able to exploit repression, bullying unsafe practices, child labor or pollution by proxy etc. in order to reduce their costs by moving production to such a country. Trade tariffs, when wielded honestly and effectively should be a tool to prevent that.
If the DRC is going to allow (or ignore) child labor for Cobalt mining, then there should be tariffs that would make it so expensive that it would make Australian or Canadian Cobalt mines profitable (where we know the workers are fairly compensated and can work in safe environments).
If India is going to look the other way for poor labor practices in ship breaking then there should be a big tariff on the recycled steel that drives that industry. Making properly managed, safe ship breaking in well regulated countries competitive.
If China wants to allow heavy industrial production with no environmental protections, then there should be tariffs on that to make countries that do regulate industrial pollution competitive.
When these countries finally clean up their labor practices and make things safe and equitable for their workers and the environment, then the tariffs go away.
Companies should NOT be able to exploit repression, bullying unsafe practices, child labor or pollution by proxy etc. in order to reduce their costs by moving production to such a country. Trade tariffs, when wielded honestly and effectively should be a tool to prevent that.
Thanks for the extra info and the nuanced view! I agree that this kind of child labor should be stopped. In general, I also think that activist pressure, even if it is sometimes wrong about the specifics, is helpful to bring about positive change.
Apple has made a lot of progress on environmental and supplier labor issues over the last couple of years. And I'm pretty sure that getting picketed by activists and other pressure tactics played some role in that.
https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2... https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental...
Apple has made a lot of progress on environmental and supplier labor issues over the last couple of years. And I'm pretty sure that getting picketed by activists and other pressure tactics played some role in that.
https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2... https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental...
>Perhaps the only tragedy greater than the criminal destruction of the environment and the lives of the people of the Congo by these companies is the fact that it would be a rounding error on their income statements to fix the problem.
Eh, I don't think giving more money to the third world mining companies is going to guarantee they're going to stop using child labor. The simplest and least risky decision for the tech companies is to simply stop buying Congolese cobalt. It's "blood diamonds" all over again.
Eh, I don't think giving more money to the third world mining companies is going to guarantee they're going to stop using child labor. The simplest and least risky decision for the tech companies is to simply stop buying Congolese cobalt. It's "blood diamonds" all over again.
I think the assumption is that ethical suppliers would be more expensive and that these companies have the margins to pay more.
> You see, two-thirds of the global supply of cobalt comes from the Congo. So already, right there, you cannot avoid Congolese cobalt.
You could ban/sanction Congolese cobalt; this would increase prices in the short run, while other producing countries adjust supply.
Adjusting the supply of cobalt in a country isn't something thats easily adjusted.
Why not? If half of the supply disappears overnight, prices will go through the roof, providing an incentive for current producers to increase output, by increasing effort in their existing mining operations, and more than likely by opening new operations.
If there are sanctions, wouldn't it be the demand being changed and not the supply?
The sanctions would presumably be about cobalt from the problematic regions, so it would not change demand.
But the supply would have to adjust away from the sanctioned region(s) to meet the existing demand.
But the supply would have to adjust away from the sanctioned region(s) to meet the existing demand.
I'm not sure how much that would help the people of Congo...
Yes but more expensive suppliers might not be automatically more ethical. Just throwing money at the problem won't magically fix it on its own without some additional effort, probably just ends up as more fat bonuses at Glencore HQ
If you have a higher budget, you can shop around more. Nobody's assuming that they'd just tip their vendor.
the liability is with the mining company and national government of Congo. the companies purchasing products can indeed put pressure on both to improve the working conditions of miners but in the end as with nearly every human tragedy, it comes down to the government to take responsibility for its actions and inaction. nothing changes until the local government has to change it.
You literally want to place the blame solely on a third world country for the deaths and disease of all these child laborers when it's our first world addiction to their resources driving the injustice in the first place? Who is in a better economic standing to improve this situation?
Would you have no problem buying ivory, since it's the poacher who acted immorally, and you as the end consumer have no responsibility as to how it was supplied?
I don't throw this word around lightly, but what we are enabling in the Congo is evil, and all so we can drive expensive electric cars and pretend like we're making the world better. It's pathetic.
Would you have no problem buying ivory, since it's the poacher who acted immorally, and you as the end consumer have no responsibility as to how it was supplied?
I don't throw this word around lightly, but what we are enabling in the Congo is evil, and all so we can drive expensive electric cars and pretend like we're making the world better. It's pathetic.
The thing with Ivory is that it was the traders, not the producers, making the money. You can ruin trader profitability by not trading with them. You can't convince Congo to stop using a child labor force with no protections by making them more broke - they'll just retask the labor force into different labor. We've seen this with diamonds.
How is "addiction" to their resources driving injustices? I live in Australia, where we export plenty of minerals (including cobalt, incidentally). We don't have children working (and dying) in mines, AFAIK.
So clearly it's not an issue of cobalt, it's a problem within the Congo.
So clearly it's not an issue of cobalt, it's a problem within the Congo.
> nothing changes until the local government has to change it.
Yes, the US government could pass laws and start fining companies that use child labor is their supply chain. You better bet that losing access to the world's largest consumer economy would force the mining companies to change their practices.
You can choose to absolve yourself of responsibility for the actions of these mining companies, but our collective purchasing choices definitely have a direct causal effect on these types of abuses.
> the liability is with the mining company and national government of Congo.
Asserting that liability can only rest with a single party is simple minded.
Yes, the US government could pass laws and start fining companies that use child labor is their supply chain. You better bet that losing access to the world's largest consumer economy would force the mining companies to change their practices.
You can choose to absolve yourself of responsibility for the actions of these mining companies, but our collective purchasing choices definitely have a direct causal effect on these types of abuses.
> the liability is with the mining company and national government of Congo.
Asserting that liability can only rest with a single party is simple minded.
Ok but they definitely should put pressure on the government by not buying their unethical produce.
Challenge is "supply chain laundering" that obfuscates sources. Everything being made in China complicates the enforcement too.
> third world mining companies
Glencore headquarters is in Switzerland
Glencore headquarters is in Switzerland
And they have third world mining operations.
The hyphen to the rescue!
"third-world mining operation": a mining operation that is also a third-world operation.
VS
"third-world-mining operation": an operation for mining of the third world
VS
"third-world third-world-mining operation": a third-world operation for mining of the third world
VS
"first-world third-world-mining operation": a company headquartered in CH that mines in the deep backcountry of the DRC.
"third-world mining operation": a mining operation that is also a third-world operation.
VS
"third-world-mining operation": an operation for mining of the third world
VS
"third-world third-world-mining operation": a third-world operation for mining of the third world
VS
"first-world third-world-mining operation": a company headquartered in CH that mines in the deep backcountry of the DRC.
lol thank you.
This is what makes the parent comment insensitive; "they're just doing it to themselves"..
Insensitive or not, both statements can be true at the same time. I.e. Africa is plagued by bad leadership and corruption, and the west is more than happy to take advantage of the situation.
That's not really my point. Jumping to the fact that corruption plagues Africa immediately is what makes the comment insensitive.
In a lot of cases Africa's bad leadership is a direct result of the west's former colonial efforts there. Congo in particular suffered at the hands of Belgium. So this sentiment is incomplete.
Yes Belgium did horrible things in the Congo. But what's the solution now? Belgium no longer has much influence. Most of the perpetrators are dead and can no longer be held accountable.
Congo has been independent for 60 years. How long do you expect to hold Belgium responsible for whatever happens there?
20 years after to completely own its institutions.
40 years after to completely own its politics.
60 years after to completely own its crime and corruption.
So yeah, about now is when Belgium is entirely off the hook. If they still feel involved from colonialist guilt-trips, that's their own problem. It's time for homegrown domestic scapegoats.
40 years after to completely own its politics.
60 years after to completely own its crime and corruption.
So yeah, about now is when Belgium is entirely off the hook. If they still feel involved from colonialist guilt-trips, that's their own problem. It's time for homegrown domestic scapegoats.
It would be absurd to write-off Belgium's responsibility so quickly. The current Prime Minister was a teenager when Belgium left. His upbringing and primary schooling were all under Belgian rule. The same is true of most people involved in governing the country.
[deleted]
Africa is still colonized, so this idea that they picked "bad leaders" is comical. I would expect the owner of Glencore have more say in the next leader in some of these countries than the actual population.
Time to stop blaming the victims of crimes Europeans have been committing for 2-3+ centuries? now...
Time to stop blaming the victims of crimes Europeans have been committing for 2-3+ centuries? now...
Nobody should be buying diamonds at this day in age...
Why not? They look pretty, come in many shapes and sizes, and have industrial applications.
People have tried that for Congolese coltan and the minerals just find their way over the borders to an 'acceptable' purchasing location.
Poor execution.
Lack of incentives for the Rwandan government to prevent it and no mechanism to verify the conflict-free origin of the minerals.
I like how people get outraged at US tech giants but gracefully ignore the fact that Glencore which actually is the beneficiary of exploiting the children is based in Europe. It's no small target either with annual revenue of 219.8 billion in 2018 vs Google's 136.
Im sure the lawyers thought of that angle, but the mining company currently doesn’t do anything to effect change so they probably won’t unless their customers (tech companies) demand a change.
It really is unfortunate. The mining company should build out proper infrastructure but I’m guessing they just delegate to (corrupt) locals.
This is no different than all the global environmental issues we’re facing with large scale production facilities (bottled water, petroleum, etc. are a huge problem too). The indigenous populations are getting fucked over because they live in remote areas prime for exploitation. Then the factories close down and don’t clean anything up.
I should point out this is also happening in developed countries like Canada and the USA. For instance, what is the difference between children mining cobalt and children being exposed to mercury poisoning because their rivers upstream there’s a paper plant dumping toxic waste into the food supply in Ontario, or petrol industry in Texas poisoning neighboring schools with chemical fumes.
It really is unfortunate. The mining company should build out proper infrastructure but I’m guessing they just delegate to (corrupt) locals.
This is no different than all the global environmental issues we’re facing with large scale production facilities (bottled water, petroleum, etc. are a huge problem too). The indigenous populations are getting fucked over because they live in remote areas prime for exploitation. Then the factories close down and don’t clean anything up.
I should point out this is also happening in developed countries like Canada and the USA. For instance, what is the difference between children mining cobalt and children being exposed to mercury poisoning because their rivers upstream there’s a paper plant dumping toxic waste into the food supply in Ontario, or petrol industry in Texas poisoning neighboring schools with chemical fumes.
But I mean, you see what’s wrong here right? The lawyers thought about it from the angle of who’s actually responsible, but realized that suing that company probably wouldn’t accomplish much lasting change. So they made up reasons to also sue popular tech companies, in hopes that embarrassing them will help serve the lawyers’ goals. That’s not how the process is supposed to work.
Absolutely, but when the process itself doesn’t work, then what? Gotta take a different approach and apply pressure somehow.
"And I would encourage the people at Glencore to take this seriously" is the harshest thing they actually say about them . The company that fronts for people responsible for unimaginable amount of horrors from Putin's inner circle to Dictators all over the world.
This is not a mishap Glencore is tied to so much corruption (ties to every dictator imaginable)and despicable practices across the globe.
The mining company will only respond to supply and demand.
People really seem to be sharpening the axe for our big tech companies these days. Personally I find it disturbing. These companies are a river of prosperity for our people, especially software developers
This sounds like an argument I hear about the nuclear deterrent in the UK. "This brings jobs to the area". There are plenty of serious discussions about the existential threat posed / mitigated / whatever by nuclear weapons without mixing in the incidentals like this. Of course it wins votes.
Big companies a century ago made a lot of cash out of exploiting slave labour overseas. And, I'm sure, plenty of people thought they couldn't live without whatever commodity they were getting for cheap on the back of foreign lives.
This hasn't stopped. We need to keep the dialogue open. The axes should be just as sharp for the new colonial powers.
Maybe it seems like there's a never-ending stream of history to be on the wrong side of, but that can't be an impediment to action.
(Apologies if the parent comment was satyrical)
Big companies a century ago made a lot of cash out of exploiting slave labour overseas. And, I'm sure, plenty of people thought they couldn't live without whatever commodity they were getting for cheap on the back of foreign lives.
This hasn't stopped. We need to keep the dialogue open. The axes should be just as sharp for the new colonial powers.
Maybe it seems like there's a never-ending stream of history to be on the wrong side of, but that can't be an impediment to action.
(Apologies if the parent comment was satyrical)
Big tech companies maybe don't put kids into mines, but they have other ethical issues (privacy, manipulation with public opinion, etc). I don't think anyone can reliably tell that their issues are more ethical or less ethical than child slavery.
"I don't think anyone can reliably tell that their issues are more ethical or less ethical than child slavery" are you seriously comparing targeting algorithms and child slavery and children dying in mining accidents?
I suppose you seriously underestimate the harm it causes, and its scale. Hint: chasing "user engagement" boosts extremism and violence.
Um... Only software developers.
And human resources departments, and finance departments, and investors, and people with 401ks, and people who depend on taxes, and anyone who sells goods etc... They produce a lot of value to the US economy
> and people who depend on taxes
What is that supposed to mean?
We all depend on taxes. Have you heard of public infrastructure? NASA? DoJ?
It's super disingenuous to pretend that the average employee is somehow getting massive value from giant tech companies. Someone would need to be very (probably intentionally) oblivious to believe that.
What is that supposed to mean?
We all depend on taxes. Have you heard of public infrastructure? NASA? DoJ?
It's super disingenuous to pretend that the average employee is somehow getting massive value from giant tech companies. Someone would need to be very (probably intentionally) oblivious to believe that.
OP meant people employed by local city and state governments, that the tech company resides in probably.
Glencore's statement is at the link below.
https://www.glencore.com/media-and-insights/news/Glencore-st...
https://www.glencore.com/media-and-insights/news/Glencore-st...
Interesting they don't sue diesel producers, consumers, or makers of diesel vehicles. One of the largest uses of cobalt is desulphurisation of diesel: https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/desulphurisation.html
Also interesting they included Tesla who has consistently used ethically sourced Cobalt (and others who have campaigned for ethical cobalt have acknowledged this).
I suspect folks commenting here are right that this is a publicity stunt.
EDIT: One good that could come from this publicity stunt, though, is more focus on the legitimate problem of child labor in Africa.
Also interesting they included Tesla who has consistently used ethically sourced Cobalt (and others who have campaigned for ethical cobalt have acknowledged this).
I suspect folks commenting here are right that this is a publicity stunt.
EDIT: One good that could come from this publicity stunt, though, is more focus on the legitimate problem of child labor in Africa.
This feels like the episode of the The Good Place where they figure out the point system to get to the good place doesn't work because today's world is complicated...
>Michael uses the example of someone buying roses. A man hundreds of years ago got a lot of Good Place points because he grew and picked his own roses to give to his grandmother. However, when another man got roses for his grandmother, he lost points. It’s because he ordered them through a cell phone that was made in a sweatshop, the flowers were grown with toxic pesticides, delivered from thousands of miles away creating a large carbon footprint and the money went to a greedy CEO that sexually harassed women.
>Michael uses the example of someone buying roses. A man hundreds of years ago got a lot of Good Place points because he grew and picked his own roses to give to his grandmother. However, when another man got roses for his grandmother, he lost points. It’s because he ordered them through a cell phone that was made in a sweatshop, the flowers were grown with toxic pesticides, delivered from thousands of miles away creating a large carbon footprint and the money went to a greedy CEO that sexually harassed women.
Incidentally, this is also one of the main points of “21 Lessons for the 21st Century” by Yuval Noah Harari. His argument is that human’s morality is built for interacting with a small tribe of people. You know where your moccasins come from, because the person who made them sleeps at the fire next to yours.
The problem is that this argument is a spectrum. For a consumer, who is (mostly) powerless to change the system, it might be (mostly) valid. But on the other end of the spectrum, the CEOs who actually could make a difference use the same argument to wash their hands. "It's all just business, the world is complicated, it's impossible to be perfect."
In other words, there’s no such thing as ethical consumption.
What is the point of this slogan? Are we all supposed to feel guilty for not reverting to disconnected hunter-gatherer tribes? It's not an insightful ethical standard, and I reject it.
Like a sibling of my original comment, human morality is optimized for small tribes. In my opinion the point of the slogan is to instill some anarchy into the listener... some weariness of top-heavy hierarchies. In my experience, it seems that the existence of a top-heavy hierarchy is necessary for, and too often sufficient to ensure, widespread exploitation. It's relatively easy for one desperate person to rob their neighbor. But a hierarchy will allow you to convince normal people to participate in the robbing of everyone two towns over, or in protecting a powerful studio executive, or dehumanizing detainees, or...
Ignoring the overall ethical issue for those employing the child laborers and looking purely at the lawsuit, it seems to have no merit and appears to be designed specifically to create a bad PR campaign for these companies and to draw attention to the issue. I suspect more drawing of attention than the bad PR, but still probably both are goals.
IANAL, but it seems very obvious from both the article and the lawsuit that there is no foundation to this. The article acknowledges this is essentially new ground, but it doesn't even seem to be based on anything legal at all. Looking at the actual complaint (http://iradvocates.org/sites/iradvocates.org/files/stamped%2...) it is very telling that in a 79 page suit barely over 2 pages is related to "jurisdiction and venue". That is a major component of this case, in addition to the totally untested claims being attempted here in this case. Having barely over 2 pages sort of tells you right off the bat that they know this is seriously thin.
Moving to the actual claim, they assert the US court is appropriate based on 18 U.S. Code § 1596. That seems reasonable based on the text. So moving along to the complaints, they claim violations of 18 U.S. Code § 1581, § 1584, § 1589, and § 1590.
1581 and 1584 very clearly and in no uncertain language apply directly to the people employing and controlling the labor itself. This is just a bad faith claim in my opinion and should be tossed out with prejudice.
1589 deals with those who benefit from such activity, which is where we start to see some semblance of sanity from this lawsuit. However, the language clearly indicates that it must be a "venture". This usually means direct agreements, shared ownership, etc. That is not the case in how these tech companies are acquiring these materials so toss that one out as well, unless of course you are prepared to accept that the open market and global supply chain is a venture. Which would then, by logical extension, include anyone and everyone operating on the entirety of the supply chain and market.
1590 reverts back to the same position as 1581 and 1584, dealing directly with those who have direct control over said labor. Again, toss this out with prejudice.
The whole lawsuit is crap as far as I'm concerned. Even a basic reading of the law shows that this suit is trash, regardless of good intentions or not. The only chance in hell they have is somehow convincing the court that Google, Apple, Dell, etc. are all working together in a fiendishly evil "venture" and that they all have direct control over this child labor. Good luck with that.
Honestly, if I were the judge, I'd throw this entire lawsuit in the trash and force the plaintiff(s) to pay the defense fees, if they had requested it via counter-suit.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1581
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1584
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1589
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1590
IANAL, but it seems very obvious from both the article and the lawsuit that there is no foundation to this. The article acknowledges this is essentially new ground, but it doesn't even seem to be based on anything legal at all. Looking at the actual complaint (http://iradvocates.org/sites/iradvocates.org/files/stamped%2...) it is very telling that in a 79 page suit barely over 2 pages is related to "jurisdiction and venue". That is a major component of this case, in addition to the totally untested claims being attempted here in this case. Having barely over 2 pages sort of tells you right off the bat that they know this is seriously thin.
Moving to the actual claim, they assert the US court is appropriate based on 18 U.S. Code § 1596. That seems reasonable based on the text. So moving along to the complaints, they claim violations of 18 U.S. Code § 1581, § 1584, § 1589, and § 1590.
1581 and 1584 very clearly and in no uncertain language apply directly to the people employing and controlling the labor itself. This is just a bad faith claim in my opinion and should be tossed out with prejudice.
1589 deals with those who benefit from such activity, which is where we start to see some semblance of sanity from this lawsuit. However, the language clearly indicates that it must be a "venture". This usually means direct agreements, shared ownership, etc. That is not the case in how these tech companies are acquiring these materials so toss that one out as well, unless of course you are prepared to accept that the open market and global supply chain is a venture. Which would then, by logical extension, include anyone and everyone operating on the entirety of the supply chain and market.
1590 reverts back to the same position as 1581 and 1584, dealing directly with those who have direct control over said labor. Again, toss this out with prejudice.
The whole lawsuit is crap as far as I'm concerned. Even a basic reading of the law shows that this suit is trash, regardless of good intentions or not. The only chance in hell they have is somehow convincing the court that Google, Apple, Dell, etc. are all working together in a fiendishly evil "venture" and that they all have direct control over this child labor. Good luck with that.
Honestly, if I were the judge, I'd throw this entire lawsuit in the trash and force the plaintiff(s) to pay the defense fees, if they had requested it via counter-suit.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1581
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1584
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1589
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1590
18 USC § 2 says:
> (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
> (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
That does give some more leeway to charge people with crimes here, but I don't think it is enough to sustain the claims of 1581 and 1584, since it seems to be meant to be read as "I'm not doing the dirty deed myself, but I'm telling my henchmen to do it."
> (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
> (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
That does give some more leeway to charge people with crimes here, but I don't think it is enough to sustain the claims of 1581 and 1584, since it seems to be meant to be read as "I'm not doing the dirty deed myself, but I'm telling my henchmen to do it."
I'm surprised they have a problem. The likes of GM is well known to trace their supply chain down as many levels as required to ensure this doesn't exist. GM has already faced this nightmare (I'm not sure if they were sued, or just got tired of protests) and takes care to ensure that they know who buys what from who all the way down. GM isn't a big tech buyer, but they are big enough to be worth changing your practices so you can sell to them. GM isn't the only company as well, just one that I know of from publicly available information.
The structural issue is abstraction caused by complicated supply chains. The public interface is what the consumer can easily see about the product like the user experience, branding, and the final purchase price, but it's supported by lots of hidden infrastructure associated the manufacture of every part embedded into the product, along with any services provided supporting the user experience.
Labeling laws are one way to try to make the hidden details of implementation public at the cost of more complex decision-making for consumers. Sometimes large companies can police the supply chain themselves, so that from a consumer perspective, avoiding exploitation becomes part of the brand.
A carbon tax attempts to bundle climate change costs into prices without changing the public API at all. This seems like the most thorough way to make sure every buyer at all levels of the supply chain takes this environmental cost into account in their decision-making, whether they are specifically thinking about it or not.
So it seems the best way to avoid this issue would be for cobalt based on child labor to be unavailable for purchase and a second-best way would be to make sure it's more expensive so that buyers within the supply chain will automatically avoid that dependency.
When we get to the point where consumers need to step in and do the decision-making because nobody else will then this is probably the most inefficient way to do it, but it seems the supply chain won't do it unless they are pushed into it?
Labeling laws are one way to try to make the hidden details of implementation public at the cost of more complex decision-making for consumers. Sometimes large companies can police the supply chain themselves, so that from a consumer perspective, avoiding exploitation becomes part of the brand.
A carbon tax attempts to bundle climate change costs into prices without changing the public API at all. This seems like the most thorough way to make sure every buyer at all levels of the supply chain takes this environmental cost into account in their decision-making, whether they are specifically thinking about it or not.
So it seems the best way to avoid this issue would be for cobalt based on child labor to be unavailable for purchase and a second-best way would be to make sure it's more expensive so that buyers within the supply chain will automatically avoid that dependency.
When we get to the point where consumers need to step in and do the decision-making because nobody else will then this is probably the most inefficient way to do it, but it seems the supply chain won't do it unless they are pushed into it?
Cobalt and tantalum are truly the Achilles heel of industrial economies.
No cobalt - no lithium batteries, and no mobile gadgets
No tantalum - no high spec capacitors omnipresent in compact power supplies, thus again no high value electronics as such unless you want to put huge electrolytic caps into your smartphone.
No cobalt - no lithium batteries, and no mobile gadgets
No tantalum - no high spec capacitors omnipresent in compact power supplies, thus again no high value electronics as such unless you want to put huge electrolytic caps into your smartphone.
Tantalum capacitors have largely been replaced by ceramics in the last decade. Also, improvements in transistor tech and subsequently in switching power supply design mean you no longer need massive amounts of capacitance (nor a giant hand-wound toroidal transformer) for stable voltage output - you get a much more compact (and also higher-efficiency) power supply with a <100 uF high-performance ceramic and 0.2 uH chip inductor.
For example, compare this ancient LT app note [1] with this modern datasheet [2]. The former recommends 450 uH wirewound inductors (see especially the humorous page 22, which recommends selecting one with an appropriate weight of less than 0.25 pounds) and 1000 uF solid tantalum monster capacitors. The latter recommends a 10 uF 0402 ceramic capacitors and 4.7 uH 0805 chip inductors.
For example, compare this ancient LT app note [1] with this modern datasheet [2]. The former recommends 450 uH wirewound inductors (see especially the humorous page 22, which recommends selecting one with an appropriate weight of less than 0.25 pounds) and 1000 uF solid tantalum monster capacitors. The latter recommends a 10 uF 0402 ceramic capacitors and 4.7 uH 0805 chip inductors.
yeah - agree... and look at the tools industry where most hand-held tools are battery powered nowadays (incl. angle grinders)
Most people are willing to close their eyes as the issue is far away from home
Most people are willing to close their eyes as the issue is far away from home
Do we all feel better blaming the tech companies for this than blaming ourselves, the customers of the tech companies?
Uh, yes? You can force millions of consumers to stop buying things or a single company to stop producing them.
Which one is easier?
Which one is easier?
I mean, it's not just one company, is it? But it is less than than millions, so your point probably still stands.
Forcing anyone to do anything is pretty hard though. The U.S. government can lean on U.S. companies, but will that really save the child miners? Will they all suddenly not be forced into this type of labor if the U.S. companies stop using their services? Those kids will suddenly all be enrolled in school and grow up to be business owners, doctors, nurses, engineers, all using cell phones powered by some much more ethically obtained energy storage device?
I must be feeling down today. Sorry about that.
Forcing anyone to do anything is pretty hard though. The U.S. government can lean on U.S. companies, but will that really save the child miners? Will they all suddenly not be forced into this type of labor if the U.S. companies stop using their services? Those kids will suddenly all be enrolled in school and grow up to be business owners, doctors, nurses, engineers, all using cell phones powered by some much more ethically obtained energy storage device?
I must be feeling down today. Sorry about that.
I feel the same when I think about how bleak this all is, but this could be one part of a multipart solution. No, it's not going to magically fix everything wrong with the global economy. But we have to think about things like corporate responsibility and legal consequences for companies that use this material. I suppose I bear some responsibility for not fully researching the mineral sources of each piece of electronics I buy, but the simple act of meeting consumer demand is not morally neutral. Putting legal pressure on companies to not use material mined by children could be helpful (with the usual caveat wrt the devil & details.)
No worries... i don't think forcing companies to stop buying will help the child labourers, but i do think it's the least we can do in the west.
Troubling times we live in.
Troubling times we live in.
I blame the tech companies because part of the product is hiding the reality that produces it. If a cell phone had a picture of a kid bleeding in a mine, like a pack of cigarettes with a pair of black lungs, I think it would at least help transfer the responsibility to the consumer mentally.
My house has 6 computer monitors and I won't even say how many tv sets. I should be completely aware of how much that cost in earth and human but I got to feel smug by recycling the happy color cardboard it was wrapped with.
My house has 6 computer monitors and I won't even say how many tv sets. I should be completely aware of how much that cost in earth and human but I got to feel smug by recycling the happy color cardboard it was wrapped with.
There's a mining-friendly city in Ontario literally named Cobalt where there are believed to be large deposits of the mineral. Let's not pretend these companies don't have any other option than to go through DRC for their supply.
Aside from the obvious issue that the tech giants do not directly employee these children (E.G they are employed by a supplier), what other issues come to mind?
Using that logic they might as well sue every American who buys products with Cobalt because they "force" tech companies to provide them with it.
The unfortunate thing about this whole situation is that, much like the conflict diamond issue, whether or not these companies are directly responsible due to this specific industry, it is merely a reflection of the terrible state of affairs and human rights in these countries. And stopping mining probably wouldn't improve things much.
Even if these companies (or we as consumers) were to stop doing business and pull out of these mining industries, the conflict and suffering in such countries would simply move to some other industry. The people and children would be toiling in agriculture, fishing, maybe piracy, or slave trade. And I do not delude myself to think that the supervisors in those industries are much more charitable than in mining.
While fixing the problems of mining should be done, the underlying root causes of kids having to mine cobalt would not disappear. So think more deliberately about whether band-aiding this one symptom will let you wake up with a clear conscience tomorrow.
Even if these companies (or we as consumers) were to stop doing business and pull out of these mining industries, the conflict and suffering in such countries would simply move to some other industry. The people and children would be toiling in agriculture, fishing, maybe piracy, or slave trade. And I do not delude myself to think that the supervisors in those industries are much more charitable than in mining.
While fixing the problems of mining should be done, the underlying root causes of kids having to mine cobalt would not disappear. So think more deliberately about whether band-aiding this one symptom will let you wake up with a clear conscience tomorrow.
> The lawsuit accuses those companies of "knowingly benefiting from and aiding and abetting the cruel and brutal use of young children." It has not been tested in court.
Might as well sue the end users too, if that's a viable theory.
Might as well sue the end users too, if that's a viable theory.
sue millions of consumers or one company... seems like a hard choice.
Fair is fair: if tech giants are culpable, so is anyone with a smart phone. We must all cast the first stone at ourselves.
Maybe tax the crap out of newly mined/imported coltan and institute a robust elecronics recycling program.
G Corp
Glencore 2018 Annual report: 'the recent appearance of excess levels of uranium in the cobalt hydroxide being produced at Katanga' https://goo.gl/maps/g3VS4pfhS49eduVf8
Glencore 2018 Annual report: 'the recent appearance of excess levels of uranium in the cobalt hydroxide being produced at Katanga' https://goo.gl/maps/g3VS4pfhS49eduVf8
Ban all trade with countries that use child labor and forced labor, simple as that.
I think if we keep peeling back the veneer on this, every country is going to have something illegitimate on that front.
I agree. In the US, we should start domestically. Prisoners earn minimum wage, prisoners do not owe restitution to the state.
The US uses child labor. I had a regular part time job at age 15.
Why do countries allow their workers to be abused?
Slap a tariff or tax on Cobalt based products coming in. Use the money to rescue to slave families from their captors. Use force if necessary. Freedom from slavery everywhere.
Only american tech is being sued.
I highly doubt these companies are directly hiring or managing Cobalt miners. You might as well also sue anybody who uses a computer. This is purely a publicity stunt; it will get thrown out immediately.
You're telling me with 100 billion dollars in the bank you don't fully understand your supply chain and make an informed decision?
They understand it on an abstracted layer because that is all that is needed for the operation and is relevant. They may know Company a provides X of Y for Z but every reference is effectively a blackbox. Informed and omniscent aren't synonymous.
It's about time tech giants take responsibility for the blood minerals they use.
You can save people's lives by using the Fairphone already. It's free of those.
You can save people's lives by using the Fairphone already. It's free of those.
No, I can't. Just like sorting my trash won't save any fish/birds/whatever and riding my bike won't slow down the melting of the ice caps. The carbon footprint of my entire country is almost exactly 1/100th of the last company on the "top 100 polluters" list[1].
10 million people are just as powerless as one, if all they do is buy a different phone or whatever. But 10 million people voting for the politicians that will impose sanctions on these companies is going to make a difference. People are willing to buy canvas bags and electric cars, but taking the time to find a party that's willing to hold companies accountable and voting for them is just too much work. Don't "vote with your wallet" - it doesn't work. Vote with your VOTE!
[1] Carbon Majors Report, CDP, 2017
10 million people are just as powerless as one, if all they do is buy a different phone or whatever. But 10 million people voting for the politicians that will impose sanctions on these companies is going to make a difference. People are willing to buy canvas bags and electric cars, but taking the time to find a party that's willing to hold companies accountable and voting for them is just too much work. Don't "vote with your wallet" - it doesn't work. Vote with your VOTE!
[1] Carbon Majors Report, CDP, 2017
Hopefully that didn't come across as aggressive against Fairphone or your comment. I like Fairphone and might actually buy their phone next cycle.
This is just a topic that really matters to me, as I've witnessed what happens when someone goes down the environmental responsibility rabbit hole to the point of not being able to properly function because of feeling guilty about basically every part of modern society.
Making sacrifices to make up for other people's wrongdoing is never a good mentality. You shouldn't give away your money to people who got robbed. But you should definitely stop voting for the party that made robbery legal.
You don't have to feel guilty, just make informed choices.
Just giving up and taking deaths for granted is cynical.
For example I went vegan and I feel much better now.
I'm saving the planet while at it without "making sacrifices".
Also handing over responsibility to politicians does not work.
As long as people keep on trashing the planet politicians don't care.
Political parties are only catering to mainstream choices.
Thus you need to start a trend that one day will force politicians to act.
Just giving up and taking deaths for granted is cynical.
For example I went vegan and I feel much better now.
I'm saving the planet while at it without "making sacrifices".
Also handing over responsibility to politicians does not work.
As long as people keep on trashing the planet politicians don't care.
Political parties are only catering to mainstream choices.
Thus you need to start a trend that one day will force politicians to act.
See, I'm not giving up on anything here. If I went vegan - hell, if my entire country went vegan, not a single cow in the entire world would live in better conditions. Same with emissions, etc. We're a rounding error.
But we have some very good politicians. If I (and enough other people) vote them into our and later the EU parliament, they will in turn vote for things like sanctioning companies for shit that goes down in their supply chain, regulating animal treatment, etc. And that might actually make a difference.
People are way too cynical about politics. Changing your life is great, but it's not what will ultimately decide the outcome of this mess. Politics is where the power lies and if a person in power does not agree with you, no amount of protesting/lifestyle changes is going to make them change their minds. Politicians are not your enemy - bad politicians are. So vote those out and vote the good ones in.
But we have some very good politicians. If I (and enough other people) vote them into our and later the EU parliament, they will in turn vote for things like sanctioning companies for shit that goes down in their supply chain, regulating animal treatment, etc. And that might actually make a difference.
People are way too cynical about politics. Changing your life is great, but it's not what will ultimately decide the outcome of this mess. Politics is where the power lies and if a person in power does not agree with you, no amount of protesting/lifestyle changes is going to make them change their minds. Politicians are not your enemy - bad politicians are. So vote those out and vote the good ones in.
Actually the battery in those phones is lithium cobalt oxide. Whether or not they claim that it is ethically sourced won't matter with cobalt.
I'm not sure if you noticed but these are warlords running their country. They simply get resold to an ethically compromised supply chain, relabelled, and sold for a premium. And no one is really accountable and none the wiser. Metals fraud is a huge global problem. Also, happens in every industry.
That being said, the Fairphone looks really cool seems less wasteful than the competitors.
I'm not sure if you noticed but these are warlords running their country. They simply get resold to an ethically compromised supply chain, relabelled, and sold for a premium. And no one is really accountable and none the wiser. Metals fraud is a huge global problem. Also, happens in every industry.
That being said, the Fairphone looks really cool seems less wasteful than the competitors.
Tesla, who uses just ethically sourced cobalt, is also a target of this lawsuit for some reason. So that won't save you from lawsuits like this.
Then the law needs to change.
It's unconscionable for this to be happening. You make the buyers of that cobalt start caring, you'll make the producers of that cobalt start caring.
It's unconscionable for this to be happening. You make the buyers of that cobalt start caring, you'll make the producers of that cobalt start caring.
I don't think this makes much sense. The mineral supply chain in that part of the world is ridiculously hard to track. Even when you stop buying directly from the DRC, the minerals flow over the borders (see how Rwandan coltan exports jumped when people stopped buying DRC 'conflict' coltan). That part of the DRC is basically beyond the reach of the Congolese government and the bordering countries have been waging proxy wars for at least a decade in the DRC, specifically for mineral control. The problem needs to be addressed at the local level, not at the international purchasing level - this may make the tech giants purchase minerals from a new provider, but that is a cosmetic change that won't actually impact people on the ground in the DRC.
It being hard to track is no excuse. We shouldn't be buying products from such abusive practices. We banned slavery, child labour and other abusive practices in our own countries, but by allowing the imports of such products from other countries, we're still indirectly making use of slavery and child labour.
Recently I heard that every person in a wealthy country effectively makes use of two slaves this way.
So these products being hard to track is no excuse. We should not allow the import of products where there's any uncertainty about their supply chain. Tech giants should have a responsibility to know where their minerals come from.
And this is not just about electronics or about the DRC. I think we shouldn't let our football teams play in Qatar stadiums built by slaves. We shouldn't be importing clothes made by child labour. We shouldn't be importing from countries that don't respect the rights of workers.
We're undermining our own freedom as well as our own economies by allowing this. We're indirectly abusing people in other countries, but we're also expecting out workers to compete with them. It's undermining everything we fought for over the past century.
Recently I heard that every person in a wealthy country effectively makes use of two slaves this way.
So these products being hard to track is no excuse. We should not allow the import of products where there's any uncertainty about their supply chain. Tech giants should have a responsibility to know where their minerals come from.
And this is not just about electronics or about the DRC. I think we shouldn't let our football teams play in Qatar stadiums built by slaves. We shouldn't be importing clothes made by child labour. We shouldn't be importing from countries that don't respect the rights of workers.
We're undermining our own freedom as well as our own economies by allowing this. We're indirectly abusing people in other countries, but we're also expecting out workers to compete with them. It's undermining everything we fought for over the past century.
I don't disagree, but if we want to actually help, we need to work with the world the way it is, not the way we wish it was. Moral grandstanding helps us feel good more than it helps the people who are actually suffering.
There will always be uncertainty about the supply chain. That's the nature of the mineral trade AFAIK.
There will always be uncertainty about the supply chain. That's the nature of the mineral trade AFAIK.
> I don't disagree, but if we want to actually help, we need to work with the world the way it is
...said the people opposing abolitionism.
Reality: to achieve moral progress, sometimes you need to eat an economic recession. Suck it up, buttercup.
...said the people opposing abolitionism.
Reality: to achieve moral progress, sometimes you need to eat an economic recession. Suck it up, buttercup.
Good example. The person who actually ended slavery in the US, Abraham Lincoln, didn't support abolition until the military advantages of emancipation became obvious enough that he could sell it to the people. For a long time he supported some slavery improvements, but specifically did not support abolition - which very much helped his political career and put him in position to emancipate.
We might also note that what Lincoln did -- the Emancipation Proclamation -- abolished slavery only in areas that were not subject to the Union, making it questionable as an act of governance. Slaves in Union territory were emancipated by the 13th amendment three years later.
And slavery in prison continues to this day because of a neat little exemption in that 13th amendment.
> questionable as an act of governance
I disagree with this. You shouldn't fail to emancipate some slaves just because you can't emancipate them all.
I disagree with this. You shouldn't fail to emancipate some slaves just because you can't emancipate them all.
[deleted]
When it’s your job, your family starving or out of work or homeless, then “suck it up buttercup” doesn’t sound so nice. The reality is the extreme poverty is lower than it has ever been, thanks to trade. Think it’s bad now? Try 50 years ago. The world is getting better despite the propaganda to the contrary. That we are even talking about this at all shows progress.
> There will always be uncertainty about the supply chain. That's the nature of the mineral trade AFAIK.
Not entirely true.
There are tools like SiliconExpert which track "conflict mineral issues" in the supply chain. This tool or others like it are used by the tech giants to screen their supply chain for this as well as other more mundane problems. It's a standard part of compliance engineering (https://www.siliconexpert.com/conflict-minerals-compliance-d...).
If a component/material gets flagged in a tool like that, it certainly is fair-game to go after a manufacturer & supplier for knowingly profiting at the expense of human rights. The penalties should be severe.
Yes, there's some uncertainty. But once exploitation becomes known, it's not THAT hard to trace it and stop at least the largest supply-chain users from using it without consequence.
Not entirely true.
There are tools like SiliconExpert which track "conflict mineral issues" in the supply chain. This tool or others like it are used by the tech giants to screen their supply chain for this as well as other more mundane problems. It's a standard part of compliance engineering (https://www.siliconexpert.com/conflict-minerals-compliance-d...).
If a component/material gets flagged in a tool like that, it certainly is fair-game to go after a manufacturer & supplier for knowingly profiting at the expense of human rights. The penalties should be severe.
Yes, there's some uncertainty. But once exploitation becomes known, it's not THAT hard to trace it and stop at least the largest supply-chain users from using it without consequence.
I know Apple invested heavily into tracking their mineral supply chain, but I believe their final conclusion was that it is essentially impossible.
> "the lengthy nature of its supply chain – as well as the nature of the refining process – makes it “difficult to track and trace these materials”. Apple illustrates this challenge by noting that its supply chain runs through “family-run mines, brokers, smelters, refiners, and commodity exchanges – before reaching a component or subcomponent manufacturer”"[1]
From Apple's 2018 conflict minerals report - "Apple has not, to date, been able to determine whether the reported incidents were connected to specific 3TG included in Apple’s products. The challenges with tracking specific mineral quantities through the supply chain continue to prevent the traceability of any specific mineral shipment through the entire manufacturing process."[2]
[1] https://hrbdf.org/case_studies/conflict-minerals/conflict_mi...
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0001193125190...
> "the lengthy nature of its supply chain – as well as the nature of the refining process – makes it “difficult to track and trace these materials”. Apple illustrates this challenge by noting that its supply chain runs through “family-run mines, brokers, smelters, refiners, and commodity exchanges – before reaching a component or subcomponent manufacturer”"[1]
From Apple's 2018 conflict minerals report - "Apple has not, to date, been able to determine whether the reported incidents were connected to specific 3TG included in Apple’s products. The challenges with tracking specific mineral quantities through the supply chain continue to prevent the traceability of any specific mineral shipment through the entire manufacturing process."[2]
[1] https://hrbdf.org/case_studies/conflict-minerals/conflict_mi...
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0001193125190...
taking the stance that the exploitation of children is unacceptable and punishing anyone who does work with those who exploit children is not moral grandstanding.
Didn't the parents that are suing exploit their kids for economic gain? Why should they now be rewarded with profit from a lawsuit rather than imprisoned for doing so?
It's also an incredibly easy position to take when all you have to do is say it's wrong. I think that's what they are getting at.
[deleted]
What do you consider grandstanding?
"Grandstanding" is when someone talks about problems that don't affect me. For instance, if someone says that we should prevent child slavery, that's grandstanding because I'm not a slave. On the other hand, if someone says that whiteboard interviews for engineers are unfair, that's not grandstanding because I'm an engineer.
Also, if I agree with something, then it's free speech and therefore not grandstanding.
Also, if I agree with something, then it's free speech and therefore not grandstanding.
grandstanding is when you say or do something for no other purpose than how it looks to others.
Ok, so I guess you'll be going to prison too, then? Or do you not own a smart phone?
> we need to work with the world the way it is, not the way we wish it was
If you buy the logic behind the "resource curse", then reducing trade in such morally questionable resources could indirectly improve the state of the world.
If you buy the logic behind the "resource curse", then reducing trade in such morally questionable resources could indirectly improve the state of the world.
> It being hard to track is no excuse.
Indeed. I have a good buddy who is inside council for a really visible guitar company. One of his main functions is tracking the provenance of any endangered hardwoods that go through the factory. From what I've been told there's a pretty big paper trail to document the date and place where "x" piece of Brazilian Rosewood or Ebony was harvested, but the penalty if they were to be caught building guitars from restricted or endangered wood is steep.
Maybe it wouldn't do much to dissuade the primary purchasers of cobalt, but a federal regulation popping them for a few million bucks for buying what essentially amounts to "blood diamonds" certainly wouldn't hurt the cause.
Indeed. I have a good buddy who is inside council for a really visible guitar company. One of his main functions is tracking the provenance of any endangered hardwoods that go through the factory. From what I've been told there's a pretty big paper trail to document the date and place where "x" piece of Brazilian Rosewood or Ebony was harvested, but the penalty if they were to be caught building guitars from restricted or endangered wood is steep.
Maybe it wouldn't do much to dissuade the primary purchasers of cobalt, but a federal regulation popping them for a few million bucks for buying what essentially amounts to "blood diamonds" certainly wouldn't hurt the cause.
Hard ≠ impossible. If problem can be solved with money, then it's not a problem, it's expense.
> The mineral supply chain in that part of the world is ridiculously hard to track
Commodities, in general. They're fungible, so cobalt from one supplier looks like cobalt from another supplier.
Commodities, in general. They're fungible, so cobalt from one supplier looks like cobalt from another supplier.
Commodities are more trackable with detailed analysis then anyone might casually think. e.g. oil is a commodity but the signature of oil from certain regions is pretty visible by chemists, and one can force oil supply from trade restricted sources to at least try to mask the signature by mixing with other sources. Not perfect but you can raise the difficulty bar on commodity sourcing.
Not only that, oil companies share these lines. They know exactly what % of the oil flowing through that pipe is company A vs company B.
I know because I worked on some of the accounting software they use.
I know because I worked on some of the accounting software they use.
Cobalt has only one naturally occurring isotope, so I don't think you can use any tricks from chemistry or physics to track it back to the source after it has been separated from ore. Instead you need tamper-resistant supply chain documentation all the way back to the actual mine.
I'm not familiar w/ cobalt, but materials are rarely 100% pure. One might look at non-cobalt materials associated with the pure material and what ratios they're in? Again not perfect but something.
I think one of the problems is that the cobalt doesn't reach component manufacturers until it's been through a series of smelters/refiners.
Electronics manufacturers already have all sorts of tracking regulatory infrastructure and certifications for parts going into their BOM. Everything from other conflict materials, to limits on uses for component export/import limits because of trade sanctions, to conventional regulations on uses of materials like lead in solder, to some suppliers who won't supply to military or nuclear uses. The framework is there already, it's mostly a matter of bringing some focus to it for the particular matter of cobalt.
But efforts to prevent conflict materials from being sold have failed in the past. There's been a focus on coltan before cobalt and it sure seems like the minerals have moved from the DRC to Rwanda (see how Rwanda became the world's leading exporter of coltan after people stopped buying conflict coltan from DRC). Similarly, efforts to stop conflict diamonds and conflict gold have not found much success.
I'd agree the efforts have not cut off that kind of business 100% but they've been effective in reducing the amount of conflict business, as well as reducing their profitability making them do more work to put the items on the market.
Conflict diamonds and gold are a different market framework than electronics components though - those items in particular have much different and arguably more varied sales avenues that make them more difficult to stop. Electronics components have an inherent complex testing quality and fewer channels for markets to move through so should be easier to control on a regulatory basis.
Conflict diamonds and gold are a different market framework than electronics components though - those items in particular have much different and arguably more varied sales avenues that make them more difficult to stop. Electronics components have an inherent complex testing quality and fewer channels for markets to move through so should be easier to control on a regulatory basis.
> I don't think this makes much sense.
Let me see if I can put it into terms you can understand.
They prosecute people who look at child porn. Not because those people abused the children, but because those people create the demand that causes the producers to abuse children.
You decrease the demand, you decrease the abuse.
Or in another form.
If you really want to stop illegal immigration, you go after the people employing them, not the illegals themselves. We used to do this and it used to be effective.
There are an innumberable number of examples of going after the demand to affect the supply.
Let me see if I can put it into terms you can understand.
They prosecute people who look at child porn. Not because those people abused the children, but because those people create the demand that causes the producers to abuse children.
You decrease the demand, you decrease the abuse.
Or in another form.
If you really want to stop illegal immigration, you go after the people employing them, not the illegals themselves. We used to do this and it used to be effective.
There are an innumberable number of examples of going after the demand to affect the supply.
Banning cobalt alltogether?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#Applications
You’d literally make usage of an element illegal due to that. For me it sounds bit of an overreaction.
Also it would be more than tad unfair for the cobalt mines not in DRC to have to close up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#Applications
You’d literally make usage of an element illegal due to that. For me it sounds bit of an overreaction.
Also it would be more than tad unfair for the cobalt mines not in DRC to have to close up.
this is a strawman and you should be ashamed of yourself. You cannot find any posts by me on this forum in which I've advocated banning Cobalt all together.
Find a better response.
Find a better response.
I misunderstood then due to the examples. As child porn is recognizeable.
But cobalt is just cobalt. You have no way of telling where it came from. Humans have faces, fingerprints and genes that allow us to have documentation that yes this person is a citizen and not an illegal immigrant, so you cannot use documentation for one person to slip by another that easily.
There is no such thing for cobalt. A document that states this 20 tons of cobalt is not dug up by kids applies just as well to a 20 tons that actually was dug up by kids.
That issue was with blood diamonds. A semilegit mine sold it’s own diamonds and blood diamonds as it’s own.
But cobalt is just cobalt. You have no way of telling where it came from. Humans have faces, fingerprints and genes that allow us to have documentation that yes this person is a citizen and not an illegal immigrant, so you cannot use documentation for one person to slip by another that easily.
There is no such thing for cobalt. A document that states this 20 tons of cobalt is not dug up by kids applies just as well to a 20 tons that actually was dug up by kids.
That issue was with blood diamonds. A semilegit mine sold it’s own diamonds and blood diamonds as it’s own.
you're getting lost in the example and losing the idea.
The idea is this: You forcibly change the demand to change the behavior of the producer. And there are plenty of examples of us doing this as a society (successfully).
The idea is this: You forcibly change the demand to change the behavior of the producer. And there are plenty of examples of us doing this as a society (successfully).
In the successful cases it is easy for the demand to recognize what they are getting. Employer just has to demand passport and they can avoid hiring illegals. Just looking at the person is enough. Same with child porn. Same with anything else where we have curbed demand side.
How would you say Microsoft is able to recognize where the cobalt came from?
I can’t really see any way here that would not be a de facto ban for the whole material.
How would you say Microsoft is able to recognize where the cobalt came from?
I can’t really see any way here that would not be a de facto ban for the whole material.
The same way we do it with other resources of this type. And yes, we do this with other resources. Oil & gas, medical marijuana, diamonds, et al.
This is a solved problem. What you and other people are arguing is that it's not solved perfectly.
I don't really give a shit if it's solved perfectly. If we go from say 66% of cobalt being bloody down to 33% of cobalt being bloody. That's a win. We can, over time, learn and adjust to bring it down even further.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
This is a solved problem. What you and other people are arguing is that it's not solved perfectly.
I don't really give a shit if it's solved perfectly. If we go from say 66% of cobalt being bloody down to 33% of cobalt being bloody. That's a win. We can, over time, learn and adjust to bring it down even further.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Plus in most cases they are not using it directly themselves. They are several hops away in the chain, using a part that may contain the wrong type of cobalt.
Just out of curiosity, do you know how regular people could know more about supply chains that are not hard to track?
> I don't think this makes much sense. The mineral supply chain in that part of the world is ridiculously hard to track.
It's been designed to be hard to track. Just because the infrastructure is a little hit and miss and the people are overall poorer doesn't mean it's impossible to reliably manage supply lines. The problem is corporations from the "West" don't want to know where the stuff is coming from because they know damn well it's sweatshop labor, minors, political prisoners, and who knows what else. That's why it's so fucking cheap.
Google knows my fucking shoe size at this point: if they, or Apple, or Samsung, or any other company wanted to know, they would know. The problem is they don't know because when people ask uncomfortable questions, they just shrug their shoulders and go "well we aren't responsible." Fuck that. They should be responsible.
It's been designed to be hard to track. Just because the infrastructure is a little hit and miss and the people are overall poorer doesn't mean it's impossible to reliably manage supply lines. The problem is corporations from the "West" don't want to know where the stuff is coming from because they know damn well it's sweatshop labor, minors, political prisoners, and who knows what else. That's why it's so fucking cheap.
Google knows my fucking shoe size at this point: if they, or Apple, or Samsung, or any other company wanted to know, they would know. The problem is they don't know because when people ask uncomfortable questions, they just shrug their shoulders and go "well we aren't responsible." Fuck that. They should be responsible.
> 'infrastructure is a little hit and miss'
Lol. The problem isn't a lack of roads, it's the fact that parts of eastern DRC are still effectively war zones. This isn't tech companies not caring, this is an ongoing war, a government incapable of controlling the country (and hardly the good guys even where they do have control), rebel groups (which have control over minerals and need income) running their own proto-states, long-standing tribal conflicts, militarily powerful neighbors with vested interests in keeping the conflict going and DRC's precious resources flowing over the borders, a widespread Ebola outbreak, and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing their homes.
Google 'wanting to know' isn't going to solve the chaos in that part of the world that leads to the supply chain tracking problems.
Lol. The problem isn't a lack of roads, it's the fact that parts of eastern DRC are still effectively war zones. This isn't tech companies not caring, this is an ongoing war, a government incapable of controlling the country (and hardly the good guys even where they do have control), rebel groups (which have control over minerals and need income) running their own proto-states, long-standing tribal conflicts, militarily powerful neighbors with vested interests in keeping the conflict going and DRC's precious resources flowing over the borders, a widespread Ebola outbreak, and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing their homes.
Google 'wanting to know' isn't going to solve the chaos in that part of the world that leads to the supply chain tracking problems.
They know enough to get the damn cobalt. They can know more if they want to, or, more likely, not do business with the sort of shady ass organizations who use child labor specifically because they can't get the documentation.
I really don't understand this "that's just the way it is" thinking when it comes to corporations doing shady shit overseas. If I went to my DMV and I said "I need to register this car" and had no proof of purchase, no previous registration, no paperwork from the former owner or dealer, I wouldn't be able to register this car. Yet, somehow, a multiBILLION dollar company can just buy material from warlords or whatever tribe in remote parts of China, and ship MILLIONS OF POUNDS of it out of that region, but nobody can get a fucking receipt? Are you kidding me?
I really don't understand this "that's just the way it is" thinking when it comes to corporations doing shady shit overseas. If I went to my DMV and I said "I need to register this car" and had no proof of purchase, no previous registration, no paperwork from the former owner or dealer, I wouldn't be able to register this car. Yet, somehow, a multiBILLION dollar company can just buy material from warlords or whatever tribe in remote parts of China, and ship MILLIONS OF POUNDS of it out of that region, but nobody can get a fucking receipt? Are you kidding me?
>Yet, somehow, a multiBILLION dollar company can just buy material from warlords or whatever tribe in remote parts of China, and ship MILLIONS OF POUNDS of it out of that region, but nobody can get a fucking receipt?
What normally happens in this process is that the selling country's government official who is tasked with verifying the integrity of the receipt is bribed with a month or more salary to sign the exchange off as legitimate, e.g. the Kimberley Process. There has got to be a solution to this problem but paper trails are notoriously unreliable in scenarios like this one.
What normally happens in this process is that the selling country's government official who is tasked with verifying the integrity of the receipt is bribed with a month or more salary to sign the exchange off as legitimate, e.g. the Kimberley Process. There has got to be a solution to this problem but paper trails are notoriously unreliable in scenarios like this one.
Wasn't bribery illegal?
So? Who is going to know or enforce it?
Most bribes are not obvious. More like give money to the charity my brother in law runs. The charity even does some good, but the real purpose is to pay the brother in law a nice salary and pay for family trips to various places the charity operates. (You should be suspicious anytime the family of a politician has any association with a charity - it might be a real charity but often it is a way to hide bribes)
Most bribes are not obvious. More like give money to the charity my brother in law runs. The charity even does some good, but the real purpose is to pay the brother in law a nice salary and pay for family trips to various places the charity operates. (You should be suspicious anytime the family of a politician has any association with a charity - it might be a real charity but often it is a way to hide bribes)
"Speaking assignments" where you pay someone $8 Million to read a prepared speech for an hour is another common way to bribe people.
Not disagreeing with you, but I would be surprised if they're buying it directly from the mine and not from some sort of market/middleman/third party company. I wouldn't hold my breath for extensive receipts and documentation either. The miners pictured in the article don't even have shoes and the "hammers" they're given appear to be two pieces of rebar welded together. I'd be surprised to find much documentation at all.
FTA...
Q: But I'm asking you, is it possible that these companies can claim that you can't prove that they're actually linked to the cobalt?
A: Certainly the supply chain is opaque. It is complex. But the plaintiffs all were injured and killed at mines owned by companies that have been publicly disclosed as sellers of cobalt to our defendants.
Q: But I'm asking you, is it possible that these companies can claim that you can't prove that they're actually linked to the cobalt?
A: Certainly the supply chain is opaque. It is complex. But the plaintiffs all were injured and killed at mines owned by companies that have been publicly disclosed as sellers of cobalt to our defendants.
So no real connection at all, then. Nice of them to admit it. Why are they suing these unrelated tech companies, then, and not the ones that actually sent the kids to work in the mines—i.e. themselves?
What good do you think a receipt is in that part of the world? Of course they get a certificate of conflict-free production. And if you have a couple bucks in the DRC/Rwanda, you can get one too! Look at diamonds, gold and coltan as useful precedents that show how buyer-side pressure will not improve things unless the buyers choose to stop using the minerals altogether.
> unless the buyers choose to stop using the minerals altogether.
BINGO. That's what you do. If the ass end of Mogadishu can't provide the minerals without using exploitative labor practices, THEN DON'T BUY FROM THE ASS END OF MOGADISHU.
And if that means an iPhone costs $200 more then that's what it fucking means, because no iPhone is worth it's weight in human suffering to have.
BINGO. That's what you do. If the ass end of Mogadishu can't provide the minerals without using exploitative labor practices, THEN DON'T BUY FROM THE ASS END OF MOGADISHU.
And if that means an iPhone costs $200 more then that's what it fucking means, because no iPhone is worth it's weight in human suffering to have.
This is one of those feel-good solutions that lets us feel superior but doesn't actually help the people suffering. Demand is not going anywhere.
You're also insultingly wrong with your geography.
You're also insultingly wrong with your geography.
The 'someone will do it anyway' defense is not morally legitimate. Just because everyone else is doing it, does not make the action ok.
Luke 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come."
Luke 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come."
I'm not interested in sounding morally superior, I'm interested in actually helping people who need help. And if you want to do that, you need to accept that 'stop buying cobalt' is not currently a solution that has any chance of improving the state of things.
Mandating that companies stop buying cobalt from suppliers who don't document things well is absolutely a legitimate, non-pie-in-the-sky way to effect change.
The idea is that demand for documented cobalt will go up, prices for it will also go up, poorly-documented cobalt producers will have lower demand for their product and their profits will be harmed, the ones capable of fixing their shit so they can sell more-expensive documented cobalt will do so, relieving documented-cobalt supply, and when the dust settles cobalt will be a little more expensive but most of it will be documented.
This is basic policy-building how-to-make-the-world-less-shit using market forces for (old-school) conservatives stuff, and is the backbone of one of the most important & influential strains of political and economic thinking around. It's not remotely radical or unrealistic.
The idea is that demand for documented cobalt will go up, prices for it will also go up, poorly-documented cobalt producers will have lower demand for their product and their profits will be harmed, the ones capable of fixing their shit so they can sell more-expensive documented cobalt will do so, relieving documented-cobalt supply, and when the dust settles cobalt will be a little more expensive but most of it will be documented.
This is basic policy-building how-to-make-the-world-less-shit using market forces for (old-school) conservatives stuff, and is the backbone of one of the most important & influential strains of political and economic thinking around. It's not remotely radical or unrealistic.
That is not a new idea, even in the DRC and it has been an abject failure. Conflict gold, diamonds and coltan still flow out of DRC despite efforts to not buy undocumented minerals. In highly corrupt and impoverished places, documentation doesn't mean anything. One bribe of a few hundred dollars and your Congolese conflict mineral is now clean, documented Rwandan mineral.
How does 'continue buying unethically sourced cobalt' improve the state of things?
Ideally, it is a dual solution of don't buy the unethical kind, and set up an alternate ethical supply chain to the same region so workers can switch to a better work place.
But, if the latter is not possible, one can at least help decrease the market for unethical cobalt by ceasing purchase.
Plus, it is not a matter of seeming morally superior. If one option is morally better than another, it should be chosen, regardless of the consequences.
So, for instance, if Jesus is correct, that it is immoral to be a path of scandal, then one should choose to not be a path of scandal, even if the state of the world otherwise remains unchanged (e.g. unethical cobalt mining continues).
Ideally, it is a dual solution of don't buy the unethical kind, and set up an alternate ethical supply chain to the same region so workers can switch to a better work place.
But, if the latter is not possible, one can at least help decrease the market for unethical cobalt by ceasing purchase.
Plus, it is not a matter of seeming morally superior. If one option is morally better than another, it should be chosen, regardless of the consequences.
So, for instance, if Jesus is correct, that it is immoral to be a path of scandal, then one should choose to not be a path of scandal, even if the state of the world otherwise remains unchanged (e.g. unethical cobalt mining continues).
In what situation? In the case of Cobalt it probably doesn't.
In the case of rubber the big companies do provide better jobs for the families they employ than anything else, ensure the family gets modern medical care (as opposed to "witch doctor" care anyone not working for them gets), and the children do go to school and so have the ability to get a better job latter. The companies looks the other way in harvest season then families are taking their kids with them to work, so long as the kids are in school. Child labor for sure, but you can honestly argue that the children are better off despite that.
You can decide if you accept that as better or not, but it is a reasonable argument that child labor isn't always the worst possible.
Sadly I don't think in the case of cobalt the above applies.
In the case of rubber the big companies do provide better jobs for the families they employ than anything else, ensure the family gets modern medical care (as opposed to "witch doctor" care anyone not working for them gets), and the children do go to school and so have the ability to get a better job latter. The companies looks the other way in harvest season then families are taking their kids with them to work, so long as the kids are in school. Child labor for sure, but you can honestly argue that the children are better off despite that.
You can decide if you accept that as better or not, but it is a reasonable argument that child labor isn't always the worst possible.
Sadly I don't think in the case of cobalt the above applies.
I appreciate your measured and informative responses that are not pure opinion but everyone else in the thread is adding nothing but gut-impulse emotional opinions. Cut your losses.
> This is one of those feel-good solutions that lets us feel superior but doesn't actually help the people suffering.
So because we can't fix their situation for them, we're allowed to actively make it worse? This is such a nonsense point of view. Exploitative industry is not like regular industry. This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats, this is enriching one or two psychopathic monsters at the expense of their entire region, and possibly financing even more in other regions.
The West does not need to go in and "fix" every developing nation, but at the same time, saying "well if we didn't sell them scrapheap ships or buy the minerals their children mine, they'd starve" is a complete abdication of responsibility for the role the demand for those minerals plays in their situation. They mine them because they can sell them, that's the whole point. If you remove the entities buying them, then there's no reason to mine them.
So because we can't fix their situation for them, we're allowed to actively make it worse? This is such a nonsense point of view. Exploitative industry is not like regular industry. This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats, this is enriching one or two psychopathic monsters at the expense of their entire region, and possibly financing even more in other regions.
The West does not need to go in and "fix" every developing nation, but at the same time, saying "well if we didn't sell them scrapheap ships or buy the minerals their children mine, they'd starve" is a complete abdication of responsibility for the role the demand for those minerals plays in their situation. They mine them because they can sell them, that's the whole point. If you remove the entities buying them, then there's no reason to mine them.
It's just unrealistic. Here's a challenge - cut cobalt out of your life. I'll bet you can't.
Until you can do that, offering 'stop buying' as a solution is a waste of time.
Until you can do that, offering 'stop buying' as a solution is a waste of time.
> It's just unrealistic. Here's a challenge - cut cobalt out of your life. I'll bet you can't.
"Realistic" is determined entirely by the values of the overarching system. The fate of the people at the long tail of the supply lines isn't valued. That's the single, solitary reason that this shit is still happening. Change that, and the system will adapt. The mines will get better, or they will be replaced with other mines that do it properly.
Stop settling for what your corporate overlords tell you is doable. We can do anything as a species if we choose to, good or bad. Our history shows it. Industry has every reason to tell you it's impossible because they don't want to spend the money to insure supply lines are ethically handled.
If we can mine coal in the United States without children and with relative safety, they can mine Cobalt in the same damn way. Cobalt doesn't by virtue of being cobalt need to be pried from the Earth by children.
"Realistic" is determined entirely by the values of the overarching system. The fate of the people at the long tail of the supply lines isn't valued. That's the single, solitary reason that this shit is still happening. Change that, and the system will adapt. The mines will get better, or they will be replaced with other mines that do it properly.
Stop settling for what your corporate overlords tell you is doable. We can do anything as a species if we choose to, good or bad. Our history shows it. Industry has every reason to tell you it's impossible because they don't want to spend the money to insure supply lines are ethically handled.
If we can mine coal in the United States without children and with relative safety, they can mine Cobalt in the same damn way. Cobalt doesn't by virtue of being cobalt need to be pried from the Earth by children.
> If we can mine coal in the United States without children and with relative safety, they can mine Cobalt in the same damn way. Cobalt doesn't by virtue of being cobalt need to be pried from the Earth by children.
oh you didn't know? The blood of the children is what christens the cobalt such that it works in computers...
/sarcasm
oh you didn't know? The blood of the children is what christens the cobalt such that it works in computers...
/sarcasm
How would you suggest we start? Real, concrete steps please.
I don't think people even realize where Cobalt is used. But they'd notice in a hurry if the supply was somehow interrupted.
seriously. How the fuck are people's moral compass so off? I understand reality is reality, but there are some things that should not be, and for slightly cheaper electronics of all things?
fuck that.
fuck that.
I mean, you typed that message using something that probably has cobalt inside of it or used cobalt in it's manufacturing.
So... why is your moral compass so off?
So... why is your moral compass so off?
We're told that governments help us solve collective action problems. If it's hard for a single electronics manufacturer to wean itself from conflict cobalt, the government could help them by forcing all electronics manufacturers to cease purchase of conflict cobalt.
Of course, that isn't the real purpose of governments or any other illegitimate authorities, so I won't hold my breath.
Of course, that isn't the real purpose of governments or any other illegitimate authorities, so I won't hold my breath.
oh please, I reject that argument outright.
This is about stopping the exploitation of children. While you're trying to squabble over whether or not some random internet person is using a keyboard with cobalt in it, children are being forced down into these mines and risking their lives.
Get your priorities straight.
This is about stopping the exploitation of children. While you're trying to squabble over whether or not some random internet person is using a keyboard with cobalt in it, children are being forced down into these mines and risking their lives.
Get your priorities straight.
[deleted]
>They can know more if they want to
Sure they could. They would basically need to set up a modern version of the East India Trading Company, build themselves a mercenary army, and go in there and set up a proxy government that adheres to whatever regulatory policies they want to define.
We called that "colonialism" the last time around though, and most of the countries it happened to were not fans.
Sure they could. They would basically need to set up a modern version of the East India Trading Company, build themselves a mercenary army, and go in there and set up a proxy government that adheres to whatever regulatory policies they want to define.
We called that "colonialism" the last time around though, and most of the countries it happened to were not fans.
The problem with colonialism is exploitation of the people, not the setting up of a just government. I'm in favor of Western countries coming in and setting up a just government, even if there is a profit motive involved. It at least is much better than a constant war torn and corrupt environment.
Where would the justice derive from in a government that was set up for the purposes of extracting resources in one area and transferring the resulting resources and wealth to a different area?
Justice as in peace is brought to the local population and they are kept from murdering and stealing from each other. Whether they get to keep their local resources or not I think is a secondary concern to whether they have a peaceful society.
Very Hobbesian. I think you'll find actual implementations of the systems you propose don't really discourage murder or theft; those don't concern the bottom line. I'll point to the Belgian Congo as a relevant example in this space
I've heard that some previous colonies have done quite well after the colonizers left, when the colonialism was combine with Christian missionary activity.
In more ancient history, while the Spaniards did many horrible things to natives, they also put a stop to even greater horrors, such as the mass human sacrifice at that time.
Even further back, Roman colonization was exploitative, but did also bring peace to the different regions they colonized.
So, colonization can bring about a better social structure. Given that people are often driven by selfish gain, getting something out of enacting a just social structure seems to be the best way forward.
In more ancient history, while the Spaniards did many horrible things to natives, they also put a stop to even greater horrors, such as the mass human sacrifice at that time.
Even further back, Roman colonization was exploitative, but did also bring peace to the different regions they colonized.
So, colonization can bring about a better social structure. Given that people are often driven by selfish gain, getting something out of enacting a just social structure seems to be the best way forward.
[deleted]
False dichotomy. Or Strawman. Both apply.
I don't think that it is.
If you look at what the PRC is doing to establish footholds and reliable supply chains, it bears a strong resemblance to those old trading companies. The US does various "counter-terrorism" operations in different countries, essentially borrowing African military units.
If you look at what the PRC is doing to establish footholds and reliable supply chains, it bears a strong resemblance to those old trading companies. The US does various "counter-terrorism" operations in different countries, essentially borrowing African military units.
The only reason "they know your shoe size" is because you carry around a $1000 phone that tracks your every move and spend all your disposable income through their platforms.
The same cannot be said for the poor Cobalt miners, so no they can't just will that info into existence simply because they "want to know"
The same cannot be said for the poor Cobalt miners, so no they can't just will that info into existence simply because they "want to know"
This is not some arcane magic here. This is making companies responsible for the vetting of their suppliers. Do you know how hard it would be for Apple to check out a mining operation? A plane trip and a few days of a couple people's time. That's fucking it. That is NOTHING to a company like Apple, it would barely be a rounding error in their budget.
And if the mine is in the midst of a warzone and you can't be sure if they aren't using prisoners or children? Then find a different goddamn mine.
And if the mine is in the midst of a warzone and you can't be sure if they aren't using prisoners or children? Then find a different goddamn mine.
You should do a little more research. The problem that we've been trying to solve for over three decades is not easily solvable with your naive ideas - do you really think we haven't tried your ideas? The problem is that there are mines that pass all inspections that then sell minerals produced elsewhere. Given the chaos in that part of the world, it is not realistic to prevent this from happening because there is not a way, last I checked, to differentiate between the minerals produced using ethical methods and minerals produced using conflict methods. Finding a different mine does not mean you have impacted the original mine.
Unless you have a way to prevent demand for these minerals, there is not a known, effective solution to these problems.
Unless you have a way to prevent demand for these minerals, there is not a known, effective solution to these problems.
There's a historical story that's relevant here. In the building of the Brooklyn Bridge, the contract for steel cable was let to someone whose reputation was such that the engineer insisted that all of the output tested for quality, and none of the bad cable was to be let installed on the bridge. Yet almost all of the bad cable made it onto the bridge, because the contractor did a good job of figuring out how to frustrate all of the compliance and inspection procedures for the cable.
That's the hard part of supply chain vetting: trying to ensure that your contractor isn't trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If you think "a plane trip and a few days of a couple people's time" is going to be sufficient to actually ensure that you're getting responsible cobalt, well, I have a bridge for you.
That's the hard part of supply chain vetting: trying to ensure that your contractor isn't trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If you think "a plane trip and a few days of a couple people's time" is going to be sufficient to actually ensure that you're getting responsible cobalt, well, I have a bridge for you.
>Do you know how hard it would be for Apple to check out a mining operation? A plane trip and a few days of a couple people's time.
No. Not at all. It takes more than that to vet suppliers in a place as developed as China. If you think that's all it takes in an ACTIVE WAR ZONE you're delusional.
No. Not at all. It takes more than that to vet suppliers in a place as developed as China. If you think that's all it takes in an ACTIVE WAR ZONE you're delusional.
His point is that, if it's too hard to vet, then you shouldn't be buying at all. No proof of no exploitation should be treated as proof of exploitation.
I agree. Err on the side of caution. If it "can't be done", it'll be figured out soon enough when trade is completely cut off.
I agree. Err on the side of caution. If it "can't be done", it'll be figured out soon enough when trade is completely cut off.
>I agree. Err on the side of caution. If it "can't be done", it'll be figured out soon enough when trade is completely cut off.
No. It took thousands of years of civilizational development to even create the state capacity to do this sort of regulation in the developed world. It doesn't just magically happen through some invisible hand nonsense. Governance requires concerted effort by a sovereign government. The only way it gets done is by forcing stability and creating a government, which is a responsibility I don't think you want to put in the hands of FAANG and Samsung.
No. It took thousands of years of civilizational development to even create the state capacity to do this sort of regulation in the developed world. It doesn't just magically happen through some invisible hand nonsense. Governance requires concerted effort by a sovereign government. The only way it gets done is by forcing stability and creating a government, which is a responsibility I don't think you want to put in the hands of FAANG and Samsung.
I think it's a bit harder than that. But Apple is already doing it (or claims to be doing it). The latest Supplier Responsibility report claims that 100% of their Cobalt supplies is audited: https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2...
And Apple claims to regularly remove suppliers for violations.
Up until a few years ago, Cobalt was specifically called out as being a problematic resource, with incomplete audits and widespread violations. Now, Apple claims to have this under control. Either Apple is lying or misguided, or the initiators of the lawsuit are.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the initiators of the lawsuit were wrong. It seems that Apple often gets lumped in with other tech companies' labor and supply practices, regardless of whether their specific policies are actually more strict than common industry practice (cf Mike Daisey's "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs")
Disclaimer: I work for Apple, but don't shop for their Cobalt, so I have no firsthand knowledge of the actual situation.
Up until a few years ago, Cobalt was specifically called out as being a problematic resource, with incomplete audits and widespread violations. Now, Apple claims to have this under control. Either Apple is lying or misguided, or the initiators of the lawsuit are.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the initiators of the lawsuit were wrong. It seems that Apple often gets lumped in with other tech companies' labor and supply practices, regardless of whether their specific policies are actually more strict than common industry practice (cf Mike Daisey's "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs")
Disclaimer: I work for Apple, but don't shop for their Cobalt, so I have no firsthand knowledge of the actual situation.
You seem to know the answer but are you currently in Africa doing anything? Do you sit there and post from a computer/phone/ use these companies services? Magic is all you’re speaking. Social media virtue signaling while you are not solving the problem. Arguing just to argue. If it was so simple as just hop on a plane and/or just don’t buy from there then the companies worth billions would have already done that.
Why do you need to be in Africa to start changing US law and regulations?
Why stop at the direct buyer then? Why not make the end consumer liable too? Make them care, you make the buyers of that cobalt start caring even more right? Heck why don’t we just extend liability down to the end of the chain for everything?
Because the direct buyer is the one who has the most information and the most control.
In contrast the end user has almost no information, so punishing them is both unfair and ineffective.
In contrast the end user has almost no information, so punishing them is both unfair and ineffective.
These tech companies aren't direct buyers any more than you or me. Ore is sold to smelting companies, who sell ingots to sheet metal companies, who sell it to electronics component manufacturers, who sell it to contract manufacturers, who sell it to the giants. And that's the legal supply chain - add in some shell companies, forged documents, and resellers and it gets more complicated.
> These tech companies aren't direct buyers any more than you or me
Well, they're (a) further up the supply chain that we are, and (b) have the resources to understand and influence their supply chain. You can be pedantic about the word "direct" if you like but I don't think that's useful.
Well, they're (a) further up the supply chain that we are, and (b) have the resources to understand and influence their supply chain. You can be pedantic about the word "direct" if you like but I don't think that's useful.
But why draw the line there? If we are making the whole chain liable then why not make the phone case manufacturers and app development shops liable too? They are only one hop down the chain and have the resources too.
So now that you have the information, I trust you have stopped purchasing these products beginning today?
Information, and control.
All of the products I can buy may or may not contain this unthetical cobalt. I don't know which, and my personal buying choice doesn't effect anything.
What are you proposing, that everyone with a smartphone or a computer be sued? How will that work?
All of the products I can buy may or may not contain this unthetical cobalt. I don't know which, and my personal buying choice doesn't effect anything.
What are you proposing, that everyone with a smartphone or a computer be sued? How will that work?
What are you proposing, that if your vendor is sued you don't pay for it?
Vendors that don't get sued can compete better in the market and survive longer, and their prices won't go up (except maybe a little as rents if they have few competitors and those have been forced to raise their prices because they've lost a lot of lawsuits), right?
[EDIT] I'd don't really give a fuck about DVs but I'd love if some of the people DVing my comments on this thread would explain how I've misunderstood orthodox "right"-wing approaches to market-based regulation and commons management, since I don't think I'm claiming anything particularly radical here—quite small-c conservative, actually—and would like to know whether and how I'm missing the mark on it.
[EDIT] I'd don't really give a fuck about DVs but I'd love if some of the people DVing my comments on this thread would explain how I've misunderstood orthodox "right"-wing approaches to market-based regulation and commons management, since I don't think I'm claiming anything particularly radical here—quite small-c conservative, actually—and would like to know whether and how I'm missing the mark on it.
> All of the products I can buy may or may not contain this unthetical cobalt. I don't know which, and my personal buying choice doesn't effect anything.
All of the stock these corporations can buy may or may not contain this unethically-sourced cobalt. They don't know which, and their corporate buying choices don't affect anything.
Judging from these comments, the bar seems to be set at "if you can't prove the product doesn't contain unethically-sourced materials, don't buy it". That standard would apply equally well to end users. Of course you can't simply trust that your suppliers aren't lying to you, or that their suppliers aren't lying to them, so you have to be personally involved in auditing the entire process from mining to final production and delivery.
Or we could just be reasonable and agree that it's sufficient to avoid knowing or reckless involvement with unethical suppliers, and hold those who actually endanger their workers or lie about the sources of the materials they're selling responsible for their own crimes.
All of the stock these corporations can buy may or may not contain this unethically-sourced cobalt. They don't know which, and their corporate buying choices don't affect anything.
Judging from these comments, the bar seems to be set at "if you can't prove the product doesn't contain unethically-sourced materials, don't buy it". That standard would apply equally well to end users. Of course you can't simply trust that your suppliers aren't lying to you, or that their suppliers aren't lying to them, so you have to be personally involved in auditing the entire process from mining to final production and delivery.
Or we could just be reasonable and agree that it's sufficient to avoid knowing or reckless involvement with unethical suppliers, and hold those who actually endanger their workers or lie about the sources of the materials they're selling responsible for their own crimes.
hey, great job. You've turned a discussion about child exploitation into a discussion about whether some random person on the internet will stop buying electronics.
It's great to see where your priorities are.
It's great to see where your priorities are.
The tech companies are only one hop away from the end user, they are not close to being the direct buyer for these operations
Corporations have far more resources than individuals, and a much smaller set of things to worry about, if this is limited to inputs or products the company themselves are responsible for creating or having created (not, say, office chairs and pens). Individuals can't just "put a person on it" (they are the person—perhaps there are a few in a household, but they still can't afford to make it any one person's job) and they consume a much wider variety of things from many more sources than your average business does (again, constrained to things core to its business).
"Well why can't they restrict themselves to a smaller set of products the supply chains of which they can verify?" well yes, they could, but this is plainly still vastly more burdensome than asking a company to simply make sure the much-smaller set of folks involved in its supply chain aren't killing kids, given the vast resource disparities between the two.
So, while pushing liability "to the end of the chain" may satisfactory complete some kind of line of ethical reasoning, practically speaking it's just a way of saying "I'd rather we do nothing". Pushing the liability to companies might actually accomplish something, without undue burden (as pushing the liability to consumers would, I think it's clear, surely have).
At any rate, isn't the market supposed to be great at sorting these things out? If we could let market-based solutions take over the role of things like food safety certification without massive increases in risk and decreases in convenience and wild inefficiency, as I've seen proposed, then surely these companies can figure out some way to organize a market for supplier validation and inspection that solve the problem more efficiently than government directly inspecting and certifying every part of every supply chain. Right?
"Well why can't they restrict themselves to a smaller set of products the supply chains of which they can verify?" well yes, they could, but this is plainly still vastly more burdensome than asking a company to simply make sure the much-smaller set of folks involved in its supply chain aren't killing kids, given the vast resource disparities between the two.
So, while pushing liability "to the end of the chain" may satisfactory complete some kind of line of ethical reasoning, practically speaking it's just a way of saying "I'd rather we do nothing". Pushing the liability to companies might actually accomplish something, without undue burden (as pushing the liability to consumers would, I think it's clear, surely have).
At any rate, isn't the market supposed to be great at sorting these things out? If we could let market-based solutions take over the role of things like food safety certification without massive increases in risk and decreases in convenience and wild inefficiency, as I've seen proposed, then surely these companies can figure out some way to organize a market for supplier validation and inspection that solve the problem more efficiently than government directly inspecting and certifying every part of every supply chain. Right?
I agree. When a child is harmed to make a product, everyone involved in creating that incentive should be held responsible. Doing so will strongly change society to stop such harms of children.
This seems backwards. Why not tackle this at the source instead of all the leaves that can potentially trace to this? If we go after all the leaves this will pretty soon involve everyone. Eg what about the app developer that profits off the iphone? What about the property owner that gets rent from the app developer for his office space? This can go on forever.
And to drive home the challenge of how hard it is to trace the providence of a manufactured device, make the end consumer pay restitution directly to the affected parties.
I'm not convinced that punishing the end consumer would be all that bad. Maybe it would generate actual participation in the market and send a message that they're the ones that fuel it.
Related: what does "punishing" a company mean anyway, fines? Those are paid for by the consumer. So what's the difference? Same as corporate taxation. Taxing and "punishing" companies but pretending that the consumer is not affected is just a political game.
If one company is bad at vetting vendors and loses lots of lawsuits, so has to raise prices, that creates an opening for competitors (existing or new) to do a better job of that, not lose a bunch of lawsuits, and crush them in the market with lower prices. No?
[EDIT] to clarify, you're right if you're talking about flat costs across all players in an industry, but wrong about fines or liability exposure that targets specific behavior, as it's possible to avoid those and retain lower costs (yes, of course, compliance and that avoidance of liability has a cost that does tend to raise prices somewhat, but so does any action aimed at accomplishing some goal, and supposedly companies are more efficient at that sort of thing than government so this should be a relatively cheap way to achieve some end, if you think markets work fairly well in general)
[EDIT] to clarify, you're right if you're talking about flat costs across all players in an industry, but wrong about fines or liability exposure that targets specific behavior, as it's possible to avoid those and retain lower costs (yes, of course, compliance and that avoidance of liability has a cost that does tend to raise prices somewhat, but so does any action aimed at accomplishing some goal, and supposedly companies are more efficient at that sort of thing than government so this should be a relatively cheap way to achieve some end, if you think markets work fairly well in general)
You can agree or disagree with how effective this would be, but it's essentially the same argument for carbon taxes on consumers and the indirect tax applied via producers: you participate in production of the negative components, you help pay the cost.
Again, not arguing for or against but what's so different about taxing consumers on behalf of actual people in a different country vs. taxing them on behalf of the environment?
Again, not arguing for or against but what's so different about taxing consumers on behalf of actual people in a different country vs. taxing them on behalf of the environment?
Or the producers of that cobalt will just find someone else in Shenzhen to sell to.
This problem should be tackled, but it is worth thinking about likely unintended consequences of whatever power structures you set up to tackle it. I hear the Belgians have some experience ending slavery in parts of Africa.
This problem should be tackled, but it is worth thinking about likely unintended consequences of whatever power structures you set up to tackle it. I hear the Belgians have some experience ending slavery in parts of Africa.
It was easier for Belgium to end slavery in the Congo, as they were the ones who started the slavery in the Congo. The US is in a bit of a different position. Rwandan warlords are not nice people, and are generally tolerated by a Rwandan government which is itself corrupt. They want to go over the border and kill, maim, steal minerals, and enslave, then what can you do if you don't want to risk direct confrontation with them?
This trade is difficult to break in the current environment. We'd need to get tough on people who we have generally not wanted to get tough with because we want to keep them friendly for a lot of reasons. Not least of which is growing Chinese (and European) influence in the nations of coastal Africa. We know very well that some of the people we need are less than savory. Some of the trade we engage in is less than honest. But it's not just the coltan trade that's influencing our behavior here. There are a lot of different and competing strategic considerations at stake.
My own opinion? This is probably going to blow up in our face in the future, and we'll spend the latter half of this century, (or maybe the first half of the next?), attempting to convince a rapidly developing sub-saharan Africa that we're deeply sorry for the past but you can trust us going forward.
This trade is difficult to break in the current environment. We'd need to get tough on people who we have generally not wanted to get tough with because we want to keep them friendly for a lot of reasons. Not least of which is growing Chinese (and European) influence in the nations of coastal Africa. We know very well that some of the people we need are less than savory. Some of the trade we engage in is less than honest. But it's not just the coltan trade that's influencing our behavior here. There are a lot of different and competing strategic considerations at stake.
My own opinion? This is probably going to blow up in our face in the future, and we'll spend the latter half of this century, (or maybe the first half of the next?), attempting to convince a rapidly developing sub-saharan Africa that we're deeply sorry for the past but you can trust us going forward.
Belgium didn't start slavery in the Congo, it introduced a much wider-scale and more horrifying[1] form of it. But Belgium was originally "given" to King Leopold with the justification that he pledged to end[2] the slave trade that already existed there.
Something that surprised me: Disney centered their 2016 film The Legend of Tarzan in this context.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_S... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo%E2%80%93Arab_War
Something that surprised me: Disney centered their 2016 film The Legend of Tarzan in this context.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_S... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo%E2%80%93Arab_War
If you offer them a better margin to mine in a more ethically palettable way, and any up-front resources to do so, then it's reasonable to assume that they will.
I think this quickly gets into the details though. How much safety is required and what does it cost? Are there alternative materials that cost less than ethical cobalt? What age restrictions should be put on the labour involved and what will those children do instead (both with their time and to earn money)? Where will the adult workers come from to replace those kids and what training do they need?
I think this quickly gets into the details though. How much safety is required and what does it cost? Are there alternative materials that cost less than ethical cobalt? What age restrictions should be put on the labour involved and what will those children do instead (both with their time and to earn money)? Where will the adult workers come from to replace those kids and what training do they need?
Places where rule of the land (or lack thereof) already lets this happen is unlikely to change simply from increased margins. Most likely they’ll just pocket the increased profit with no improvement in conditions.
Responsible businesses do full inspections of their supply chains. All the way back to the farms which grow the food.
How about the factories where the fertilizer and pesticide/insecticide is made?
My point is it is unreasonable to expect a business to be able to do the kind of oversight that would require the reach of government agencies.
My point is it is unreasonable to expect a business to be able to do the kind of oversight that would require the reach of government agencies.
Taking on that responsibility would make defending against these types of lawsuits significantly harder...
Or, they'll launder the proceeds of the unethical mining by sending it through a few intermediaries so that it is now certified as ethically mined.
We've tried this before, and failed at it before (with respect to diamonds).
We've tried this before, and failed at it before (with respect to diamonds).
The same could be said about the Nike shoes you're wearing. By that logic, the company should be sued for buying the Cobalt to make phones. Shouldn't you, the consumer also be sued for buying the phone, containing the Cobalt?
There isn't really a government in the part of Congo where Cobalt is mined. There are many militia groups there and the government has very little ability to enforce the law. Changing the law in the US does very little to prevent this.
How many nations are interested in cutting the middleman? How many nations' officials would like to see corruption stop? How many people would prefer to work under dismal conditions as opposed to not having a job? If we are going to blame the the corporation purchasing the goods, we also need to blame ourselves for not doing our very best to source our purchase choices either.
Then make that argument and lobby the legislature. But you don't change law by bringing irrelevant lawsuits, that's not how it works.
I don't think they intend to change the law. I think these people are out to change the behavior, regardless of what the law is now or in the future.
Everyone is playing dirty. And I'm pretty sure they're going to play even dirtier in the future.
Everyone is playing dirty. And I'm pretty sure they're going to play even dirtier in the future.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21824898.
Presumably you're willing to stand trial for your part in that supply chain? And ~2bn other smart phone owners will also need to be imprisoned?
I agree, the Swiss should crack down on their mining companies who are running child labor schemes.
[deleted]
I feel like this is essentially trying to sue capitalism. Of course most raw materials people get is essentially sourced from exploitation. That's just the result of buying for the cheapest cost.
People don't like seeing how the sausage gets made, like the John Oliver segment on children making clothes, if they shut this down it will just pop up again with another company...
People don't like seeing how the sausage gets made, like the John Oliver segment on children making clothes, if they shut this down it will just pop up again with another company...
Your argument is exactly what industrialists said about child labour in Britain in the early industrial revolution.
This would be less cheap and more convincing if you gave a specific example or two of how it is exactly what they said.
>if they shut this down it will just pop up again with another company...
You can't just pop up a new mine like you could a textile factory.
You can't just pop up a new mine like you could a textile factory.
I’m not endorsing the original comment, but the mines that employ child labor aren’t generally big mechanized operations. They’re what are called “artisanal mines”: holes in the ground where people chip out rocks with hand tools. So you kinda can just pop one up.
You can't just set up a new artisanal cobalt mine wherever labor is cheapest because cobalt deposits don't exist everywhere. The DRC has the largest cobalt reserves in the world. Australia is in second place. Australia won't use child labor or artisanal mining if buyers have to switch to Australian cobalt from Congolese cobalt.
Global cobalt reserves by country:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264930/global-cobalt-res...
Global cobalt reserves by country:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264930/global-cobalt-res...
Then perhaps the big tech and battery makers are even more culpable for this child exploitation...if its as easy as just digging a hole and chipping out rocks, they could be a little more selective in their suppliers.
I think you're misunderstanding the challenge. Big tech and battery makers don't buy ore straight out of the mine; as you say, they buy from suppliers, who are typically always willing to certify they don't use child labor. Of course that's often a lie. The question is how you, as a purchaser for Google or whatever, can actually catch the lie.
>Big tech and battery makers don't buy ore straight out of the mine; as you say, they buy from suppliers, who are typically always willing to certify they don't use child labor.
Again that points towards not just culpability (knowledge they are facilitating child exploitation and labor), but willing to go so far as to have their suppliers provide certifications they know are "often" fake.
>The question is how you, as a purchaser for Google or whatever, can actually catch the lie.
Plenty of other similar mining industries that exploited child labor have managed to put systems in place to minimize and weed out such practices. If De Beers diamond company can improve...certainly the big data tech companies can do better than requiring certs they know are often fake.
Again that points towards not just culpability (knowledge they are facilitating child exploitation and labor), but willing to go so far as to have their suppliers provide certifications they know are "often" fake.
>The question is how you, as a purchaser for Google or whatever, can actually catch the lie.
Plenty of other similar mining industries that exploited child labor have managed to put systems in place to minimize and weed out such practices. If De Beers diamond company can improve...certainly the big data tech companies can do better than requiring certs they know are often fake.
I don't agree with the premise. It's my understanding that the diamond industry is not any better than the cobalt industry about child labor.
If legal precedents start getting made that you have to stop using a vendor once it's exposed that they're using unethical labor practices like this, perhaps even with punitive damages for not doing due diligence yourself, it gets harder and harder every time.
I'm no fan of unenforceable laws that just push problems further out of sight, but I don't think that's the case here.
I'm no fan of unenforceable laws that just push problems further out of sight, but I don't think that's the case here.
If those premises are true, it seems like the only choices available are to accept just about any level of brutality and exploitation as inevitable, or to oppose capitalism.
Correct. That's basically the argument Smith makes in Wealth of Nations.
Most capitalists fear public relations and won't use child or slave labor anywhere in their supply chain if they can help it. When the customer might boycott you for something you stand to lose far more than gain by doing it anyway.
This assumes perfect information for the consumer. Most capitalist wouldn't advertise they use child labor even if they did. Sweep it under the rug, and focus on the marketing budget instead. Then many consumers are apathetic to a lot of things, they may not care enough that some children they never knew died. Relying on the invisible hand to affect social change often results in invisible results, because the results don't actually exist.
In the case of child/slave labor the topic is sensitive enough that it isn't worth sweeping under the rug because the risk is too great. If you do "sweep it under the rug" a large part of your efforts is ensuring the children working for you have a better life than those not (education and medical care) which costs a lot of money. That is you assume you will be caught and try to present yourself in the best light anyway.
The risk is too great? What risk exactly? The risk of becoming a trillion dollar company? Does every iPhone, Galaxy Android device or new laptop have a sticker on them that says "Product may have used child labor at some point in supply chain" in big bold letters? Will these companies triumphantly announce how their product now results in only 1 child death per year instead of 2 at some big keynote product launch event? No. Maybe they'll investigate after being called out and put it in some report that barely any consumers care to read.
If you sampled 100 smartphone users on the street about cobalt procurement practices, would they be surprised by what they hear? If you tracked those 100 people, how many would change their behavior(i.e. give up their smartphone) after hearing about it?
If you sampled 100 smartphone users on the street about cobalt procurement practices, would they be surprised by what they hear? If you tracked those 100 people, how many would change their behavior(i.e. give up their smartphone) after hearing about it?
Congo produces 2/3rds of the worlds Cobalt. It really doesn't matter if Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Tesla and Google admit they used child labour.... They have.
Instead of levelling skepticism at the lawsuit, why not level skepticism at the companies with a collective market cap of ~$2 trillion? Doesn't that seem more constructive?
There's a real failure of imagination in these comments. Working conditions can and have been improved by advocacy. Saying child labour is an inevitable outcome of capitalism is the same argument that was made by slave owners in the south and Industrialists in Britain at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. You're wrong.
Instead of levelling skepticism at the lawsuit, why not level skepticism at the companies with a collective market cap of ~$2 trillion? Doesn't that seem more constructive?
There's a real failure of imagination in these comments. Working conditions can and have been improved by advocacy. Saying child labour is an inevitable outcome of capitalism is the same argument that was made by slave owners in the south and Industrialists in Britain at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. You're wrong.
30% of 2016's cobalt consumption is 34800 tonnes. Most cobalt is used in alloys[0], and it is mathematically impossible that each of five companies uses more than a third of the supply in any case.
In other words, it's quite possible that any, or even all, of those companies don't use DRC cobalt. I'll grant you that it's unlikely, particularly in Tesla's case, given how many batteries they produce.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#Applications
In other words, it's quite possible that any, or even all, of those companies don't use DRC cobalt. I'll grant you that it's unlikely, particularly in Tesla's case, given how many batteries they produce.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#Applications
But I'm not at all certain the court is willing consider the purchase of goods on the world market to be equivalent to "participation" in this venture, even if the suit asserts that "The Cobalt Supply Chain Is a “Venture”". Is there meaningful precedent for interpreting a supply chain in this way?