If you thought the 2010 financial
regulation law was just about stopping the next financial crisis, you wouldn’t
quite be correct. Contained in its 848 pages is an unusual provision that has
little to do with Too Big To Fail or bringing transparency to derivatives
trading. It’s about minerals.
Or, to be exact, conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo,
whose civil war is fueled by trade in
tungsten, tin, tantalum, and gold. Section 1502
puts a disclosure requirement on publicly-listed companies to say whether their
products contain conflict materials, and to report that information to
investors. And it’s likely that major names
from the electronics and automotive industries will be affected soon.
70 companies currently have no idea whether their
products are 'conflict-free.'
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has lobbied to weaken the provision (though
Microsoft, General Electric, and others have distanced themselves from those
efforts), but the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission is set to
enforce the law in the next few weeks. Which leaves companies no
choice but to beef up their due diligence procedures--no easy task.
PricewaterhouseCoopers says 70 companies currently have no idea whether their
products are "conflict-free", while 49 say their supplies could be
disrupted.
So what should they, or any other company concerned about the issue, do? A
report published in May by Global Witness, a
U.K.-based campaign group, gives some practical suggestions. In line with U.N.
and OECD guidelines, it recommends strengthening systems to
trace minerals to where they were mined; identifying ways in which payments may
end up in military hands; being ready to take action if those risks
materialize; having independent audits; and publicly disclosing what steps have
been taken.
The report encourages collaboration to make the job easier.
"Companies can choose to pool their resources to carry out on-the-ground
risk assessments and can enlist external experts to help them, as long as the
companies retain responsibility for the information gathered and their response
to it," it says.
It won’t be easy--though, as campaigners, lawmakers and peacemakers agree,
public disclosure is the less painless way forward. Stopping the trade
completely would harm both U.S.
and DRC companies, and probably raise prices for consumers. This way, the trade
stays intact, but has a chance of becoming a little less harmful.
没有评论:
发表评论