Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo

Conflict Minerals: Insights from Company Disclosures and Agency Actions

  Premium   Download PDF Now (16 pages)
Report Type Reports and Testimonies
Report Date April 5, 2017
Release Date April 5, 2017
Report No. GAO-17-544T
Summary:

The mining and trade of "conflict minerals"—particularly tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold from the Democratic Republic of the Congo—has contributed to severe human rights abuses. In 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission began to require companies whose products may contain these four minerals (from the DRC and its neighboring countries) to report on the sources of these minerals.

In this Statement for the Congressional Record, we report that about half of companies in our sample reported this source information in 2015—an increase of 19% from 2014.

Percentages of Companies That Reported Determinations of Conflict Minerals' Origins, 2014 and 2015

Side-by-side pie charts showing data from SEC filings in 2014 and 2015.

Side-by-side pie charts showing data from SEC filings in 2014 and 2015.

Additional Materials:

Contact:
Kimberly Gianopoulos
(202) 512-8612
gianopoulosk@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

What GAO Found

Our analysis of a generalizable sample of conflict minerals disclosures filed with SEC in 2015 found that an estimated 49 percent of companies in 2015 reported having determined whether the conflict minerals in their products came from covered countries, compared with 30 percent in 2014—an increase of 19 percentage points. As a result of due diligence, a majority of companies reported in 2015 that they were unable to determine the country of origin of the conflict minerals in their products and whether such minerals benefited or financed armed groups in the covered countries. However, companies reported a range of actions they had taken, or planned to take, to build on or improve their due diligence efforts, such as shifting operations or encouraging those in their supply chain to shift from current suppliers to suppliers who are certified as conflict free.

As of July 2016, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) had not submitted to Congress a report that includes an assessment of the accuracy of Independent Private Sector Audits (IPSA) and other due diligence efforts as well as recommendations for IPSA processes, as the Dodd-Frank Act requires, and had not developed a plan for doing so. Commerce officials told us in July 2016 that they had not yet assessed the accuracy of the four IPSAs filed in 2014 or the six IPSAs filed in 2015. Commerce officials said they established a team to manage Commerce's responsibilities related to IPSAs in March 2016, but the officials noted that they did not have the internal knowledge or skills to review IPSAs or establish best practices.

What GAO Recommends

In its August 2016 report, GAO recommended that Commerce establish a plan outlining steps and time frames for assessing the accuracy of due diligence processes such as IPSAs, and developing the necessary expertise to fulfill these requirements. Commerce concurred with GAO's recommendation.

For more information, contact Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov.

« Return to search Government Accountability Office reports