What do conflict minerals have to do with financial reform?

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Related stories

Apple Invests $500mn in MP Materials to expand U.S. supply

In a recent move, technology giant Apple Invests $500mn...

Egypt and Saudi Arabia Exploring Mining Cooperation Options

The Egyptian minister of petroleum and mineral resources, Karem...

Mining Companies in Africa Adapting to the Change

On June 17, 2025, Malian government helicopters landed unannounced...

Steel Tariffs To Protect Domestic Steel Industry In Canada

Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada on July 16,...

Seemingly minor regulation has enormous consequences: NCPA

A small statute in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act is wreaking havoc in the Congo, according to a new report by National Center for Policy Analysis Senior Fellow David Grantham.

“Buried deep within the massive regulatory package is a conflict minerals statute that orders publicly-owned U.S. businesses to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) their use of tungsten, tin, tantalum and gold sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC),” says Grantham. “Dodd-Frank has engineered a de-facto international ‘boycott’ to the detriment the people it intended to help.”

Many large American companies have left or reduced operations in the DRC to avoid compliance costs and the stigma of conflict minerals. This exodus has driven many Congolese deeper into poverty, and entrenched the rebel power the mineral provision was designed to diminish.

The statute has also failed to induce companies to disclose the use of conflict minerals:

  • In 2014, approximately 67 percent of 1,321 companies could not determine mineral origin.
  • Two-thirds did not even disclose the country of origin.
  • Less than 25 percent of companies met the requirements for reporting, while 43 percent never demonstrated how they determined the origin of minerals used in production.
  • Despite an inability or unwillingness to fully answer questions posed under the statute, companies have to at least provide documentation detailing their non-answers, which has cost nearly $8 billion since the law’s inception.

 

“The conflict minerals statute is a microcosm of the Dodd-Frank legislation: a costly regulatory monster which not only failed to accomplish its intended purpose, but hurt those it was supposed to help,” says Grantham. “American businesses and consumers are forced to absorb the costs of the failed regulation. Congress needs to repeal the provision completely or, at minimum, amend the regulation to include a sunset clause set to expire within one year.”

Latest stories

Related stories

Apple Invests $500mn in MP Materials to expand U.S. supply

In a recent move, technology giant Apple Invests $500mn...

Egypt and Saudi Arabia Exploring Mining Cooperation Options

The Egyptian minister of petroleum and mineral resources, Karem...

Mining Companies in Africa Adapting to the Change

On June 17, 2025, Malian government helicopters landed unannounced...

Steel Tariffs To Protect Domestic Steel Industry In Canada

Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada on July 16,...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back