"Africa is, indeed, coming into fashion." - Horace Walpole (1774)

1.18.2011

naming, shaming, & measuring

Just before the holidays, the Enough Project released its first rankings of electronics companies based on their "progress they are making toward conflict-free supply chains and a conflict-free mining sector in Congo." You can look at the quick guide to their rankings here or read the full report here.

As longtime readers of this blog know, I'm cynical about the effects that any effort to engage in supply chain monitoring in the DRC will have on the conflict there. This is because the conflicts there are not only about or fueled by the mineral trade and also because local institutions are not strong enough to prevent smuggling, mislabeling, and the many, many, many other ways of getting around a monitoring and tracing regime. I'm of the view that this exercise is mostly a waste of time and effort, but if companies want to do it, then so be it. The "name-and-shame" approach that Enough is using here is standard advocacy practice. Whether consumers will pay any attention remains to be seen.

What I'm interested in here, however, is the report's authors' methodology in determining whether a company is making a good-faith effort at tracing and ending the use of Congolese conflict minerals in their products. The report outlines 18 indicators they used to make this judgment:
1. Tracing: Has the company traced its suppliers of tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold
(3TG)? (four questions)
2. Auditing: Does the company have audits conducted of its suppliers of the 3TG
minerals to determine mine of origin and chain of custody? (six questions)
3. Certification: Has the company taken concrete steps to develop an international
certification regime for the 3TG minerals? (three questions)
4. Stakeholder engagement: Has the company had regular engagement with the NGO
coalition, led by Enough, on the conflict minerals issue? (two questions)
5. Support for legislation: Has the company supported the legislation on conflict
minerals? (three questions)
As you can see from the rankings, Enough believes it has sufficient information for most companies to answer all of the above questions. I'm curious, though, as to how they've verified that companies have undertaken these actions. It's virtually impossible to fully trace suppliers, determine mine of origin, and to determine the chain of custody for the 3T's and, in particular, gold in the eastern DRC. On what basis is Enough gauging these activities? As Jason Stearns points out, it's pretty easy under the newly-released draft SEC framework (the development of which was required by the Dodd-Frank legislation) for a company to engage in due diligence, find nothing, and yet still be using minerals the sale of which is funding violence. As he notes in another post, the lack of an oversight mechanism plus the secretive nature of mineral sales in the Kivus will make it very, very difficult for companies' auditors to actually verify what they claim to be verifying.

Then there's the issue of engagement with Enough, which I find a somewhat bizarre indicator for measuring this particular outcome. The insinuation here is that a company that doesn't go along with Enough's method and advocacy program must not be doing anything about this issue. For example, one of the questions (worth one point) in the survey is, "Has the company held regular communication with the Enough NGO coalition regarding conflict minerals (at least bi-monthly)?" Which means that if your company hasn't sent an email or talked to Enough and the coalition once every two months, you must not care about conflict minerals.

Is that really the case, though? It may be unlikely, but isn't it possible that a corporation could be pursuing efforts to avoid the use of conflict minerals outside of Enough's framework? Especially if, like many observers, they believe that this effort is unlikely to lead to lasting peace in the DRC? Likewise, I find the "supporting conflict minerals legislation" criteria dubious. The legislation on this issue wasn't necessarily worth supporting for the reasons I've outlined above. Does a corporation have to support that legislation in order to be a good corporate citizen?

The conflict minerals issue gave Enough the chance to score a major legislative victory, and it gives corporations a chance to make themselves look like good corporate citizens. This is true regardless of whether the approach mandated by the legislation actually produces measurable positive outcomes for the Congolese. (HP in particular has been very interested in appearing to be a leader on conflict minerals.) However, much of the criteria by which this commitment is measured seems to me to be fairly dubious. A corporation can lose up to nine points on the scale simply for not working with Enough or getting involved with the legislation. To an academic like me, the use of "working with Enough" as an indicator seems to be measuring something that has very little to do with the outcome they're seeking to measure, namely, progress towards the use of fewer conflict minerals in consumer electronics.

I'd be interested to hear from other advocacy folks as to the justification for using such measures as a matter of commitment, as well as whether this is standard practice.

Labels:

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that no contact with Enough is not a fair indicator that a company isn't doing anything about conflict minerals. Enough acts as if it is the best and only advocacy organisation working on this issue.
In fact, other civil society organisations, especially in Belgium and the UK, have been trying to hold companies to account since the year 2000.

Nevertheless, I'm getting a little tired of the Enough bashing on your blog. As usually with academics, you're probably right about everything you say, but you don't often suggest alternatives. That simply isn't helpful.

What we need from academia is accurate and appropriate information, but in a form that is useful for policy making. As long as academia are too cautious to make that step, policy makers will keep listening to advocacy groups (because although they might be less in touch with the realities in the field than specialists, they seem to be a lot more in touch with the possibilities and restraints of policy makers).

So while I also cringe at advocacy goups' messages sometimes, I think scholars are to be blamed too. I wish we'd work together a bit more to get our politicians to finally (a) do something and (b) do the right thing.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:34:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Groan not another lets knock enough post.

This time with a return to the conflict mineral issue, which in past comments you have shown flawed reasoning and a shaky grasp of the basics.

If you had more of grasp you would realize one of the main the places to cut the minerals out is the smelters outside the DRC. Which i would think, is widely realized now by Enough and most people with a decent understanding.

Looking at past comments from Enough and others there is a large degree of skepticism over the schemes inside the DRC.

Which is not surprising looking at the bag, tag and laundry scheme from the rump of the TIC (no Cabot, Noventa, Gippsland, Global and a heap of other smaller players).

"naming, shaming, & measuring" how about naming shaming and measuring the efforts of companies yourself rather than your usual default mode of nit picking over the efforts of a organization that is trying to do some good.

whats the bet that if you did you would come to the same basic conclusion they did. That the organizations were only doing a small fraction of what they could or should be doing?

"I'd be interested to hear from other advocacy folks" not a advocacy folk, if i was i might not think it a good use of time to feed you obsession with knocking Enough.

Which is a odd obsession when there are so many more deserving targets out there.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:47:00 AM

 
Anonymous conflict said...

I've got to say, I agree with this post almost entirely. When I first saw Enough's list, I literally laughed out at loud.

I've been researching natural resources extraction, including companies and their use of conflict minerals for many years now for my graduate work-- and this list is not even close to accurate. I actually sent in a formal complaint to Enough about their procedures for assessment and the fact that this list would only falsely encourage people to believe certain companies were more "ethical" than others. The companies that scored high on their list are often the ones that give themselves good pats on the back in public as a marketing technique, but really spend paltry amounts and efforts on making real change-- and those that are actually looking to more realistic changes, scored relatively poorly in comparison (not that there are many of these). I have serious doubts about the research that went into this report.

As to the anonymous above. If you seriously want to HELP the actual people, then you should be open to criticism and use it to make the program better in the future. If you continue on a well-intentioned path ignoring all criticism and not learning from mistakes-- you are doing no one any good. In fact, you could be causing SERIOUS harm. I suggest you take a look at some of those non-profits open to admitting mistakes, taking critique and making a better service out of it (try http://admittingfailure.com/).

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:54:00 PM

 
Anonymous Mark Makers said...

Laura,
Thank you for calling out Enough's self-serving methodology. Their methodology almost seems to measure their own success (or failure) at pressuring companies to talk with them, rather than a company's openness to addressing their minerals supply chain.
With a new story today about ITRI abandoning their efforts in Congo, plus the continuation of the mining 'ban', we can see how Enough's advocacy works against its stated aims. But who cares when you have a nice office in DC where you can talk about Congo while sipping your lattes?
Mark

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:22:00 AM

 
Anonymous Cynthia said...

"To an academic like me..." Oh, come off it, Laura. The arrogance with which you seem to relish in bashing Enough is simply appalling and so clearly driven by some sort of personal vendetta. Don't you have any better ways to spend your time up in that ivory tower?

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:58:00 AM

 
Anonymous theblogrebel said...

We are all oppressors by proxy! We sit in front of our computers, use or phones which communicate into space all based on these minerals and the complex web of capatilist intrests that created this system. KNowing that when we buy the latest electronic fad item or hot fashion knock off from China that it was through someones sweat and poor pay that generated our luxury. And I happen to know for a fact that there is no Ivory tower on campus, just a big obelisk dedicated to a man of peace!

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 7:51:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeez, people, lay off already.

Enough may be trying to do good work, but that doesn't mean they're above criticism. And really? You're going to complain about Laura being an academic? Find something better to complain about than the fact that she's dedicated her professional life to understanding these places and issues.

NGOs aren't simply the savoirs of mankind. They need to be called out when there are different/better ways to make a difference, for the sake of those they're trying to help. So grow up and stop getting so upset over dissenting voices. It's a necessity when trying to tackle complex issues.

Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:08:00 PM

 
Anonymous Rebecca said...

I wrote an earlier comment that seems to have been eaten by blogger (I've been having this happen a lot lately!), but I'll try again.

I agree with Laura here. I've been researching the supply chains of several electronics companies for the past seven years now-- and when I saw Enough's report-- I nearly laughed out loud. I also sent them a strongly worded letter questioning their methods.

Dell, Motorolo, Intel, HP, Nokia and Microsoft got a "on the right track" rating? Really? Well some of these companies may be publicly patting themselves on the back for their piddly efforts, any real research into their chains finds that this is all fancy marketing gimmicks with very real action or intent. Let's see, they spend around $60K a quarter on a so-called auditing process split between some 40 companies, yet look into the development and research budget allotted in a quarter to any one of them. They spend more than that a day. The claims of these companies, and the reality are two very different things.

Look at Apple for example. Apple makes great claims of its new clean "greener" products. Yet, take a look at the recent investigative reports being done by IPE (http://www.ipe.org.cn/En/about/notice_de.aspx?id=9684) that charge that heavy metal pollution on populations is a HUGE problem from this company. The same is happening with supply tracing methods, the full research just hasn't been released yet.

I have to agree with the last anonymous. If Enough really want to do good work, they MUST take criticism and use it to make positive changes. Good intentions are not enough when those intentions may cause larger problems in the long run.

Responsible NGOs admit when they are wrong, and use criticism wisely. In fact, there should be more venues for this (like http://admittingfailure.com/), because there are a LOT of destructive ones out there. This list only lulls people into thinking certain companies are "ethical"-- and they are not.

Monday, January 24, 2011 5:22:00 AM

 
Anonymous Rebecca said...

I wrote an earlier comment that seems to have been eaten by blogger (I've been having this happen a lot lately!), but I'll try again.

I agree with Laura here. I've been researching the supply chains of several electronics companies for the past seven years now-- and when I saw Enough's report-- I nearly laughed out loud. I also sent them a strongly worded letter questioning their methods.

Dell, Motorolo, Intel, HP, Nokia and Microsoft got a "on the right track" rating? Really? Well some of these companies may be publicly patting themselves on the back for their piddly efforts, any real research into their chains finds that this is all fancy marketing gimmicks with very real action or intent. Let's see, they spend around $60K a quarter on a so-called auditing process split between some 40 companies, yet look into the development and research budget allotted in a quarter to any one of them. They spend more than that a day. The claims of these companies, and the reality are two very different things.

Look at Apple for example. Apple makes great claims of its new clean "greener" products. Yet, take a look at the recent investigative reports being done by IPE (http://www.ipe.org.cn/En/about/notice_de.aspx?id=9684) that charge that heavy metal pollution on populations is a HUGE problem from this company. The same is happening with supply tracing methods, the full research just hasn't been released yet.

I have to agree with the last anonymous. If Enough really want to do good work, they MUST take criticism and use it to make positive changes. Good intentions are not enough when those intentions may cause larger problems in the long run.

Responsible NGOs admit when they are wrong, and use criticism wisely. In fact, there should be more venues for this (like http://admittingfailure.com/), because there are a LOT of destructive ones out there. This list only lulls people into thinking certain companies are "ethical"-- and they are not.

Monday, January 24, 2011 5:31:00 AM

 
Blogger texasinafrica said...

This comment is from reader Rebecca at A Peace of Conflict:

"I wrote an earlier comment that seems to have been eaten by blogger (I've been having this happen a lot lately!), but I'll try again.

I agree with Laura here. I've been researching the supply chains of several electronics companies for the past seven years now-- and when I saw Enough's report-- I nearly laughed out loud. I also sent them a strongly worded letter questioning their methodology.

Dell, Motorolo, Intel, HP, Nokia and Microsoft got a "on the right track" rating? Really? While some of these companies may be publicly patting themselves on the back for their piddly efforts, any real research into their chains finds that this is all fancy marketing gimmicks with very real action or intent. Let's see, they spend around $60K a quarter on a so-called auditing process split between some 40 companies, yet look into the development and research budget allotted in a quarter to any one of them. Most spend more than that a day. The claims of these companies, and the reality are two very different things.

Look at Apple for example. Apple makes great claims of its new clean, "greener", "non-toxic" products. Yet, take a look at the recent investigative reports being done by IPE (http://www.ipe.org.cn/En/about/notice_de.aspx?id=9684) that charge that heavy metal pollution on populations is still a HUGE problem from this company. The same is happening with supply tracing methods, the full research just hasn't been released yet.

I have to agree with the last anonymous. If Enough really want to do good work, they MUST take criticism and use it to make positive changes. Good intentions are not enough when those intentions may cause larger problems in the long run.

Responsible NGOs admit when they are wrong, and use criticism wisely. In fact, there should be more venues for this (like http://admittingfailure.com/), because there are a LOT of destructive ones out there. Enough's list only lulls people into thinking certain companies are "ethical"-- and they are not."

Monday, January 24, 2011 9:09:00 AM

 
Blogger texasinafrica said...

Thanks, Anon @12:08 Sunday. For those who don't like my take on this issue, please remember that participation in this blog is entirely voluntary. If you don't like it, it won't hurt my feelings if you get your analysis elsewhere.

Monday, January 24, 2011 9:13:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://apeaceofconflict.com/what-you-can-do/

Luara you have rather shot yourself in the foot again. Enough agree with the vast majority of what Rebecca says looking at its past statements.

Looking at the peaceofconflict site it seems the two organizations have a lot in common.

Anyone who has looked properly at the supply chains knows how little the companies have done "piddly efforts" and how big the mineral supply is from the DRC.

(Which is of course in starck contrast to your past comments and your "analysis" of the amount of supply).

The total scores reflect this really. I certainly would not be happy with the grades the companies got! Maybe they should be even lower though!

Apple are not the great ethical company they pretend to be either agree again.

Think Enough can take criticism, but if a person is just relentlessly critical of whatever they say or do they are not going to be listened to as much a person with a balanced opinion.

Also when that person just falls backs into "if you do not like it go elsewhere" position, who is trying to be above criticism?

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:22:00 AM

 
Anonymous Rebecca said...

@ the last anonymous-- That page that you reference is an older one from my site that has yet to be updated. I suggest you look at the more recent post http://apeaceofconflict.com/2010/06/11/what-to-do-about-blood-minerals-in-the-dr-congo/ where I discuss the problems of my previous thoughts on the matter. Further research led me to a change of heart on the situation and to move away from any boycott measures.

It's not even that the companies should have got lower scores (though I think they ALL should have), but that they seem arbitrary and not based on the actual measures taken by the companies. I would change up the order of several of them on the scale. I was hoping to soon write a post on my site regarding the problems Enough's list, but am swamped with other work at the moment.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:09:00 AM

 
Anonymous Rebecca said...

@ the last anonymous-- That page that you reference is an older one from my site that has yet to be updated. I suggest you look at the more recent post http://apeaceofconflict.com/2010/06/11/what-to-do-about-blood-minerals-in-the-dr-congo/ where I discuss the problems of my previous thoughts on the matter. Further research led me to a change of heart on the situation and to move away from any boycott measures.

It's not even that the companies should have got lower scores (though I think they ALL should have), but that they seem arbitrary and not based on the actual measures taken by the companies. I would change up the order of several of them on the scale. I was hoping to soon write a post on my site regarding the problems Enough's list, but am swamped with other work at the moment.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:10:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://apeaceofconflict.com/2010/06/11/what-to-do-about-blood-minerals-in-the-dr-congo/

Rebecca Enough is not calling for a boycott and has opposed a boycott and has been critical of the present ban.

Think everyone knows, including Enough that it will take a range of measures and that a certification scheme in the DRC, on its own will not be enough (excuse the pun).

In my view if the graph was 100 percent accurate in reflecting the efforts of the companies over the years, it would be more like a flat line with a couple of mole hills!

Some companies are marginally better than others though, even from with a very low base.

Enough probably want to encourage the companies to have at least some competition amongst themselves to be "cleaner". Along with consumer awareness.

Neither the Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009 or the The Conflict Minerals Trade Act of 2009 will lead to a total boycott.

To many people making to much money for that to happen. About as likely as nobody buying the latest electronic Gizmo's!

Would be difficult anyway to replace the mineral supply in the short term, as it is so big, especially when a commodity boom is going on.

As you have studied the supply chains you know what i mean.

Going to be a long haul with the supply gradually squeezed then the trade gradually cleaned up to a certain level.

Meanwhile various organizations will push in other areas to improve things in the DRC. Would expect the emphasis from Enough to shift over time as well.

The main problem will be keeping or getting people interested as always. No interest equals no pressure to make things better.

So i would expect Enough to try every trick in the book from charts to giving George Clooney malaria to try to make a difference!

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:06:00 PM

 
Anonymous Rebecca said...

@Anonymous-- so if the Enough graph isn't "accurate" as you say, then it isn't based on reality, but rather Enough's perception-- which goes against all proper research methodology. Kind of the point of Laura's article, no?

Neither Act will lead to a total boycott, but they are heading in that direction, which is EXTREMELY problematic. Companies will begin to look for metals in other places (many of which are also obtained through abusive or environmentally damaging processes that no one seems to care about), where they can avoid the hassle and added expense, or else it will all be a sham with meaningless faked paperwork that accomplishes absolutely nothing. Do you have any idea how hard it is to actually trace a mineral from the source to even the second or third stop? There's no funding that would ever be able to allow for proper investigation or regulation without some sense of security on the ground. Not to mention, you can bribe the officials along the way pretty easily to get what's necessary. Either way, it doesn't make any difference to the people on the ground and their lives.

The problem in the DRC will not be solved from the last few steps in the chain. Certification schemes have not worked in the past, one has merely to look at the KP to see that. These measures are not going to change the reality for the people, but just make those in the west feel more "ethical" or more satisfied that they are "making a difference". That's the problem. We are being lulled by these ineffective policies that make us think things are changing, instead of looking for actual solutions that are more reasonable.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 9:09:00 PM

 
Anonymous Rebecca said...

@anonymous-- If by your own admission, Enough's graph is not "accurate", then it is based upon their own perception and not on practiced research methodology. That is mostly the point of Laura's post, no?

The Acts are not an outright boycott, but head in that direction. Either it becomes too expensive and risky to obtain metals from the region, so they move elsewhere (where there are undoubtedly abuses and environmental degradation as well-- but no one seems to care or notice if it's not the DRC), which is essentially a boycott; or else they wind up having faked paperwork citing where they came from, which makes it also essentially useless. If there is no security, there can be no proper certification or checks. How does this change the reality for the people on the ground at all? If anything, a certification or auditing scheme such as suggested by these Acts will result in more corruption as bribes are paid to those removing the minerals from the country, and thus MORE money goes towards funding violence.

Starting at the last few steps in the chain is the wrong way to go. It will have no effect on the population on the ground, but will lull shoppers into thinking things are different. I believe that these types of Acts are actually very dangerous for the people on the ground, because they will result in people losing interest-- because they assume now things are better. Look at the KP certification scheme. People now buy supposed "conflict-free" diamonds, which in reality is a joke. This label is relatively meaningless in reality-- the diamonds could very well be still extracted with human rights violations or funding armed groups, someone just paid a bribe to grease the wheels. This is exactly what will happen with the Acts as well. Then you are also diverting money, energy and interest away from projects that COULD actually have a chance to make real change on the ground. Extremely counterproductive.

Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:49:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rebecca the main point of Laura post is just another attempt to knock Enough.

The info came out on December the fourteenth!

http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/new-enough-report-asseses-corporate-action-conflict-minerals

Remember seeing a blog elsewhere with a lot of the points Laura makes around about that time.

So not a lot new in Laura's blog and i would have thought criticism would have got back to Enough by now Lol.

As for the chart being accurate, the main point anyone should have taken was that the companies were doing a "piddling" amount by your own admission.

You or i might have done things a bit differently but it is a bit of a two bald people people arguing over a comb argument.

A academic argument in both senses of the word really.

With the rest of your argument think you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

"The Acts are not an outright boycott, but head in that direction." Either it is a boycott or not. The supply will not be cut of permanently as the world is very dependent on the supply of minerals from the DRC.

If the mining trade even partially cleaned up more money will go to the people of the DRC and "clean" supplies will get higher prices.

With the certification schemes you seem to be assuming that Enough support all certification schemes.

I doubt this is the case looking at some comments from them. The iTSCi scheme for instance is fairly farcical as has been pointed out.

"Lull shoppers" think even with Enough efforts probably 95%+ of people could not even find the DRC on a map let alone know much of what is going on there.

A lot of effort will have to go on raising awareness, doubt vast swaths of people are going to be agonizing over Enough's first attempt at a "Percentage of progress chart".

That's not to put down the impact Enough have made, i just do not think things have got anywhere near that stage yet.

As Enough and others have said will take more than action in one area to change things.

Diamonds and jewels are a bit different. Do not have to be smelted for a start and are a bit easier to smuggle than a truck load of ore!

(off topic)
The Kimberly process has been undermined a lot in my eyes by events in Zimbabwe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8120931.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1313123/Robert-Mugabes-darkest-secret-An-800bn-blood-diamond-run-Chinas-Red-Army.html

http://www.zimbabwemetro.com/news/zimbabwes-government-taking-over-at-chiadzwa-diamond-mine/

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/walking-the-line-2011-01-21

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:35:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry for the late reply Rebecca seems my reply post got eaten.

The main point of post is just another attempt to knock Enough.

The info came out on December the fourteenth!

http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/new-enough-report-asseses-corporate-action-conflict-minerals

Remember seeing a blog elsewhere with a lot of the points Laura makes around about that time.

So not a lot new in Laura's blog and i would have thought criticism would have got back to Enough by now Lol.

As for the chart being accurate, the main point anyone should have taken was that the companies were doing a "piddling" amount by your own admission.

You or i might have done things a bit differently but it is a bit of a two bald people people arguing over a comb argument.

A academic argument in both senses of the word really.

With the rest of your argument think you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

"The Acts are not an outright boycott, but head in that direction." Either it is a boycott or not the supply will not be cut of permanently as world is very dependent on the supply of minerals from the DRC.

If the mining trade even partially cleaned up more money will go to the people of the DRC and "clean" supplies will get higher prices.

With the certification schemes you seem to be assuming that Enough support all certification schemes.

I doubt this is the case looking at some comments from them. The iTSCi scheme for instance is fairly farcical as has been pointed out.

"Lull shoppers" think even with Enough efforts probably 95%+ of people could not even find the DRC on a map let alone know much of what is going on there.

A lot of effort will have to go on raising awareness, doubt vast swaths of people are going to be agonizing over Enough's first attempt at a "Percentage of progress chart".

That's not to put down the impact Enough have made i just do not think things have got anywhere near that stage yet.

As Enough and others have said will take more than action in one area to change things.

Diamonds and jewels are a bit different. Do not have to be smelted for a start and are a bit easier to smuggle than a truck load of ore!

The Kimberly process has been undermined a lot in my eyes by events in Zimbabwe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8120931.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1313123/Robert-Mugabes-darkest-secret-An-800bn-blood-diamond-run-Chinas-Red-Army.html
http://www.zimbabwemetro.com/news/zimbabwes-government-taking-over-at-chiadzwa-diamond-mine/
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/walking-the-line-2011-01-21

Friday, January 28, 2011 12:09:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reputational risks from the acts are apparently affecting the trade of at least some minerals in the DRC rather negatively. See http://congosiasa.blogspot.com/2010/08/vulnerable-link-in-minerals-trade-banks.html

Friday, January 28, 2011 12:33:00 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home