Comments
May 19 | Ann Richmond said:
Though I am truly thrilled at your statement, which I have been directed to and read many times, I am troubled by the recent discussion that Intel is involved in efforts to weaken the Conflict Minerals Bill. I am also troubled by fact that efforts are being made to weaken it, while the estimated cost to tech companies is a mere penny per product to implement as written. (I emailed intel with that estimate, and asked to be corrected if I was wrong. As yet, I have not been corrected.) I don’t know of any consumer who would mind that cost being passed on to them, particularly if it could help to ending the violence in the Congo, even if it included added administrative costs also being passed on. I cannot fathom why this would be considered too burdensome. I have read your statement many times, and I am thrilled at your support of the bill, but feel strongly that if the bill is gutted, it will have no impact. Your support for it then would serve to make you look good, but would not in actuality help the root of the problem. I am a big fan of Intel. I am a big fan of your statement. But I would love to finally hear you address these concerns. I am genuinely concerned, and I am not a “copy and paste troll.” For days, I feel that many of us have been waiting for you to answer. PLEASE do so. I am willing to take on the extra cost, if you could bring yourself to be willing to take on the extra “burden.” People’s lives matter, and if the Congolese conflict were going on in any other part of the world, we wouldn’t stand for it. Please begin to publicly address the concerns that many people are showing!
Respectfully, Ann Richmond
May 19 | Lisa Shannon said:
In a leaked industry memo, your lobby group states, “Because industrial supply chains are complex, and metals may enter an importer’s supply chain several levels below the importer’s first-tier supplier, no importer can be a guarantor the conflict minerals have not entered the supply chain…” What is Intel’s public position on this statement? Do you plan to take full responsibility for your supply chain? Guarantee it? That is the objective of the legislation.
May 19 | Lisa Shannon said:
You industry group is pushing for an escape clause called the “reasonable care defense”. Do you support this clause? Or reject it?
Your group crossed out language that would hold industry accountable for fraud, gross negligence, or negligence. Does Intel fully support tech companies being held accountable for fraud, gross negligence, or negligence when claiming your products are conflict free? Or not?
May 19 | Elizabeth Hopper said:
Dear Intel,
As a concerned consumer, I would like you to publicly respond to the questions raised by Ann Richmond and Lisa Shannon in their comments. I call on you to support the current version of the Congo Conflict Minerals Trade Act, and to see that the bill is passed in its current form. Like many other consumers, I know that I have a choice about which companies I support with my purchases, and corporate social responsibility is a major factor in my purchasing decisions. Because of this, not only is supporting the current version of the Congo Conflict Minerals Trade Act the right thing to do, but it also makes sense from a business standpoint. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely, Elizabeth Hopper
May 19 | Bob Digance said:
I have read your policy and believe that if you are unable to identify the mineral origin you should discontinue using the supplier.
May 19 | Lisa Shannon said:
Hi again, You said you would have the right person here to answer our questions. Any plans to do so? For the record, we said we would be delighted to have a PUBLIC meeting with Intel. Too many of these conversations have happened behind closed doors. We remain hopeful you will come around and claim your place as the definitive industry leader! The price tag is so small- less than 1¢ per product, which your industry does not dispute- it’s hard to imagine what the hold up could possibly be. But we will celebrate you if you come forward presently! Listening to your buyers will make you human rights heroes. Best, Lisa
May 20 | Nathan said:
Dear Intel Corporate Social Responsibility — I am the adoptive father of a Congolese orphan. Our family lives in Portland Oregon, where many Intel production and R&D plants are located. I write on behalf of the 5 million orphans who remain in DRC. They are sisters to my daughter. Most of these orphans lost their parents due to cascading violence resulting from DRC’s political instability — which as you well know, results principally from the local profiteeering derived from unregulated mining.
I write you on a laptop powered by an Intel processor to tell you I would gladly pay 1 penny more per product to ensure fewer orphans in DRC. I work daily to overcome the social damages caused by conflict mining. You should too.
Intel should align corporate goals with the text of the conflict minerals bill as written. The debt of conflict minerals should be carried by product purchasers, not “outsourced”, or paid for with Congolese lives. I am sure that’s what my daughter’s biological parents would have wanted. I know they would be proud to see her successes here in the USA. And how diligently she does her homework. On a netbook powered by an Intel processor.
May 20 | Philip Hedges said:
I have read the policy and I think Intel’s stance is reasonable. Customers aren’t expected to determine if the labels in their clothes are accurate, nor that all the merchandise they buy in stores are labeled accurately. A company shouldn’t be required to assume the guilt of their suppliers. Any intentional fraud should be treated criminally, but being the victim of deception shouldn’t be criminal.
May 20 | Josh Hooten said:
Intel, you sent Facebook fans here saying you’d answer our questions and nobody from Intel has posted here. What’s up? It’s starting to look like this was just an attempt to get people to stop posting about conflict minerals on your Facebook page.
Please respond to the pressing questions being asked of you. 45,000 lives a month are on the line.
May 20 | Charlotte Hill said:
I sincerely appreciate Intel’s effort to engage with NGOs and government officials in an effort to eliminate conflict minerals from your supply chain. Like other commenters above, however, I’m concerned that behind closed doors, your company is actually attempting to substantially weaken conflict minerals legislation. Can you guarantee that this is not the case? As an Intel supporter for many years, I’d love to know that you’re setting the standard in ethical supply chains, not undermining it.
Thank you.
May 20 | Ann Richmond said:
Intel, we’re still waiting. We were asked to come here specifically, that our concerns could be addressed. Any plans to actually make that happen?
May 20 | Ann Shannon said:
Could Intel please explain how any of the changes it has asked for to HR 4128 STRENGTHEN the accountability measures contained in the bill rather than WEAKEN them? The truth is that it cannot, because every change is transparently designed to gut accountability from the bill and to circumvent meaningful change to the conflict mineral trade.
May 20 | Suzanne Fallender said:
We do support legislation, we just have a different view about what will work best and have the most impact. This week, the Senators included this issue in their Wall Street reform bill, a development that we are monitoring. This is not about cost to us - we are genuinely working to find ways to move things forward and help improve supply chain responsibility around the sourcing of these minerals. One of the big complicating factors is that it is difficult to know where the metals come from as they make their way to a smelter. There are legitimate mines in the DRC and we want to ensure that they are not crippled by the actions that are taken, further harming the region. Also, legislation is only one aspect of our approach – we have taken actions over the past year to raise awareness of this issue and engage our own supply chains in finding a solution, including:
• Posted our Conflict-Free Statement about metals on our Supplier Site.
• Requested that our suppliers verify the sources of metals used in the products they sell us.
• Increased the level of internal management review and oversight, as well as our transparency and disclosure on this topic in this report.
• Engaged with leading NGOs and other stakeholders to seek their input and recommendations.
• Hosted an industry working session at our offices in Chandler, Arizona in September 2009 with more than 30 representatives from mining companies, traders, smelters, purchasers, and users of tantalum to address the issue of conflict minerals from the DRC.
• Co-sponsored a multi-industry “call to action” meeting on extractives in San Francisco, California, with industry partners and Business for Social Responsibility in October 2009.
• Funded a study with EICC members on defining metals used in the supply chain, and are working on a similar project to increase supply chain transparency for cobalt, tantalum, and tin.
• Intel currently co-chairs the EICC’s extractives working group and was the first company in the electronics supply chain to conduct on-site smelter reviews. Through these reviews, which take place at locations around the globe, Intel is determining if smelters can verify the mines of origin for the ores they process.
We respect and have listened to the many viewpoints expressed in this and other forums – as with many issues as complex as this one, while we may disagree on some points about how best to solve the issue, we do share the same objective to see peace come to the DRC.
May 20 | Rev. Heather Sparkman said:
Intel,
I am writing to ask that you support the Conflict Minerals Trade Act (H.R. 4128) as written without watering it down to make it less “burdensome” for industry. I am the mother of an adopted daughter from DRC and it haunts me to think of other women and children in DRC who are subjected to violence to due conlicts over minerals. I would gladly pay 1 penny more for Intel products in order to protect the women and children of DRC. I beleive that most Americans would feel the same way. I urge Intel to lead the way in corporate responsibility by advocating passage of the Conflict Minerals Trade Act (H.R. 4128)as written.
May 20 | Stori Sullivan said:
Intel, I applaude you for your actions that you have made to raise awareness on this issue. I am now asking that you support the Conflict Minerals Trade Act (H.R. 4128) as written. The violence in the DRC must be stopped. I feel very responsible for having used so many products that may have included these minerals in them. I am an adoptive mother to two beautiful Congolese boys. I am a sponsor of a Congolese Woman. I volunteer for a nonprofit humanitarian organization that supports orphans in the DRC. And this is not nearly enough! The Congolese people are my family. As a consumer, I am asking you to help us be guaranteed that the Congolese’s blood is no longer on our hands.
And of course, I would gladly pay 1 penny more for my products as would any American. But that is not the real issue here is it? It appears to me that you are concerned about the possible fines that you might accumulate by not being confident yourself that all of your minerals are conflict free. But holding everyone accountable for fraud, gross negligence, or negligence is the only way to end the conflict over the minerals. It is the only way to help stop the slaughtering of the Congolese people. I urge you to please take responsibility with me. Please support the Conflict Mineras Trade Act (H.R. 4128) as it is written.
Thank you.May 20 | Ann Richmond said:
Hi again— I appreciate you finally making a post here, and you list some good things, but can you please answer the direct questions posed in the comments here?
Respectfully, Ann RichmondMay 21 | Lisa Shannon said:
Hi Suzzane,
Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, you have still FAILED TO ANSWER ANY OF MY QUESTIONS related to Intel’s positions on specific suggested changes to the bill. Why is it so hard for Intel to speak publicly about an effort you have been spearheading behind closed doors to radically alter a bill that will soon be policy of the US government? What is Intel so ashamed of, if it is not about cost or self interest?
We are all for dialogue, and understanding your nuanced position. What exactly in the S.891 and HR 4128 does Intel take exception to? What exactly is Intel willing to take responsibility for in your own supply chain- or not?
I have repeatedly acknowledged- very publicly- the areas Intel has played a leadership role. I continue to commend you for this. I simply cannot understand why you refuse to speak openly on your efforts to REMOVE INDUSTRY ACCOUNTABILITY at a price of less than 1¢/ product. Your generic statements have fallen grossly flat. Please be specific and answer the questions outlined above. Thank you, Lisa Shannon
May 21 | micael said:
I was very glad for a minute or so until I read the comments that told me that Intel seem to treat the Congolese people better with their mouth than their hands…
I do very strongly urge you to support the Conflict Minerals Trade Act (H.R. 4128) and not water it down. Pleae put your words into action, so that I can feel secure next time I buy an Intel product. You don’t want me to boycott you, do you?
May 21 | Monica Johansson said:
Ms. Fallender, while I applaud Intel for taking all the steps you have described, these steps just aren’t good enough. We are asking that you FULLY support HR 4128. It IS possible to find out where your minerals are coming from, so excuses for not supporting the bill as written are not valid. Excuses such as “One of the big complicating factors is that it is difficult to know where the metals come from as they make their way to a smelter.” Determining the minerals’ origin is the core intent of the bill. Intel’s actions in trying to influence (i.e., to weaken or remove) the enforcement provisions in the bill are obviously meant to avoid being held accountable. We urge you to please support the Conflict Minerals Trade Act, AS WRITTEN. Thank you.
Monica Johansson, Letters to Congo
May 21 | Shawny Le said:
Thank you Ms. Fallender for the actions you’ve taken so far to help raise awareness on the issue. Unfortunately it is just not enough. Intel is in such a unique role right now to make a difference in the lives of millions of people, for just 1 penny per product which I think we would all agree the consumers would gladly pay if you will not. You’ve “Co-sponsored a multi-industry “call to action” meeting on extractives” which is remarkable and I’m sure in doing that you will recognize that this is our “call to action” for you. You are the ones that can make a difference. We are asking you, begging you, on behalf of the Congolese men, women and children that cannot to ACT now.
May 21 | Kenneth J. Connor said:
OK, these protesters have gone out of their way to make a deliberate denial of services attack on the Intel Facebook page. They have cut&paste SPAMMED the Intel site with nothing but invective and misinformation. The proposal they support is flawed fatally and totally untenable. I see no reason why Intel, which is an acknowledged leader in peace and justice issues, should kowtow to this group of people who would stoop low enough to hijack a Facebook page. This is a blatant publicity attempt and an attempt to market a book. As a progressive myself, I am outraged that such a spam attack has been leveled at Intel. It is low grade and unworthy of real progressives…and I condemn their vandalization of a Facebook page.
May 21 | Suzanne Fallender said:
We continue to see a great deal of interest and passion for the conflict mineral issue. First, I want to thank those who have been following our blog and other sites like Facebook for updates and those who do recognize the steps that Intel is taking to address this very important issue. Let me assure you that we are listening to your comments and feedback and sharing them with the right teams inside of Intel who are working hard to address this issue.
I am committed to keeping you regularly updated as we have more information to share. I will continue to post here at our CSR@Intel blog (see my May 19 post) and we’ll also alert people through Facebook, Twitter and other channels, referring them back to this blog often any time we have an update or more to share with you.
Now, on to a few questions that have been posted.
First, several of you have asked us why we take exception to the current House legislation. While we agree with the primary objective of the House legislation, we do not agree with certain provisions that in our view would create a layer of bureaucracy that generates more paper but does not solve the underlying problem. Specifically, given the complexities in the supply chain and our work over the past year on this issue, we don’t believe that the proposed reporting mechanism in the legislation (i.e. the import declaration form provision) is practical to implement. This will not serve the ultimate objectives of improving accountability and transparency. Our goal is to make sure we have the right systems and reporting mechanisms in place - we haven’t been waiting around for legislation on this issue and have been taking proactive steps to address this problem directly with our supply chain.
Others have also asked whether we’re willing to take responsibility for our own supply chain. We’ve clearly outlined the steps we are taking to work with the suppliers in our supply chain in my previous posts, and I’ve also included our policy below (adopted in Nov 2009 and posted on our website) for quick viewing.
Intel’s Conflict-Free Metals Policy
• Intel takes very serious the allegations that metals mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo may be making their way into the electronics supply chain; and profits from this illegal mining may be fueling human rights atrocities in the Eastern Region of the DRC.
• Intel expects our suppliers to comply with the Electronic Industry Code of Conduct and to only source materials from environmentally and socially responsible suppliers. Intel has systems and procedures in place to help ensure that our suppliers comply with these expectations; however, due to the complexities of the metals supply chain, we are currently unable to verify the origin for all metals used in our products.
• In support of this, Intel will commit to: 1. Trace and map our supply chain for tantalum, tungsten, cobalt, tin and gold 2. Support development of independently verifiable supply chain transactions, when available and credible, to document the routes taken and intermediaries involved from mine of origin to final product.
I will do my best to answer additional questions posted here that I can and will also update you periodically as I have more information.
2010-05-22
CSR@Intel · Intel's statement on conflict minerals issue
via blogs.intel.com
