*Originally published in 2023. Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber, or make a donation, to support our work.

Companies like Tesla are under increasing scrutiny to take responsibility for environmental and human rights violations along their supply chains. Global supply chains are complex and intertwined, but many eyes are focused on places like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where raw minerals such as cobalt (critical for lithium-ion batteries) but also gold, tin, and coltan are sourced under often exploitative, polluting and violent conditions. In international relations, the concept of due diligence has become widely used as a tool for firms to meet their responsibility to respect human rights and the environment. But what exactly does due diligence mean? How does due diligence connect the responsibilities and rights of global consumers, companies, and mining communities? And what effects does it have in the DRC? In this contribution, we review the literature on the due diligence concept and analyze its effects on the ground in the DRC. Specifically, we highlight a shift in discourse from conflict-free sourcing to responsible sourcing and reflect on what this might mean for small-scale miners and mining communities in the DRC.

Tesla recognizes the importance of mining to local communities and encourages ethical sourcing from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). As recommended by the OECD, we do not support an embargo, implicit or explicit, of any DRC material, but instead, allow sourcing from the region when it can be done in a responsible manner through audited value chains (Tesla).

Tesla recognizes the importance of mining to local communities and encourages ethical sourcing from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). As recommended by the OECD, we do not support an embargo, implicit or explicit, of any DRC material, but instead, allow sourcing from the region when it can be done in a responsible manner through audited value chains (Tesla).

Due Diligence has become a well-entrenched practice in mineral supply chains, a tool for identifying, assessing, and acting upon risks. Risks are nowadays broadly understood to include forced labour, child labour, human rights violations, and war crimes (OECD, 2016). Supply chain actors are responsible for carrying out their own due diligence. To do so, they can use practical guidelines, due diligence and traceability programmes, and certification schemes that help firms comply with standards (Postma and Geenen, 2020). The most widely used guidance is the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (3rd edition in 2016), which recommends a five-step framework for doing due diligence (figure 1). In collaboration with the OECD, the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemical Importers and Exporters (CCCMC) also developed Due Diligence Guidelines in 2015. Well-known due diligence and traceability programmes are the International Tin Supply Chain Initiative (ITSCI) or Better Mining, both operational in the DRC. Notable certification programmes include the Regional Certification Mechanism of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, the Chain-of-Custody Standard of the Responsible Jewellery Council, and the Responsible Minerals Assurance Process of the Responsible Minerals Initiative (Postma and Geenen, 2020).

Apart from these voluntary guidelines, mandatory requirements for mineral sourcing companies have been included in American and European legislation. In its Section 1502, adopted in 2010, the US Dodd-Frank Act requires listed companies to report on whether or not the minerals they imported from the DRC or its neighbouring countries have been tainted by conflict (SEC, 2012). While earlier legislation was narrowly focused on conflict financing in the DRC, following alarming reports about ongoing violence in the early 2000s, more recent initiatives take a broader scope. On 17 May 2017, the European Parliament and Council adopted a new import framework on “Conflict Minerals” under Regulation 2017/821. Coming into effect in 2021, this first mandatory regulation for European Union (EU)-based companies importing the 3TG (tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold) set up a “responsible importer” scheme in order to stop (1) conflict minerals and associated metals from being exported to the EU; (2) global and EU smelters and refiners from using these minerals, and (3) artisanal miners from being abused. On the one hand, the regulation may be criticized for not going far enough in requiring that only importers, not end-user companies, report. Simultaneously, it has been praised for going further than Dodd-Frank in its geographical scope – from DRC and neighbours to all conflict-affected and high-risk areas – and its developmental approach – foreseeing accompanying measures to help Congolese producers comply. The regulation is also seen as a “trial run” for a more comprehensive EU Due Diligence legislation.

In February 2022 the EU Commission published a proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence (CSDD), which presents itself as a key entry point for the development of "more inclusive and holistic" policies for a due diligence framework in natural resource management. If the directive gets approved, EU member states will have to domesticate it into national law. However, in December........

© E-International