My exchange with Intel Corp. Responsibility
Hi Lisa,
I was forwarded this blog post today by one of my colleagues about a planned protest at Intel on Monday in Oregon – and you were identified as one of the point people in the post. http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2010/05/protest_seeks_intels_backing_f.html
I work in Intel’s Corporate Responsibility Office and I apologize if you had tried to contact someone at Intel this week to set up a meeting to discuss this and hadn’t heard back. But this is an issue that we’ve done a lot of work on over the past year and take very seriously. We regularly meet with groups to discuss how we are approaching this issue, so I’m happy to coordinate a meeting with people from our end.
Please let me know how I can help,
Suzanne
Hi Suzanne,
Thanks for your note. I appreciate you reaching out. Unfortunately, my concern about Intel’s recent work on conflict minerals is directly related to conversations that have taken place behind closed doors. Hence, the need for public statement and action.
I am aware of Intel’s engagement on conflict minerals. We applaud and thank you for you leadership on supply chain investigations and willingness to address the issue of conflict minerals. The proactive steps the company has taken make it a frontrunner of the industry. However, we have heard reports that Intel is pushing to water down the Conflict Minerals Trade Act (H.R. 4128) to make it less “burdensome” for industry. [Inserted specific info on their back door efforts here- deleted for blog post]
[These measures] will weaken the bill, stall it in Congress, ultimately cost tens of thousands of Congolese lives and continue the worst sexual violence on the planet. No industry “burden” could possibly compare to what our sisters in Congo live through every single day. For Intel to push back over stakes as low as a penny per product, the company has launched an assault on all of our humanity. There are no half-rapes in Congo. No half-massacres. And there is no half-support for the bill. As Intel’s consumers and employees, we must ensure that the company does the right thing and supports H.R. 4128, as the bill is written, this year. We are bewildered that Intel would take steps that risk its groundbreaking efforts on conflict minerals in an effort to save less than one penny per product.
Human life is worth more than a penny. We urge Intel to immediately cease all efforts to weaken the Conflict Minerals Trade Act. Intel must issue a public statement of unqualified support of The Conflict Minerals Trade Act as written and actively lobby for its passage.
Intel is in a unique position. If the company comes out in full support of the Conflict Minerals Trade Act as it is written, you would immediately position the company as the definitive industry leader on this critical issue. Just as Run for Congo Women was started in Portland, and helped ignite a global movement for Congo, we would be so very proud to see an Oregon company be the first tech company to provide robust, unfettered, unqualified support for this legislation.
I hope you will forgive my frank tone, but what’s happening in Congo is all too real. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. And Congolese women are our family.
Best,
Lisa Shannon
Founder, Run for Congo Women
Author, A Thousand Sisters
Dear Suzzanne,
One of the challenges is that the individuals who have been working directly on this issue are not based in Oregon. But I understand that you want to proceed with your event as you have planned and want to contact someone on site, so when you arrive at 12:30, please call my colleague Jill Eiland who manages corporate affairs and corporate responsibility issues in Oregon. Also, our offer still stands to arrange a follow-up meeting where we can have the right people on our end participate – you can either talk to Jill about this tomorrow when you call her or follow-up with me afterwards. We appreciate your recognition of the leadership actions we have taken on this issue to date – we have invested a great deal of time and resources and are committed to continuing to work collaboratively to identify solutions going forward.
Regards,
Suzanne
Thanks so much Suzanne. We will call Jill when we’ve gathered. As I said, we will be more than happy to have a meeting with her in public, cameras rolling, media present, with all activists present. We can do this outside- she can walk over to meet us, or inside your building. As you chose.
Also, please understand we are a respectful group of mostly moms and grandmas. We will respect Intel property/ rules, etc. We simple need to know what those guidelines are.
We are not interested in setting up a follow up meeting with “the right people”. The bills in question are up for discussion right now, and we will not engage in stalling or more meetings. The solution is known, and our ask is clear: Intel must issue a public statement in full support of the HR 4128 AS WRITTEN, and cease all lobbying efforts to weaken the bill. While the group will be at Intel for a couple of hours, my mom and I will be happy to wait all day for Intel to issue this public statement. This could be a big, beautiful moment in Intel’s history of corporate responsibility. We hope you will seize the day!
Thanks!
Lisa
Hi Suzanne,
We were very disappointed Intel was unwilling to speak with us publicly, or even hear our statement. (Though we did enjoy meeting your burly security guys!)
Unfortunately, the statement you issued does not meet our criteria for leaving the 45,000 penny love gift. But there is still time! My mom and I are still here, with the pennies, until 6pm! We hope Intel will reverse positions, and embrace the less than one penny expense it would mean if the bill passes with it’s full enforceability. I believe you will come to see the 1 cent expense is a joy and privilege rather than a burden!
Warmly,
Lisa + Lisa’s Mom Ann + Lisa’s Niece Aria
Here is a link to OPB.org reporter, Kristian Foden-Vencil’s blog on our Intel protest yesterday: http://www.news.opb.org/article/7347-activists-protest-intels-use-conflict-minerals/ — as well as my comment, which I would have posted on the OPB blog, but which was too long to do so:
My response:
The core issue is that exploited minerals essential to all electronics products are fueling the conflict and instability in DR Congo. Militias use terror to clear away local populations and gain and maintain control of mining territory. It’s a simple formula: behead 29 people one day, burn 47 people alive 3 days later and, by all means, mutilate and rape every woman you come across to scare locals away from their land, then you are free to mine to your heart’s content.
With an estimated 45,000 deaths each month and hundreds of thousands of women having been brutally gang raped, addressing conflict minerals is considered a key element in stopping the carnage. There is no disagreement from anyone on this.
Please note that Intel did not issue a denial that, as Shannon asserts based on reports from DC insiders, it is has been taking a leading role in the back door, secret lobbying efforts to amend the Conflict Minerals Trade Act through the industry lobby group.
What Intel did issue was a statement to Foden-Vencil that, “…it is concerned about conflict minerals…” and that “it wants to make sure legislation will achieve real change — not just result in an unintended ban on legitimate trade.”
While publicly supporting the bill, Intel betrays its true view of the proposed legislation by saying the proposed legislation is “just…an unintended ban on legitimate trade.” Given that, the reports naming Intel as one of two primary leaders (along with Hewlett-Packard) acting through the industry group to drastically reduce the bill’s enforceability measures are not surprising.
But exactly how motivated is Intel in achieving the “real change” that it avows? How honestly is Intel representing itself here?
The most direct way to determine that is to compare HR 4128 as written with the changes sought and specified in the industry group document recently leaked to Shannon, which she is happy to make available to members of the press.
SEC 8 (b) of the bill as written reads: “Matters To Be Included- Each report required under subsection (a) shall, with respect to each importer identified under subsection (a) include the following information irrespective of whether any party to the importation has requested confidentiality: the carrier code, vessel country code, vessel name, voyage number, district/port of unlading, estimated arrival date, bill of lading number, foreign port of lading, manifest quantity, manifest units, weight, weight unit, shipper name, shipper address, consignee name, consignee address, notify party name, notify party address, piece count, description of goods, brand, manufacturing company, container number, and seal number.”
That wording would appear to allow for collection of extensive data on parties involved in the delivery and sale of conflict mineral laden products.
The alternate Section 8(b) proposed by the industry, however, reads: “Matters To Be Included- Each report required under subsection (a) shall, with respect to each product that contains conflict minerals, shall [sic] included [sic] the following information irrespective of whether any party has requested confidentiality [sic] description of goods including, brand, and manufacturing company or importation company.”
Why would an industry, which is only seeking to “achieve real change” on conflict minerals, aim to eliminate all meaningful identifying information of those participating in the conflict minerals trade delivery system and of the specific products that contain them? My best guess: In so rewording the bill, they obliterate information vital to monitoring and further addressing the flow of conflict minerals, their derivatives and the products that contain them both to regulators, and the public (peace and anti-genocide advocacy groups, and any consumers desirous of avoiding the purchase of conflict mineral products).
Moving on, SEC 9 (a) on Penalties, HR 4128 as written reads: “(a) Penalties relating to Conflict Minerals. If any person, by fraud, gross negligence, or negligence, enters, introduces, or attempts to enter or introduce any good that contains one of more conflict minerals (as such term is defined in Section 11) into the territory of the United States by means of inaccurate information with respect to the imported good, such person shall be subject to penalties pursuant to section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592).”
The industry group, however, proposes to strike out: “by fraud, gross negligence, or negligence, enters, introduces, or attempts to enter or introduce and [sic]good that contains one of more conflict miners (such as term is defined in section 11) into the territory of the United States by means of inaccurate information with respect to the imported good”.
It proposes instead the far more generic (and I would be willing to bet, far more difficult to enforce in the legal standard of “knowingly”): “…If any person knowingly provides a false declaration or fails to declare to the Secretary of Commerce, such person shall be subject to penalties pursuant to [insert applicable citation].”
Nothing, however, belies the industry group’s true intentions to obstruct enforceable conflict minerals legislation or the seriousness of its commitment to “achieving real change” than its own statement preceding the suggested changes in the leaked document: “Providing a transaction-by-transaction certification on the importer’s customs declaration would be significantly burdensome…” and that the “system of penalties must include a reasonable care defense…” Because ”no importer can be a guarantor that conflict minerals have not entered the supply chain despite it’s [sic] exercise of reasonable due diligence to exclude them.”
In other words, the whole intent and purpose of this legislation, to ensure accountability all along the supply chain of conflict minerals, is prima facie unattainable, and unenforceable to the companies who are deriving profit, however indirectly, from conflict minerals. We are all simply wasting our time.
Nailing the coffin on enforceability and industry accountability, the industry group proposes adding the following paragraph SEC. 9 (c) to the bill:
“(c) Reasonable Care Defense – The Secretary of Commerce, in setting penalties under subsection (a), and the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, in assessing penalties under section 1952 of the Tariff Act of 1930, shall provide for an affirmative defense to any such penalty if an importer has exercised reasonable care in making its declaration in accordance with Sec 7(a)(1) or in declaring goods to be non-conflict minerals upon import in accordance with section 7(b). An importer shall be deemed to have exercised reasonable care if it:
(A) Contractually obligated its direct suppliers to exclude conflict minerals from goods supplied to the import; or
(B) Obtained a certification from its direct suppliers verifying that goods supplied to the importer do not contain conflict minerals;
and
(C) Investigates credible information that a direct supplier may be in breach of its obligations and takes appropriate corrective action if the direct supplier is in breach. Evidence that conflict minerals may have entered a supply chain despite the exercise of due diligence in accordance with an importer’s declaration shall not disqualify the importer from the affirmative defense of reasonable care.”
In other words, if we tell our suppliers not to do it, and they tell us they didn’t do it, AND no one comes forward to tell us otherwise, we can look the other way, they can do whatever they want, and our hands are clean by the standards of this legislation. Only IF someone comes to us to complain there has been a breach, are we obligated to look and see what is going on! We are in no way obligated to be proactive in assuring that our suppliers are complying with their contractual obligations.
All of this has been proposed, while in SEC 2. FINDINGS, of the bill as written, unequivocally states at paragraph (13):
“There are ample sources of columbite-tantalite (coltan), cassiterite, and wolframite in non-conflict areas of the Congo and worldwide, processing columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, and wolframite for commercial use requires sophisticated technology, there are a limited number of processing facilities worldwide for columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, wolframite, and their derivatives, and determining the sources of columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, wolframite, and their derivatives used by processing facilities has already been successfully done at low cost”
Wow… with the tech industry going to those heroic measures to stop those 45,000 lives being lost every a month and ending the worst sexual violence on the planet (all to save a penny in product costs), maybe we should find someone to nominate Intel and its industry group for the Nobel Peace prize.
[...] the rest of the correspondence and Lisa’s statement here. If you’re in the Portland area, I urge you to go, make your voice [...]