Via the oft-entertaining and equally oft-abrasive Destructoid comes the news that a group has initiated efforts to boycott the Nintendo 3DS. Why? Because the Nintendo DS may use “conflict minerals”, i.e. materials resourced from parts of the world where human rights abuses are rife, where murder in the name of profit or exploitation is commonplace, or where rebel and government militia war over control of their production.
The Facebook group doesn’t get stuck into any details, chiefly because they don’t appear to know whether or not the 3DS uses any conflict minerals or even which minerals it might use. Fortunately Uncle Google knows everything: in terms of consumer electronics we’re talking columbite-tantaline, colloquially known as coltan, which has been used in laptops, games consoles and mobile phones – among many other devices – for years, and if my memory serves me correctly its properties have been a key driver for the process of miniaturisation we consumers have enjoyed over the last few decades.
Putting aside the confused but well-meaning nature of this small boycott group, what are your thoughts on the use of conflict minerals? Is it something consumers should be taking action over? Are boycotts the best way forward, or perhaps other tactics? Is it right to expect that a hugely commercially successful company should take care to properly vet its suppliers?
(You can probably figure out my general feeling from the fact that I’m going to include these three links, and also note that some countries are trying to pass legislation to make the vetting of conflict mineral sources mandatory.)
Comments
4 responses to “QOTW: New Tech, Conflict Resources & Boycotts”
Hmm.
I don't think a boycott would work for things like this – Or at least, anything less than an absolutely huge boycott would have little to no effect. The demand for the material is growing at 4% a year, and from my research on the matter it would seem that by 2013 production will outstrip demand, so I don't see what a few people not buying the DS will achieve. Most people have never heard of conflict minerals, and I'd imagine the majority of consumers couldn't give a toss either way.
I also think that whilst it's not a company's job to question its suppliers (It's a company's job to make money), it would certainly be a wise PR move on the part of the company to be seen to be caring about such things.
However, a Facebook group who doesn't even know what it's protesting against is fucking laughable.
(I apologise if this was a bit scattershot, I just wrote it as it occurred to me)
As Spann puts it, it is definitely a wise PR move to ensure the source of your goods as was seen with De Beers and other retailers in the whole kerfuffle that surrounded the sale and purchase of blood diamonds a few years back. A massive public uproar stirred these companies into action and a great amount of progress was made, though hardly resolved.
I think a company who is a major international buyer of these resources has at least some responsibility to ensure as much as possible the use of legitimate sources. However I also think there is only so much a company alone can do to help as the problem is generally not directly linked to any one company. The companies should not be forced to endure the brunt of the blowback from scandals like this unless of course they are knowingly encouraging the use of the blood resources.
An uninformed boycott is just silly and won't accomplish a damn thing, it's protesting for protests sake.
From what I've read about Coltan, using facebook to protest against it's use is a little daft, as it's likely to be inside the PC you're using, as well as the mobile phone in your pocket, the DVD player in your lounge… The list goes on.
That Facebook group seems more and more ridiculous each time I think of it.
I think that they might want to start a bit higher up the chain first, I mean look at the Chinese company Foxconn who makes the X360s, iPods etc. The way they treat their employees is appalling to the point where they are committing suicide.