Following Generose
When we hear about the horror in a place like Congo, its easy to get overwhelmed. I always think of Generose. We had known each other for years, but when she showed up for the run in Congo, I felt I learned one of the greatest lessons ever- from her. Many of you know her story- her home was attacked, her husband, leg cut off and force-fed to her children. When her 9 year old son refused, he was shot and killed. How do you live through that?
But on the morning of the Run for Congo Women in Congo, she showed up in a red suit and pink pearls. Although she was on old crutches, on one leg, she ran. It was painful for her, and after about a third of a mile, she had to stop. Some might say she didn’t finish the one mile course.
But you know what? She showed up.
She showed up and took it as far as she could.
And when I asked her why, she said, “If I can run on only one leg, everyone will know they can do something to help.”
Today, that humble war victim and her act of running made the national news in the USA. She became a voice for her nation.
Follow that woman.
All we need to do is follow Generose’s lead, and show up. Imperfectly, without always knowing the right thing to say or do, but show up for Congo. The reverberations will be far greater thatn anything you can imagine.
Here are some simple ways to get involved. Or join our group A Thousand Sisters on facebook.
http://athousandsisters.com/act
Boycott Conflict Minerals: I hereby take full responsibility for my own supply chain.
I’ve spent months asking tech companies to take full responsibility for their supply chains and stop funding the humanitarian crisis in Congo. We agree conflict minerals from Congo- like tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold- are in all of our consumer electronics products and other goods. We agree they are funding millions of deaths at a rate of 45,000 per month. We agree its unacceptable, and most tech companies agree it needs to change.
We asked for one thing: Guarantee Conflict Free.
I’ve brought them love offerings of pennies. I’ve logged countless hours on facebook. I’ve walked, run, driven and flown thousands of miles trying to visit companies like Intel, HP, and Apple, urging them to emerge industry leaders. I’ve sat down with corporate representatives in behind closed doors. I’ve sweated out the DC heat while hand delivering books and notes to urge the US Congress to vote for the strongest possible conflict minerals language. I’ve written to Steve Jobs multiple times. I’ve begged, yelled, argued, flattered. I’ve even used the word “rape” in front of tech guys, despite protests it made them “uncomfortable”.
But I have failed to do one thing: Take full responsibility for my own supply chain.
Based on the leadership and vision of my sisters Monica, Richa, Pamela, and Mom (aka Mrs. Claws), I see what I considered impossible is possible.
Pamela: I don’t really see adults getting the latest and greatest tech device as essential.
Richa: My kids enjoy swimming , bicycling , running around, singing and dancing . I don’t care for Nintendo products but just want them to stand up and be on our side of humanity .That’s all I care about .
Mrs. Claws: Boycott not feasible? I say it is imminently feasible and practical to make US buyers think twice and to hold back from the EASE with which they purchase upgrades to their sexy new tech products. And that will hurt the giants big time…if we institute a don’t buy unless you absolutely have to … and then, buy used on EBAY.
Thanks, sisters. I have made a decision. If tech co’s are too shy to go first, I will.
I hearby pledge I will not purchase another new tech product, piece of jewelry, or any item that may contain conflict minerals until the provider offers a guarantee it is conflict free. Until such products are available, if I need such a product, I will only buy second hand. From this moment on, I guarantee myself conflict free.
I encourage other to join me in this pledge. BOYCOTT CONFLICT MINERALS.
PS- And Steve Jobs, please fix this fast! I really want a new iPhone! XO- Lisa
What draws us to the Congos of the world?
The other day, I sat down to begin work on my second book. I’ve known for ages I want to include a couple of conversations I had with a guy I met on the terrace at the Orchid Safari Club on my most recent trip. (No, this is not a love story, so let’s get that out of the way up front).
A few basics: A 40- something guy who has worked in development and African war zones (Somalia, Darfur, Congo, etc) for more than 20 years, we started talking about rice cakes and almost instantly found ourselves in a raging debate about writing on Congo, development, neo-colonialism, and listening to Congolese people. Then he mentioned he almost drowned in Lake Kivu the day before. He moved back to the US 2 years ago to try to create a life, though he “has no friends” in his new town.
Yes, he’s a difficult man, but I liked him nonetheless, and through the lens of the upcoming book, shamelessly found him fascinating. We got together after one of my readings on my book tour and talked more.
I finally wrote him to fess up that I want to include him in my book. The following is our exchange:
Hey there. Happy 4th!
Sat down to start work on my second book this morning. Would you mind if I include a couple of our conversations? I always ask.
Was serious when I said some of our conversations stayed on my mind.
Lisa
***
Hi. Glad to hear you are busy again. Can I ask which conversations you’re referring to? Thanks
***
Hmmm. I could say orchid and after the reading….but I’m not sure that’s adequate.
Tricky to explain in lightweight terms. Most of the story will be focused on the LRA, my friend francisca and her family. But my narrative arc will deal with the opposite arc of the first book- stripping back the “one person makes a difference” story. Questions like- what drives people to places like Congo? To help others or help ourselves? Running towards something or running away? Is “amazing” work a cover for personal failures? Does spending time in places like Congo make you more alienated, or does that sense draw you there in the first place? And ultimately- like every story in this genre- can one rejoin the living? How do you carve out a life, especially when everything feels so painfully low stakes when you return? All issues I’ll address throughout the book. We touched on them briefly, in a way I found unintentionally poetic, the first time we talked at orchid- your near drowning, your return to the US after 20 yrs, since becoming a permanent ex pat is “its own kind of graveyard”. And the conversation after my reading.
***
Thanks. I would only add that I believe in a cosmic principle acc to which however much you lose or become unmoored from your original community, you gain one some where else. So if I said those things about expat life I didn’t mean to diminish all that my time in congo, and congolese, have contributed to the quality of my existence on this earth.
Anyway it’s an ongoing discussion as these issues have no pat answers and are deeply personal, often to the point of useless western navelgazing. I’m sure you’ll steer clear of that.
I just edited a friend’s book with a similar theme. Do we need another story of a lost westerner ‘finding themselves’ in the suffering of the less fortunate? It happens, sure, but the optics of such tales are very suspect, and support the notion held by many that we are only interested in the congoes of the world for selfish reasons. I’ll be in kinshasa from X to X if you’re through there.
Take care
***
Ah! No secret- pretty much from the moment we met- that your world view is inherently skeptical of my work, the way I would tell my story, and the methods I use. I still find you fantastic.
Was your 20 years in the Congoes of the world driven by selfish reasons? Is that inherently flawed, or is all human action driven in some way by selfish reason- the way every protagonist- and even antagonists- push towards something they believe to be positive? I wonder if we care, try to connect and do something good, but it is also selfish- that all of it is true. Does it diminish the act of showing up? Maybe. But if we spend all of our energy trying to get to a perfect soul place about it, does it lead to paralysis and prevent people from engaging with and for other human beings? Which is the lesser of the evils?
In the end, real art explores the complexity of an issue without providing answers. But every story is about people learning about themselves- for better or worse- against any backdrop.
Some theorize we are either critics or creators- hard to be both. And in the end, my best guess is that its easier- or at least safer- to be a critic. The creative process isn’t driven by left brain, pc questions about what stories the world needs, but rather a raw, honest exploration of human experience. I don’t find that useless. Especially if one is painfully aware of one’s own bullshit in the process. I’m not sure how it all pans out in the big picture, but I know I’m happier when I’m less skeptical and emotionally paralyzed- even if it does come at the price of being flawed or exposed.
For sure it is deeply personal.
No plans for Kinshasa, but hope you have a wonderful time!
Lisa
Steve and Me
Last night, Steve Jobs made his first public statement on conflict minerals, following a Sunday column by Nick Kristof in the New York Times, which heavily featured our recent campaign:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27kristof.html
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/scrubbing-our-cell-phones-of-conflict-minerals/
A reader wrote Jobs:
Hi Steve,
I’d planned to buy a new iPhone tomorrow – my first upgrade since buying the very first version on the first day of its release – but I’m hesitant without knowing Apple’s position on sourcing the minerals in its products.
Are you currently making any effort to source conflict-free minerals? In particular, I’m concerned that Apple is getting tantalum, tungsten, tin, and gold from Eastern Congo through its suppliers.
Looking forward to your response,
Derick
Jobs’ replied:
Yes. We require all of our suppliers to certify in writing that they use conflict few materials. But honestly there is no way for them to be sure. Until someone invents a way to chemically trace minerals from the source mine, it’s a very difficult problem.
I had sent a private email to Steve 2 weeks ago, requesting a meeting. I have now emailed Steve once more:
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your first public comments on conflict minerals. While I applaud your honest acknowledgment that the present certification system is not adequate, there is no question that minerals are, in fact, traceable and guaranteed conflict-free Apple products are possible. Apple has both the resources and capacity for innovation to help solve this problem.
I wrote you a few weeks ago as a loyal Apple consumer and leader of the recent grassroots outcry on conflict minerals (prior to the DC protest and NY Times piece) offering an in-person briefing with experts to learn about the human cost of conflict minerals and most importantly, solutions. Will you please meet with us?
I look forward to working together as allies on this critical issue. The human stakes simply could not be higher
On behalf of thousands of Congolese women and children, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Shannon
Guest Blog: Gramma Ann’s Rebuttal #3 to Intel
Chuck Malloy’s statements on behalf of Intel to Oregon Public Broadcasting for the OPB article of June 2nd [http://bit.ly/cXLm77] are telling:
- “Every step of the way in a 10 or 15 step process of a supply chain we back tracked and said, where do you get your material and how do you know that it’s clean…”
- “it’s been a very painstaking effort”;
- “At the end of the day if the political climate is such that that law gets past. [sic] Our approach at least will get some sort of relief and we’ll be able to say to the smelters, that’s not from a conflict mine is it? And they be able to say, no it’s not.” [sic]
The fact remains: Intel, and all of the tech industry, need to be called to account here. It cannot remain optional for them to continue to profit off the deadliest conflict since World War II and the worst sexual violence on the planet, particularly when HP itself put forward the estimated cost of implementation with full accountability measures in place at 1cent per product without a word of protest or argument from tech industry ranks.
When 45,000 people are dying every month, and up to 7 million have already died (5.4 million as of 2/2007, with 45,000 new deaths every month) as a result of the conflict mineral trade, more than a trivial effort, even some measure of difficulty and inconvenience, are warranted on behalf of importers.
As Malloy directly states, Intel’s goal is a system in which the importer need only to ask its smelters if the minerals used are clean. If the smelters say it’s clean, the importer is in the clear! When no accountability or penalties are at stake, how effective will it be for smelters to be able say whatever serves their (and their importer’s) vested interest when ‘asked’ if their products contain conflict minerals? Ummm… Let me guess…
10 or 15 steps? That is all that is involved? How many steps and levels of complexity are involved in producing a computer or even a computer chip? How many steps are involved in managing the development, manufacture, delivery, and marketing systems of any high quality line of computers and tech products? What multi-billion dollar, multinational corporation is incapable of handling a 10 or 15 step process that costs 1cent per product? And exactly how painstaking can those steps be if they only involve a 1cent per product cost?
The real question is why Intel and other tech companies are unwilling to undertake a 10 or 15 step process, even if every step actually were ‘painstaking’, when those steps are pivotal to reversing the tide of 7 million additional Congolese deaths in the decades to come if no accountability is put into place?
Intel’s and other tech industry brass, including Apple’s Steve Jobs, would do well to invest a day in eastern Congo, up-close-and-personal with conflict mineral trade victims. It is an honor, one worth a little “painstaking” effort, for these companies (who have been profiting off of the unrelenting terror the Congolese have been subjected to for the past 14 years) to GUARANTEE CONFLICT FREE products.
Guest Blog: Intel Censoring Congo Advocates
From Ann Shannon:
Intel just never seems to learn. After creating a media furor over deleting the posts of Congo advocates on its Facebook Page last week, Intel opened a CSR blog dedicated to conflict mineral legislation inviting us to submit our questions and comments, promising that our questions would be answered. It is censoring our comments, though. Below is my submission (submitted May 21 and resubmitted May 23 after it did not appear on the blog) examining Intel’s statement of May 19th, made by Suzanne Fellender, its Portland CSR person, on the blog. Lisa also submitted a piece on Friday which was never approved or posted)
Now Intel has buried the blog (Intel’s Statement on Conflict Minerals Issue) as No 22 in a long list of blogs available through a link on its Facebook page. Scroll down long enough and you will find it (without Lisa’s or my most recent submissions).
—
Dear Suzanne,
You stated in your last post here: “we are genuinely working to find ways to move things forward and help improve supply chain responsibility around the sourcing of these minerals.”
I am tired of being argumentative with Intel…I really don’t like posing enemies. Fighting dragons is exhausting and, frankly, I am too old for it. I have other things I would rather be doing with my time. But the specific proposals that Intel has promoted in the ITIC behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts make your/Intel’s statement seem completely disingenuous and outright hypocritical. Every change it has sought to the legislation is obviously designed to circumvent any meaningful improvement in supply chain responsibility.
One case in point of the MANY ways Intel/HP/ITIC has sought to undermine an importer’s accountability for its supply chain:
1. Intel/HP/ITIC have sought to remove an importer’s responsibility to certify a Customs Declaration that the articles it is importing are “conflict mineral free” or “contain conflict minerals” as specified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States as having been identified in the Potential Conflict Goods List.
2. It then replaces that requirement with the far more general requirement that an importer declare to THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE every 180 days that: a) it has implemented a system to determine whether its suppliers that produce such articles use metals produced from facilities designated to ‘contain conflict minerals’ or are ‘conflict mineral free’; and b) based on that system, which articles it has imported in the last 180 days contain conflict minerals; AND c) evidence that an importer has imported articles containing conflict minerals in the prior 180 days shall not prevent the importer from claiming the reasonable care defense.
So basically, an importer has only to DECLARE it has implemented a system to determine whether articles it imported over the previous six months had conflict minerals.
But THERE ARE NO STANDARDS OR DEFINITIONS OF WHAT AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM WOULD ENTAIL, OR FOR THE IMPORTER’S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS OWN SYSTEM, NOR ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES OR PENALTIES FOR AN IMPORTER’S FAILURE TO ENFORCE ITS “SYSTEM”! There is ZERO enforceability or accountability involved.
FURTHER, reducing the importer’s obligation to making one declaration every 180 days to the Department of Commerce concerning all that it has imported in the prior 180 days, rather than certifying a Customs Declaration as articles enter the country is a ridiculously vague and general requirement that it appears to mock the objectives of the legislation. It is so transparent as to be laughable, if it were not for the fact that Intel/HP/ITIC seriously proposed it while there are 45,000 lives at stake every month.
How could you or any Intel executive expect anyone genuinely concerned about those lives to take your professed good intentions at face value? How could Intel brass not expect the public to be choking on our rage at their hypocrisy? The evidence stands in clear and direct contradiction to Intel’s professed concerns about working toward “real change” on conflict minerals.
What kind of fools do they take us for? (I know you are just doing your job, Suzanne, …and can only feel for you at how embarrassing that must be for you.) How much contempt does the CEO & Bd of Directors have for our intelligence and for the intelligence of the Senators and Representatives that are working toward meaningful legislation to stem the tide of the carnage in the DRC? I am speechless at the magnitude of your bosses’ arrogance, to think that they can continue spouting these platitudes while promoting such shameless amendments to this legislation.
There are too many other issues, serious and complicated issues, for me to go into at the moment. But believe me, I will get to them, and I will continue to plaster them all over the internet, and I will be sending them to others to send to our Representatives and Senators.
Intel cannot, and will not, get away with this.
Intel Categorically Refuses Public Meeting with Congo Advocates
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for the heads up on your planned trip tomorrow – appreciate it. I am actually not based in Santa Clara, I am based in Arizona (as are a number of our supply chain teams and execs) and I did not have plans to be in Santa Clara tomorrow. To set expectations for your visit (since I know you are traveling a long way), I wanted to make sure that you knew that our interest in having a public meeting on this topic has not changed. While we do not plan on getting into a detailed discussion tomorrow, we respect your ability to voice your opinion on this very important issue. I appreciate you asking again about property guidelines and logistics information – will be same approach as in Oregon re: sidewalk location. When you arrive, please call my colleague Grace Davis who manages Corporate Affairs for California at {XXX} and she will come down to say hello and take any additional statements/information you want to share back internally. If you have any trouble reaching Grace in the morning, please feel free to email or call me as well. Also, just so I can make sure that Grace is available when you arrive – do you have a general estimated time of arrival?
Regards and safe travels,
Suzanne
Thanks for the response Suzanne. I hear AZ is lovely.
We aim to arrive around 10 am and stay the day. We want to give Intel plenty of time to read the letter we are asking you to sign, discuss amongst yourselves, and get back to us with that signed letter! We’ll wait all day if we need to…
In terms of your position on a public meeting, as far as I am aware, you have not made a clear statement one way or the other. You offered to meet several times as the correct location- is that AZ? Or was that offer strictly for a private meeting. Just confused and want to clarify- you want a public meeting, or you are not open to a public meeting?
I understand and respect the goal of avoiding a detailed exchange out front. Will Grace listen to our statement?
Thanks so much!
Lisa
My apologies Lisa, for any confusion – I thought I was clear from the beginning when I first offered to set up a meeting and you said a few times that you were not interested in having a private meeting, only a public meeting.
To clarify, we are not interested in conducting this type of meeting in a public forum. On an issue this complex, we think it would be more productive to have a meeting where we pull in a number of people who have been working closely on this issue for the past year and sit down with you to have a discussion. I do understand why you want to only talk in a public forum – and I respect that. But we don’t believe that the public meeting of the kind that you suggest would lead to serious dialogue or improved understanding which would be our goal. Should you change your mind, our offer still stands for a private meeting at some point in the future. In terms of location, we could be flexible on this – we just would need some advance notice to plan around travel schedules on our end.
Suzanne
Heading to Silicon Valley w/ 45,000 pennies & nothing to lose…
Dear Suzanne,
My mom and I have packed up the car with our 45,000 pennies and we’re coming to see Intel! We will be there tomorrow. Due to recent news regarding the bill’s status passing the Senate, now in committee, we would like to put a new offer on the table. You get the 45,000 pennies if you are the first to sign on to the attached letter in support of strengthening the legislation. In light of our ongoing public conversation, and Intel’s history of leadership on this critical issue, we are coming to you first, tomorrow, with our 45,000 penny offer. This is your moment to shine.
We would love to have a meeting, provided it is public, we have the right to film, and the 45,000 penny offer is on the table.
Specifically, we would like to meet with Paul S. Otellini, President and Chief Executive Officer. However, we would also be delighted to meet with Senior Vice President Brian Krzanich (Manufacturing and Supply Chain) or Craig C. Brown, Vice President of Technology and Manufacturing.
Please let us know the Intel HQ property rules in advance, as we certainly plan to respect property guidelines etc, as we clearly did in Portland last week. We would also be delighted for you or Rick Reed to stop by. We’ve been through so much together at this point, we’re practically old friends! We will not consider this a substitute for meeting with those responsible for Intel’s supply chain, but it would be fun to say hi.
We want Intel to know though it may feel scary, we are here for you and will support you in guaranteeing your supply chain. We will pay the extra penny, and even support you in charging a premium for your newly conflict free products. You could actually profit! Guarantee conflict free!
Warmly,
Lisa Shannon
May 24, 2010
| The Honorable Chris Dodd
Chair, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 |
The Honorable Richard Shelby
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 |
| The Honorable Barney Frank
Chair, House Financial Services Committee U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 |
The Honorable Spencer Bachus
Ranking Member, House Financial Services Committee U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 |
To Chairman Frank, Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby and Ranking Member Bachus:
The undersigned companies write to express our support for strong legislation on conflict minerals as part of the amendment sponsored by Senator Brownback (3997) to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S.3217). This amendment is a crucial first step toward transparency and accountability in minerals supply chains, and we commend the Senate Banking Committee for supporting it.
We are committed to working with our supply chains and to be transparent on our conflict minerals due diligence process to guarantee that our products are “conflict-free.” We support a rigorous accountability, reporting and penalty system to ensure that companies that use tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold in their products are not fueling conflict in Congo.
Legislation in the United States will hold all companies to a level playing field with strong standards for transparency and accountability. During conference we urge that you take specific steps to amend this legislation without changing the core of the bill:
- The bill must ensure transparency in these supply chains. To that end, we recommend the bill specify that companies report the names of the smelters they utilize to process raw minerals into metals, and the results of audits of the procurement practices of these smelters.
- Second, we support legislation that would impose significant penalties for false statements or failing to provide adequate statements, by negligence, gross negligence, or fraud.
- Third, strong provisions from Representative Jim McDermott’s Conflict Minerals Trade Act (HR 4128), including those on investigations, reports, and definitions, need to be preserved in this legislation.
- Fourth, legislation should enable public scrutiny and contain measures that will allow for oversight of industry by government and civil society. U.S. government agencies should separately investigate mineral smelting operations and publish a list of smelters who source from conflict areas.
To demonstrate the transparency that is the objective of this legislation, we commit to publicly disclosing all of our lobbying efforts in support of this bill.
Sincerely,
cc: Senator Sam Brownback
Senator Richard J. Durbin
Senator Russell D. Feingold
Congressman Jim McDermott
Congressman Howard L. Berman
Congressman Donald M. Payne
Intel’s 35 billion dollar brand-squandered over pennies?
Dear Rick Reed,
Thanks for posting that link and for Intel’s apology for deleting public discussion on this vital piece of Intel business! I see from your Facebook profile, you “develop and implement strategic crisis management responses and extinguish product and corporate reputational ‘fires’, preventing issues from becoming public crises that could impact Intel’s $35 billion brand.” I understand why you got in touch! From your Facebook photo, you look like a lovely person. Delighted to connect with you. Perhaps you can help us out.
Intel said you would have the right person on your blog to answer our questions. No one has responded. Any plans to do so?
Why would Intel risk squandering a 35 billion dollar brand to save less than a penny a product, much less when it comes to a subject as serious as conflict minerals and the Congo, where 45,000 lives are lost every month? Human life is worth more than a penny. We’ve seen the transparently self-serving changes industry wants for the bill. Intel can’t win unless you abandon these back-door lobby efforts and fully embrace the bill as written.
You have issued several generic, opaque statements on this issue. Intel’s statement on conflict minerals is the exact statement you gave us on Monday- you support the “objective” of the bill, but not the bill, certainly not as written. Intel has been supporting measures to weaken the bill, including the addition of an escape clause called the “reasonable care defense”. Now you say you support “real” change.
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? That is the point of the legislation. Accountability. Do you plan to take full responsibility for your supply chain? Guarantee it?
Republicans and Democrats alike, 23 in the Senate and 46 in the House believe in the bill enough to co-sponsor, that it is enforceable, doable, and you can be 100% guarantor of your supply chain. The bill itself states,”determining the sources of columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, wolframite, and their derivatives used by processing facilities has already been successfully done at low cost.” Does Intel agree with our leaders and endorse HR 4128, as written?
Hewlett Packard stated- in the room with Intel, Motorola, and ITIC- that the bill in it’s fully enforceable state will cost less than 1¢ per consumer electronics product, and termed the expense “negligible”. It is not a disputed number. Are you willing to pay- or charge consumers- that extra penny to save Congolese lives?
Your industry group is pushing for an escape clause called the “reasonable care defense”. It seems to me this clause serves no function but to let industry off the hook with “we tried”. Not good enough. Does Intel 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?
We have said we would be delighted to have a PUBLIC meeting with Intel. Too many of these conversations have happened behind closed doors. Will Intel CEO and President Paul Otellini meet with us- publicly- with our 45,000 penny offer on the table?
We understand peer pressure. Your industry groups have tight ties. That’s why we’re here. We need you to lead. We remain hopeful you will claim your place as the definitive industry leader- and enhance that 35 billion dollar brand of which you are so proud! When you let go of your upset over the one penny “burden” (a figure your industry does not dispute), we will celebrate you! Listening to your buyers will make you human rights heroes.
Best,
Lisa Shannon
Guest Blog: A Gramma Responds to Intel’s Statement
Rebuttal to Intel Statement to Oregon Public Broadcasting by Ann Shannon
We took 45,000 pennies with us. While in DC last week to appear on a panel with Senators Brownback (R-Kan) and Wyden (D-OR), Lisa had learned that experts had estimated that passage and implementation of the bill would cost industry producers less than 1 cent per product. With 45,000 lives being lost in DR Congo due the conflict minerals trade, we were offering to pay the 1cent per product/per life that the company would lose the first month. We were urging Intel and other tech companies to simply pass along that cost to their consumers, confident that no American consumer would hesitate to pay an extra penny to ensure that their laptop is not being powered by Congolese blood and suffering.
Oregon Public Broadcasting’s Krstian Foden-Vencil, and Willamette Week’s Jacob Reingold covered the event. (See:http://news.opb.org/article/7347-activists-protest-intels-use-conflict-minerals/ andhttp://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/05/17/picketers-hit-intel-over-mineral-imports/)
Intel issued a statement to Foden-Vencil in response to his inquiries, which he quoted in his blog. Below is my rebuttal to the Intel statement issued to Oregon Public Broadcasting.
My Response/Rebuttal to the Intel Statement issued to Oregon Public Broadcasting –
(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.”
