• As part of this engagement, �ۿ۴�ý will assign a Senior Compliance Consultant to provide Conflict Minerals Reporting consulting services. The consultant will analyze data, discuss best practices, escalate, advise, and recommend Form SD and CMR reporting. In addition, the consultant will answer any specific CMR-related questions the client may have.
• At the organizational level, �ۿ۴�ý will validate suppliers’ CMRTs and clarify questions about CMRT requirements. Analysts will clarify any questions suppliers have regarding the requirements for CMRTs. They will also ensure that suppliers comply with all compliance directives, rules, and regulations.
• A compliance program is implemented to help the client improve supplier responses, maximize coverage, and reduce the costs and time associated with implementing such a program. It also helps ensure that the supplier is compliant with all laws and regulations, as well as internal policies and procedures. This protects the company from potential legal and financial risks.
• It is the responsibility of the compliance specialist to train clients on how to use the compliance platform. He will generate reports for them to familiarize themselves with the platform. The compliance specialist will provide guidance on best practices and ensure that all clients understand the regulations. They will also help clients develop strategies to meet their compliance needs. Finally, they should monitor platform usage to ensure all requirements are met.

The post �ۿ۴�ý Secures a contract with a leading US manufacturer to support Conflict Minerals Compliance management appeared first on �ۿ۴�ý.

In order to help companies improve on their compliance and handle effective sourcing from high-risk areas, RMI has introduced this template for a .

The CMRT is being revised on a regular basis depending on the supplier requirements and Smelter/Refiner (SOR) analysis, the update was released on May 12, 2017 and now the latest version CMRT 5.10 is released on December 1, 2017.

List of changes in the updated version:

• Corrections to all bugs and errors
  • Update to ISO country, state and province lists
• Enhancements which do not conflict with IPC-1755,
• Updates to the Smelter Reference List and Standard Smelter List
• Change from .xls to .xlsx format

Along with this, there have been updates to the smelter list. The next version of the CMRT is expected to be released during April 2018, to make the compliance reporting processes easy and convenient.

The post The Latest Version of CMRT 5.10 – What’s New? appeared first on �ۿ۴�ý.

• A business charged with violating this policy can be subjected to civil penalties rising up to $2500 every day, for each specific violation.
• On failing to comply with these regulations, your company will be issued a non-compliance notice of two months (also known as the notice of Violation), which again might lead to a court settlement, if an outside settlement is not worked upon.
• The fees of settlement can cause your company to lose a staggering sum of ten thousand to a hundred thousand dollars.

• Businesses should conduct analysis and screening for the chemicals used in formulating the products.
• Proper strategies with regard to compliance should be incorporated.
• Companies should prepare positional statements with regard to the prop 65 guidelines.
• Exposure assessments should be conducted for evaluating whether the product is well complaint with the given regulations and whether it might require a warning.

The post CA Prop 65, Legislation! appeared first on �ۿ۴�ý.

The members of the EICC and GeSI laid the foundation for Conflict-free Sourcing Initiative (CFSI) to help companies improve on their compliance and handle effective sourcing from high-risk areas. The CFSI provides various activities which includes Conflict Minerals Reporting Template (), Conflict-Free Smelter Program (CFSP), Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry (RCOI), Guidance on Due Diligence and frequently spread informative documents, white papers, trainings, workshops, webinars and more.

The CFSI’s CMRT is being revised on a regular basis depending on the supplier requirements and Smelter/Refiner (SOR) analysis. The CFSI has released an update for CMRT 5.0 on May 12, 2017 which has come up with major changes.

The template is free to download and can be down loaded form CFSI website

What’s new in version 5.0?

The Checker tab in the CMRT 5.0 do not align with the recent changes made in the template which in turn flags ‘RED’ (incomplete) for few instances.

The next revision of CMRT is expected to be released in December 2017.

The post Major Changes In Latest Version – CMRT 5.0 appeared first on �ۿ۴�ý.

• If the issuer is involved in
  • Specifying or negotiating contractual terms with manufacturer
  • Affixing brand, logo, marks or label to a generic product
  • Services, maintenance or repair activity
• If the issuer is not directly or indirectly involved in manufacturing process

The post Conflict Minerals Compliance: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS appeared first on �ۿ۴�ý.

The United States Dodd Frank Act, Section 1502 requires manufacturing companies to identify and disclose to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the source of 3TG minerals- tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold used in their products when those minerals originate from or around the the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Obligation of Conflict Mineral manufacturers :

The SEC law transpired in to an industry compliance process as below.

1. Determine Applicability – Does the issuer fall under the regulation? Do products and parts contain 3TG minerals?
2. Perform RCOI – Identify if the country of origin of the 3TG minerals is in the DRC region.
3. Due Diligence – For 3TG minerals sourced from the DRC region, conduct due diligence over the chain of custody
4. Determine Status – Assess supplier, part and product level conflict mineral status
5. Report – Fulfill SEC and customer reporting requirements.

Challenge to the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court :

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers — had argued that the SEC conducted a flawed rulemaking and failed to weigh the costs of new regulations.

The challenge by these association is that, the conflict minerals rule and Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank represent, government compelled speech in breach of the First amendment. The Manufacturers asserted that the conflict minerals regime is unlawful and compels companies to make an ideologically driven, rather than fact based, statement about their own products namely, that the products have not been found to be conflict-free.

They argued that, this type of speech forces companies to denounce their own products based on information that is speculative, rather than fact based. The Manufacturers also objected to the requirement that companies post conflict minerals reports and information on their corporate websites, arguing that those websites are “Our space”.

During argument the Manufacturers clarified that they do not challenge the requirement to report factual information about conflict minerals in their products to the SEC. Their First Amendment challenge does not extend to the SEC’s ability to take that factual information and make its own judgments about whether a company’s products are conflict free. Rather the objection is to the requirement that companies apply that ideological label to their own products and post conflict minerals information on their own corporate websites.

Stay by US court :

On April 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of plea for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC“) rule requiring issuers to disclose whether they use “conflict minerals” in their products was unconstitutional because it would compel speech in violation of the First Amendment.The circuit court remanded the matter to the district court, from where this case was appealed, for further consideration

The circuit court found the label conflict free to be a “metaphor that conveys moral responsibility for the Congo war and that forcing a company to use that language interferes with First Amendment protections. The SEC argued that rational basis review is appropriate because the conflict free label discloses purely non- ideological information.

The circuit court disagreed, finding that rational basis review is the exception, not the rule in First Amendment cases. While the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that rational basis review applies to certain disclosures of purely factual and uncontroversial information, the circuit court relied on a previous ruling to hold that this is limited to cases in which disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State’s interest in preventing deception of consumers. No party in the case had suggested that the conflict minerals rule was related to preventing consumer deception, and in the district court the SEC admitted that it was not.

The circuit court found that the SEC failed to present any evidence that a less restrictive approach would not achieve the rule’s intended purpose. The circuit court considered alternatives to regulating speech for example issuers could use their own language to describe their products or the government could compile its own list of products that it believes are affiliated with the Congo war based on information issuers submit to the SEC.

Without any evidence that alternatives would be less effective, the circuit court dismissed the SEC’s claim that the restriction to speech as enforce by the disclosure requirement is to achieve the rule’s purpose. As a result, the circuit court found the SEC’s conflict minerals disclosure rule violates the First Amendment, to the extent the SEC rule and the underlying statute require issuers to report to the SEC and to state on their websites that certain of their products have not been found to be DRC conflict free.

SEC Partial Stay :

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a partial stay of its conflict minerals rule. The SEC’s order stayed the effectiveness of only those portions of Rule 13p-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Form SD that would require issuers to make statements in that the U.S. Court plea’s for the District of Columbia Circuit held would violate the First Amendment. Thus, only the requirement that issuers report in a conflict minerals report to be filed with the SEC and posted on the issuer’s publicly available website that any of their products have not been found to be DRC conflict free is stayed.

The stay will remain in place pending conclusion of the litigation involving the rule. In addition, the order denied the motion for stay filed with the SEC by the appellants in the case before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, who had petitioned the SEC to stay the effectiveness of the entire rule.

The SEC’s order is consistent with the recent statement published by the Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (CorpFin) in response to the court’s ruling (Statement) that indicated June 2, 2014 remains the deadline for issuers to file any required Form SDs and conflict minerals reports and indicated that the CorpFin staff expects that filed Form SDs and conflict minerals reports will comply with and address those portions of the conflict minerals rule that the court upheld.

The Statement also provided some guidance on the disclosure to be provided in Form SDs and conflict minerals reports in light of the court’s ruling. In fact, the SEC’s order notes that issuers seeking more detailed guidance regarding compliance with the rule should review the Statement and any additional guidance to be provided.

Although there may be additional developments regarding the rule, for the time being issuers working to finalize their Form SDs and conflict minerals reports must continue to prepare for the filing of their reports by the June 2, 2014 deadline in accordance with the guidance provided in the Statement.

CONCLUSION :

The rule says No company is required to describe its products as DRC conflict free, having not been found to be DRC conflict free, or DRC conflict undeterminable. If a company voluntarily elects to describe any of its products as DRC conflict free in its Conflict Minerals Report, it would be permitted to do so provided it had obtained an independent private sector audit (IPSA) as required by the rule. Pending further action, an IPSA will not be required unless a company voluntarily elects to describe a product as DRC conflict free in its Conflict Minerals Report.

How �ۿ۴�ý can help:

�ۿ۴�ý with a decade of experience in can offer complete solution for your Conflict Minerals compliance needs. �ۿ۴�ý Provides consulting, services and software for obligations. �ۿ۴�ý’s data collection reporting services enables companies to gather material composition information especially related to 3TG. With Proven method of data collection for other compliance laws like ROHS and REACH, �ۿ۴�ý provides material data collection, analysis and reporting services enabling companies to achieve compliance on time and

within budget. Speak to one of our consultant to know more about your obligation and how you can fulfil in a shorter time frame.

The post How the US Court stay going to affect your Conflict Mineral efforts. appeared first on �ۿ۴�ý.

Compliance is mandatory for all SEC “issuers”, including foreign issuers, that manufacture or contract to manufacture products where “conflict minerals are necessary to the functionality or production” of the product. The rule was enacted as part of an effort to curtail human rights abuses in Africa by regulation of US public companies and also to provide transparency into corporate practices.

The SEC rule does not specifically ban use of materials from such mines, but it requires companies to track and report the origin of the minerals through their supply chain.

The aim is to dissuade companies from using minerals sourced at mines where human rights abuses take place and not engaging in trade that facilitates regional conflict.

The SEC disclosure process involves the following steps

Minerals that are not conflict free must be listed in the Conflict Minerals Report, which must be audited by an independent auditor. Additional documentation is also required for any materials that come from the affected countries to show that it meets the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) due-diligence procedures documenting and the materials are conflict free. The first Forms under the rule will be required for the calendar year ending December 31, 2013 and will need to be filed by 31 May 2014.

For most companies Rule will not be easy and will be time consuming with the SEC estimating that initial compliance costs could be between $3 billion to $4 billion,as the complete supply chain needs to be analyzed for source of minerals, particularly those contained in procured parts, assemblies or items purchased from vendors. The fact that the supply base is not geared to address these requirements and the information provided by them is not always accurate only adds to the challenge. Hence, it requires multidisciplinary teams working across product lines and tracing multiple supply chains for these materials and their origin.

On one hand, committing to using only conflict-free materials can mean paying higher costs for those materials but on the other hand a company’s reputation and goodwill is at risk if its products include conflict minerals. Despite the challenges and oppositions raised against various sections of the rule in court, experts believe that ultimately compliance will be mandatory and in fact will be extended to include more industries currently exempt from the rule. Therefore, a company that is committed to a conflict-free business plan can leverage its status towards strategic competitive advantage and be seen as a good corporate citizen.

�ۿ۴�ý is an industry leader in the compliance space and is one of the first companies to offer that will help you comply with this regulation.

The post Conflict Minerals Compliance – The Deadline Is Approaching appeared first on �ۿ۴�ý.

Conflict Minerals are mined in conditions of ‘armed conflicts and human rights abuses’. Minerals including casseterite, wolframite, coltan, and gold are widely extracted from Congo, especially from its eastern parts. These minerals are purchased by various multinational electronic companies across the world, and are widely used to manufacture of a variety of electronic devices including mobile phones, laptops, MP3 players, and various other consumer electronic items.

aims to put an end to the constant exploitation and atrocities going on in Congo, by closely monitoring the issuers & the companies that use Conflict Minerals. According to this act, both domestic and foreign providers of Conflict Minerals, as well as the companies that use them, are forcefully obliged to comply with Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Conflicts Minerals Provision), and therefore should disclose the details of the Conflict Minerals that they use, in their annual reports. This public disclosure will highlight the exploitation and trade of minerals from Democratic Republic of Congo and its adjoining countries.

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed by the US Senate on May 20, 2010, and was signed by American President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010.

According to experts, this Act will completely purge the funding of armed groups in Democratic Republic of Congo. Armed groups in and around Congo make millions of dollars every year by selling Conflict Minerals and their derivatives, to various companies across the world.

According to the Conflict Minerals Regulation Act, companies are legally bound to publically disclose whether their products contain conflict minerals or not, while submitting their annual reports. Companies that use Conflict Minerals should file a separate report along with their annual report, stating the steps taken to properly exercise the due diligence on the source and the chain of custody of the conflict minerals, the details of the products which are not “DRC Conflict Free”, the processing facilities, the country of origin of the Conflict Minerals, and the efforts to determine the origin. Such reports would help in getting better transparency and accountability from those companies & issuers who handle Conflict Mineral ores or their derivatives.

�ۿ۴�ý Technologies, global leaders in environmental compliance services, provide Conflict Minerals traceability auditing & consulting services to help companies and businesses understand and comply with the Conflict Minerals Regulation requirements that may impact the manufacture of their products. We have a team of environmental compliance experts who can address your questions regarding Conflict Minerals Disclosure, and provide you with the needed guidance with the compliance requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission.

Need any guidance on environmental compliance & Disclosure? Drop us a line and we will get back to you as soon as possible!

The post Must-Know Facts You Probably Don’t Know About Conflict Minerals appeared first on �ۿ۴�ý.