|
Etikk i
praksis. Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics (2024), Early View, 1-18
|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.5324/eip.v18i1.5128 |
|
Early View publication date: 30 May 2024 |
Cobalt mining and responsibility: An analysis of the meaning of ethical products
Teppo Eskelinena,
Jawaria Khanb, Anna Härric
aUniversity of Eastern Finland,
Department of Social Sciences,
teppo.eskelinen@uef.fi bUniversity of Jyväskylä, Finnish
institute for educational research,
jawaria.j.khan@jyu.fi The article discusses the meaning of “ethical” in the context of ethical goods. Terms like “ethical” or “responsible” have assumed new meanings when used to indicate the quality of a product or material. In the article, we analyse the transformed notion of “ethical”, its limits and extensions, using the case of cobalt mining and electronics as an illustrative example. As a non-substitutable material needed by the booming electronics industry and mined in horrendous conditions, the use of cobalt brings forth difficult questions about responsibility. We approach this question from the perspective of the meaning of “ethical” cobalt, and thereby ethical laptops. We use data collected in the context of a CSO project focused on “ethical laptops” and a literature review, and place this in the context of applied ethics. In conclusion, we show how the notion of “ethical products” is complicated by the various possible meanings of responsibility and difficult choices between disengagement from unethical practices and deeper engagement for changing these practices. Keywords: Introduction
Today many consumers express
preference for, even commitment to, ethical
products. Indeed, such products are widely
available even in ordinary supermarkets. But
it is difficult to say what kind of criteria
should be applied in assessing whether a
product can be legitimately called “ethical”.
Curiously, attempts to analyse this are rare,
relative to the large literature on ethical
motivations of consumers. This paper contributes to the
analysis of the meaning of “ethical” in the
context of goods. As an illustrative case, we
use cobalt mining in the Democratic republic
of Congo (DRC), a case involving severe human
rights violations. While there are numerous
existing studies on corporate social
responsibility in the context of mining
(e.g. Yakovleva 2016; Vintró and Comajuncosa
2010; Rajak 2006), we here take a more
philosophical approach and ask: what
does “ethical” as a quality of a good or a
product mean? The case, then, is used to
illustrate this broader question, rather than
being the sole object of research. We begin by noting the problems
characterising cobalt production in the DRC.
Subsequently, we discuss the various meanings
of ethical products. Beginning from minimum
criteria, we analyse particularly the levels
of responsibility of companies, the connection
between ethical products and social change,
and the extension of the responsibilities of
companies. This discussion then forms a
framework for analysing various aspects of
what can it mean for a product to be ethical. Context: cobalt mining Cobalt mining in Congo is deeply
connected to contemporary lifestyles. While it
is questionable if we really need
cobalt – often natural resources are rather
wanted than really needed (Stabell 2021) –
cobalt can be claimed to be necessary for life
in contemporary society, to the extent that
life in contemporary society requires laptops
and smartphones. Itself a by-product of other
metals (Olivetti et al., 2017; van den Brink
et al., 2020), cobalt provides stability and
high energy density to lithium-ion batteries
so that they can be safely recharged again and
again. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
produces 65% of the world’s cobalt (Frankel,
2016; Nazarewicz, 2016). Given the exponential
increase in the global demand for lithium-ion
batteries (Deetman, et al., 2018; Tisserant
and Pauliuk, 2016), it is impossible that the
existing demand could be satisfied without
such a major producer. Yet especially in the continent
of Africa, the track record of big business
involves political corruption, environmental
destruction, exploitation of labour, and
social disruption (e.g. Middleton, McIntosh
& Visser 2006), continuing a long history
of colonial relations. Moreover, cobalt mining
is associated with poverty despite the
enormous value of the produce. There
is also ample evidence of human rights
violations in the DRC, such as child labour,
low or non-existing wages, and gender-based
violence. Cobalt production is also associated
with concerns related to conduct in a
situation of conflict: while the cobalt mining
zone in southern DRC is relatively peaceful
compared to the war-torn eastern zone1,
it lacks effective rule of law and is affected
by the country’s general instability. The most severe exploitation
connected to cobalt mining in the DRC is
largely associated with informal Artisanal
Scale Mining (ASM). The estimated number of
people involved in ASM ranges between 50,000
to 250,000 (World Bank, 2015). Almost 20% of
the cobalt exported globally comes from
artisanal mines (Amnesty
International, 2017a). Labour in ASM is cheap
compared to industrial scale mining. Miners
dig using their hands and regulations related
to working hours, wages and safety are
routinely overlooked. ASM is associated with
work-related diseases and lack of basic
protective gear (Amnesty International, 2016;
Cheyns et al., 2014; KU Leuven, 2018; Meger,
2010; SOMO, 2016; Walther, 2012, World Bank,
2015). The World Bank (2015) has
reported that children constitute 40% of the
workforce in artisanal mining. According to a
UNICEF report from 2012, almost 40,000
children were involved in mining of cobalt and
copper in the southern Katanga province
(Walther 2012). The number of fatal accidents
in those mines is very high (Amnesty
International, 2016). Working in underground
tunnels without protective equipment such as
gloves, work gear or facemasks also causes
health issues such as respiratory problems
(Amnesty International 2016; Hahn, Hayes &
Kacapor 2013). Wages are not only very low,
typically between 2 or 3 dollars per day, but
also precarious as they are conditioned on the
daily supply of metal or the miners (Frankel
2016). Sometimes wages are withheld, and
disproportionate wage deduction is common. The
miners often fall into debt
bondage, at worst resembling slavery,
as they are unable to cover their expenses and
resort to buying necessities on credit (The
World Bank, 2015). Importantly, the social impact of
mining is not restricted to these immediate
working conditions. Rather, mining affects
broader communities directly and indirectly.
Mining damages the surrounding environment and
causes health
problems to people living nearby the
mining areas. Research conducted in the heart
of a mining area in the DRC showed traces of
cobalt in the blood and urine samples of the
residents, DNA damage and birth defects (KU
Leuven, 2018). Furthermore, indirect problems
are related to cultures emerging or sustained
in the mining community. Women living in
mining towns and exposed to the masculine
cultures around ASM are specifically
vulnerable to gender-based
violence (Kelly, King-Close &
Perks 2014, Meger 2010), and transactional sex
when seeking employment in ASM (World Bank
2015). The
eastern zone of the country has often been
referred to as the “rape capital of the world”
(Kelly, King-Close & Perks, 2014; Lindsey
and Toft, 2014; Meger, 2010; Prendergast,
2009). Moreover, a World Bank study (2015)
reported that vulnerable populations and
economically desperate individuals dependent
on informal economies tend to populate the
areas nearby the mines. Furthermore, mining
towns are plagued with socioeconomic
challenges related to alcohol and drug abuse
(ibid., 15). Research
problem, data and approach Noting all of the above, ethical
deliberation in this context is not about
whether the conditions in the DRC are good or
bad: they are no doubt deeply problematic.
Rather, important questions concern what
should be done to overcome the existing
situation. Typically, such discussions are
related to the “division of moral labour”
(Eskelinen & Mäkinen 2014) between
governments and firms. In this discussion,
some argue that firms have no ethical
responsibilities outside profit seeking and
observing “the rules of the game” (e.g. Heath 2020, Friedman 1962),
while others hold that corporations are
responsible actors with a large manoeuvring
space. Without making any specific argument
about the matter, we assume that firms have
at least some ethical manoeuvring
space and note that the very concept of
ethical products would be meaningless if this were not the case. While the work on this paper is
normative by nature, it benefits from existing
data. Our research was aligned with a project
called “The Ethical Laptop”, carried out by
the Finnish CSO Pro Ethical Trade2
(PET). The project, active from 2018 to
2020, aimed at analysing existing challenges
of responsibility around cobalt mining and
disseminating information about them in a
creative way: constructing a model ethical
laptop and reflecting on the obstacles in the
way of this enterprise. The project focused
particularly on cobalt, as it is both a
non-substitutable and by far the most
ethically problematic raw material used in
laptops3.
The project generated data in the form of
interview and video material collected in
Lubumbashi and Kolwezi in the DRC, with local
CSOs, government representatives, several
artisanal miners (n=10-20), along with members
of communities around industrial mines and
depots where artisanal miners sell their
cobalt. For the research, this data was
complemented with a literature review
comprised of relevant reports and research,
including market reports, scientific papers,
newspaper articles, company annual reports and
CSO reports. The empirical data is used in our
analysis in a facilitating manner. In other
words, our purpose is not to analyse it
systematically as would be done in an
empirical case study, but to use it as
background information to deepen our awareness
of the issues at hand. While our use of data
is unsystematic in this sense, it helps us
formulate questions related to applied ethics.
Methodologically, this comes close to what
Ackerly et al. (2021) refer to as “normative
political theory” or “grounded normative
theory”. This means using empirical data to
“diversify, broaden, and deepen the range of
insights, claims, interests, and actors they
bring to bear on arguments in normative
political theory” (Ackerly et al 2021). This
form of theorising is kept distinct from
sociological theorising with focus on
inductive development of empirical theories
(ibid.). On this basis, we approach the
following research problem: what does
“ethical” mean in the context of ethical
products? This does not involve discussing
ethical consumerism as such4,
but rather the possible extensions of
corporate responsibility and the specific
meaning “ethics” has in the context of
“ethical products”, whether we talk about
coffee, clothes or electronics. The
significance of the question arises partly
from the dearth of such definitions and partly
from the very unorthodox use of the word
“ethical” in this context. In standard use,
“ethical” refers to the legitimacy or
justification of an act, as can be noted from
the routine framing of ethics in textbooks, as
a matter of “what you should do” (Suikkanen
2014, xvi) or “what to do” (Tännsjö 2008, 4).
Yet in the discourse on fair trade and ethical
consumption (e.g. Brown 2013), it refers to a
quality of a product or raw material.
Naturally, a product as physical matter cannot
be “ethical” as such, but it “can
be augmented by ethical considerations or
attributes that are positively perceived”
(Bezencon & Blili 2010). The
question then is, what brings about these
attributes? Minimum
criteria and definitional difficulties Interestingly, while the concept
of ethical trade is routinely used in studies
on consumer motivation (e.g. Pinna
2020,
White, MacDonnell & Ellard 2012, Osburg
et al 2017, Chatterjee, Sreen & Rana
2022, Kossmann & Gómez-Suárez 2018), actual
definitions of ethical goods are hard to come
across. Some studies even dismiss the need for
definitions. To cite a few: “no strict
definition of ethical trading exists. Every
respondent had a view of what they thought
ethical trading was […] its definition was
determined by the different perspectives of
the respondents” (Browne et al 2000); “…there
is no consensus on the definition of ethical
trade…” (MacEwan
& Bek 2009). Ethical trade is often
defined very vaguely as retailers and brands
“taking responsibility over the working
conditions” (Lund-Thomsen & Lindgreen
2018), or as “sound sourcing” (MacEwan &
Bek 2009). Sometimes the
concept of an “ethical product” is used
simply as shorthand for fair trade labelling
(White, MacDonnell & Ellard 2012), and
sometimes it is connected to environmental
responsibility (Chatterjee, Sreen & Rana
2022, Pinna 2020). The notion can also be
defined ambiguously by maintaining that
ethical products “exhibit
one or several social or environmental
principles” (Bezencon & Blili 2010),
without further elaboration of such
principles. Most often, the ambiguous notion
of ethical trade/ethical products is
interpreted as following minimum standards: if
a corporation complies with some
regulatory framework or certification system
and abstains from evident abuse, it can claim
to be producing ethical products. In the most
common approach to corporate responsibility,
ethical labelling, the minimum standard
approach is given some more substance. For
example, fair trade labelling of coffee
requires that the producer community receives
a guaranteed minimum price for its produce
(e.g. Weber 2011). However, the minimum
criteria approach has been criticised for
making too many compromises, and
responsibility initiatives are regarded by
many as nothing but “box-ticking exercises”
(Ruwanpura 2013). The implicit promise of the
minimum criteria approach is that a constant
and objective baseline for responsible
corporate conduct can be defined. Yet in
practice it is impossible to define ethical
principles that would not leave room for
interpretation. Even human rights involve
definitional issues5.
There is also the practical problem that
companies might have the incentive to only
meet these bare minimum standards with no
further ambitions, given that this suffices
for being recognised as ethical. Such
definitional issues severely limit the
transformative potential of ethical products.
In the context of cobalt, not even these
minimum criteria have been sufficiently
formalised within a certification system: the
few existing responsibility initiatives lack
rigidity and binding criteria6. The minimum criteria approach
then turns “ethics” into a quality that a
product clearly has or does not have. The
remaining problem is then to decide the
appropriate level of rigidity for these
standards. In an imperfect world, however, we
must resort to non-ideal ethics7.
Ethical standards form a continuum, and even
Fair Trade emphasises improving the
practices of producers they have certified: in
other words, they encourage the movement
towards better standards rather than a clear
demarcation between ethical and unethical. Responsibility, then, is a more
nuanced issue than the minimum criteria
approach suggests. This is well known by
actors in fair trade (Brown 2013). There have
been ongoing debates about whether the scale
of production and ownership structure should
figure as criteria in certification systems
(e.g. Naylor 2014). For example, in the
production of bananas, wine and flowers,
minimum criteria related to wages can be met,
as well in large plantations and small
producer co-operatives, yet the inclusion of
the former in the fair trade system has
generated criticisms over compromising with
corporations (Fridell 2009). If a certification system for
cobalt would be launched, it would face
similar questions related to the extension of
criteria to the scale of production, and
possibly to the pressure from corporations to
compromise the criteria. Yet interestingly,
the relation between scale and ethics is
inverse in this case. As noted above, most
severe problems are associated with artisanal
scale mining, while the nature of industrial
mining is more transparent and under better
scrutiny. Industrial mining is most certainly
not devoid of problems, but one can ask if
these different realities should be reflected
in a potential future labelling system. In sum, while minimum criteria
aim to set clear and unambiguous standards,
they unavoidably involve definitional issues,
and possibly limit the transformative
potential of ethical products. While some
minimum criteria for ethical conduct are
certainly needed, fixed criteria make a
possibly too sharp demarcation between ethical
and unethical, and thus risk diluting the very
notion of ethics. Awareness/ignorance In practice, ethical issues in
products are related to the supply chains of
large corporations (on supply chains, e.g. Kampourakis
2021, Manners-Bell 2017). Many
brands communicate good intentions, but in
reality they may be unwilling to act
accordingly. In the case of cobalt, supply
chains are fragmented: one company mines,
another refines, the third makes the battery
cells, the fourth assembles the battery into
electronic products like laptops and the fifth
sells the final product (Patterson & Gold
2018, Clarke and Boersma 2017)8.
It is challenging for the final seller to
ensure that the whole supply chain follows
expected standards. Difficulties exist in
tracking the origins of cobalt: artisanal and
industrial cobalt get mixed together (Amnesty
2016), and so does cobalt from the DRC and
other source countries. It is difficult to
prevent any ASM cobalt from the DRC entering a
company’s supply chain. Supply chain
management is indeed a growing concern (Quarshie,
Salmi & Leuschner 2016), especially in the
context of the Global South (e.g. Nath, Eweje
& Bathurst 2019). Yet the existence of such
challenges is too easily used as an excuse for
inaction. Currently, only niche market actors
see responsibility as a competitive advantage
and address the need to ensure responsibility
throughout the supply chain seriously9.
Such cases demonstrate existing possibilities,
but hardly function as norm-setters. Big
brands might claim ignorance about the
possible problems within the supply chain and
portray themselves as mere purchasers of
material (Manners-Bell 2017, 1). Importantly, lack of awareness
about the supply chain is not a legitimate
excuse. While it can be fair to assume that
some companies using cobalt were at some point
genuinely unaware of the human rights
situation in the DRC, this can no longer be
claimed. The above-mentioned report published
by Amnesty International in 2016 caused a
firestorm among big brands and tech giants who
were using cobalt mined from artisanal mines
in the DRC. Awareness about the problems in
cobalt mining has also generally increased,
including mainstream media coverage (e.g. Kara
2018). This renders unawareness a less
credible reason, while valid questions of
course remain. To what extent, for example, is
a brand company with cobalt in its supply
chain responsible for making changes to a
corrupt deal that was made by a mining company
years ago? Furthermore, companies might
downplay their manoeuvring space. This can
mean presenting themselves as mere purchasers
without power to affect local conditions. Or
they might choose to focus strictly on their
immediate responsibilities related to
contractual fairness in the agreements with
the suppliers. Such issues can be addressed by
negotiating with industrial mining companies,
as wages and other conditions should be
improved significantly within this sector as
well. Yet as noted, corporate conduct carries
broader implications for a large domain of the
affected, including the unofficial ASM sector.
These implications range from direct matters
such as subsistence and health and safety
issues – whether miners get adequate
compensation for their work, health hazards
caused by mining, and the like – to indirect
impacts on mining communities. Ignorance about wrongdoings
within the chain can also be deliberate.
Confirming this, a CSO representative said in
an interview for the project: “I believe there
are enough competent people here who can say
what comes from where”. A later reassessment
by Amnesty International (2017b) showed the
same major players in the electronic industry
still lagging behind in ensuring
accountability in their cobalt supply chain.
In this reassessment, companies ranged from
those classified as having taken action
(Apple, Samsung) to those having taken no
action (Microsoft, Lenovo, Vodafone, Huawei,
etc.). Likely, awareness about the grave
problems related to cobalt mining makes the
need to establish what should be expected from
these companies ever more pressing. Spheres of responsibility The complexity of the supply
chains makes it challenging to assess the most
appropriate normative
conceptualisation in the case. The normative
question can be formulated basing on the
responsibility not to harm: there is a strong
negative responsibility not to harm others,
but do outsourcing firms harm the exploited
miners? Many theorists argue that while we are
bound by a strong responsibility to assist
those in need, merely being wealthy in a world
of mutual dependency does not imply harming
those who are the poor (Rierik 2013,
Reitberger 2008). In the case of the
companies, this would mean that binding duties
could be restricted to complying with minimum
criteria, with further “responsibility
initiatives” being commendable. Others state
that any action in the context of the existing
institutional arrangements constitutes harm to
the impoverished, if this action functions to
uphold the given arrangements and if feasible
alternative arrangements exist (particularly
Pogge 2005, 2002). Sourcing cobalt surely
upholds existing arrangements and there are
feasible alternative orders, in which cobalt
mining happens without the current human
rights violations, but it is questionable if
all kinds of corporate conduct in this context
should indiscriminately be seen as harming. A way forward can be found in
Christian Barry and Gerhard Øverland’s (2016)
more nuanced distinction, which includes the
category of enabling harm. Instead of
directly harming the miners, the companies
could indeed be seen as enablers of harm. This
is also distinct from failure to assist:
indeed, given the highly unequal global
economic structures, the absence of active and
deliberate acts of harming does not guarantee
moral conduct (Pogge 2002, Eskelinen 2011).
This means that they are deeply involved in
the problematic practices, provide financial
incentives, and therefore have concrete
responsibilities, even in the absence of
immediate causally relevant harm. Looking away
rather than investigating the source of
purchased raw materials can count as enabling
harm. This could also function as the basis
for a criterion for ethical products. Yet this does not suffice to
answer questions regarding what the companies
should do. Based on our analysis, we suggest
making a distinction between three levels of
responsibility related to the supply chains:
abidance to norms and minimum criteria, active
risk identification, and modification of the
supply chain. They are cases with different
levels of ethical rigidity, yet we argue that
all should be seen as cases of enabling harm.
The most obvious level is abidance
to norms and minimum criteria. In
addition to the definitional problems noted
above, there are institutional problems
related to norms. In countries like the DRC,
rule of law is weak, and the risk of
corruption is high10.
Furthermore, existing formal international
regulation of the conduct of multinational
companies is largely limited to voluntary
frameworks. The United Nations’ “Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights”
define human rights due diligence as a process
that all companies with global supply chains
should carry out and commit to (United Nations
2011)11.
But in the absence of binding and sanctioned
regulations, responsible conduct is largely a
matter of choice for individual companies. At
worst, “ethical conduct” or “corporate
citizenship” (Crane & Matten 2010), are
diluted to meaning nothing more than
compliance with the law on minimum wages,
taxation and worker protection, and abstaining
from corruption. Even this could be difficult
to verify. Furthermore, while governments are
usually seen as the agents setting “the rules
of the game”, in the context of poor and
unstable states of the Global South, their
power can be limited by global trading rules,
corruption, and the fear of losing investments
(Kelly & Marfeet 2004), reducing the
effect of legislative tools. Active identification of risks
associated within the supply chain is already
a more substantial requirement (Manners-Bell
2017, 241-244). In the case of cobalt, it can
be difficult to implement effective due
diligence because of long supply chains,
limited transparency and an unclear situation
on the ground. One possible solution is the
cooperation with other companies through for
example industry associations or certification
bodies, although current certification systems
clearly need to be developed. Research
literature shows that blockchain based
traceability systems could also be a
possibility (du Venage 2018; Hastig &
Sodhi 2020). This development would give the
companies better access to information by
tracking activity of production at every step,
including the cobalt’s origin, size, weight
and ownership at every stage, and thus signal
potential “red flags”. Such a system would
indicate if the metal has been procured from
unethical mines involved in human right abuses
or legislative manufacturing abuses (Hastig
& Sodhi 2020). As a third category of
responsibility, we suggest the concrete demand
that the companies could actively shorten
their supply chains. Typically, the
supply chains are seen as fixed, and questions
about ethics and responsibility are asked from
this angle. This does not, however, need to be
the case. If there are responsibilities
related to overseeing the supply chain, there
can also be responsibilities to amend the
supply chain. Indeed, much of the difficulty
in knowing the origins of cobalt is due to the
absence of any direct relationship with the
miners. Companies could source directly from
miners or cooperatives to improve the
situation. Purposes of ethical products Furthermore, questions concerning
ethics of cobalt are more complex than the
individual companies’ responsibilities over
their supply chains. The aim of constructing
an ethical laptop eventually leads to
reflections on the purpose of ethical
products. To answer the question about what
ethical products are, one needs to ask why
they exist. There can be various reasons for
introducing such products, and these ideas
should also be articulated. Therefore, we will
next sketch a classification of possible
purposes of “ethical products”. First, in classical market terms,
ethical products can be seen as merely serving
given preferences: consumers value
different things, and as some value ethical
production quite like some value a certain
colour, taste or brand, and goods
corresponding with these preferences should be
supplied. Second, the purpose of ethical
products can be seen as an attempt to create
a “model microcosm” for
non-exploitative production and trade: this
economic domain can then hopefully serve as a
model for others to follow. Third, ethical
products can be seen as leverage for
social change, so that the existence of
ethical production would, hopefully, change
practices around it. For the purpose of producing a
single “ethical laptop”, a model product, the
required cobalt could surely be sourced
ethically, even given the existing
circumstances. For instance, using only
recycled cobalt could clear the immediate
supply chain from unethical practices. In this
way, ethical products could cater for an
ethical niche market, which to a limited
extent is already the case today. Nonetheless,
this would leave most concrete problems
related to cobalt mining unaddressed, and even
relieve the pressure for responsible
production, as the niche market would cater
for the wants of ethical consumers. In a very
conceivable scenario, global cobalt sourcing
could assume a kind of twisted “division of
labour”, in which ethical brands source all
available non-suspect cobalt while others use
cobalt from ethically problematic sources.
Nothing in the production conditions would
necessarily change – at least until there is
large enough demand for the ethical products
to create a shortage of responsibly sourced
cobalt. For these kinds of reasons, attention
has been paid to the
limits
of ethical trade (McEwan & Bek 2009,
Robinson 2009). One possible way forward would be
to assess the possibilities of mass production
of ethical laptops. One candidate for a
criterion of what is “ethical” could be
generalisability. That is, that a sufficient
amount of such products could be
produced, in order to ensure social change
instead of the outcome being a mere
reallocation of available raw materials. As noted, the most ambitious
interpretation of ethics in this context is
then to see ethical production as a pathway or
leverage towards social progress, as opposed
to a quality of a product or material. It is
one thing to attempt to select given sources
of cobalt, and another thing to try to influence
other actors (governments, mining
companies, traders of ASM ore) within the
supply chain. To give one practical example,
the companies could work
actively to provide the miners avenues for
fair selling. Not only is the miners’
income very low12,
their selling price for a common type of
cobalt is also less than half and can be as
low as 6% of the price that traders receive.
Some miners interviewed for the project
reported being cheated by traders deliberately
assessing the quality of the ore incorrectly.
Thus, strictly understood, “ethical” qualities
of goods can be defined by the commitment of
involved corporations to use their existing
powers for social progress, rather than merely
creating a contained supply chain devoid of
suspect practices (which, of course, is
commendable as such). Disengagement and engagement One insight emerging from the
“Ethical Laptop” project was that there is a
need to focus on the situation of artisanal
miners and mining communities in the DRC,
rather than following the production chain of
a single product. This is in line with the
strict notion of ethical products mentioned
above, which includes the goal of facilitating
social change. In the case of artisanal
mining, the difference between supply chain
control and social progress is particularly
visible. Disengaging from artisanal mining
altogether can seem like a convenient solution
to uncomfortable reputation risks for the
companies/brands that use cobalt in their
products. Avoiding ore originating in
artisanal mines could indeed be possible, if
difficult, by asking for calculations from
industrial mines to make sure that no ASM
cobalt is mixed in the ore. But while ore originating in
artisanal mines could be avoided, negative
outcomes of such disengagement could well
outweigh the positive ones. Disengaging from
artisanal mining could lead to these miners
losing desperately needed income, pushing the
whole community into deeper poverty.
Vulnerability could also increase, as the
miners would possibly have to “work
underground” and smuggle the ore across
borders. The expansion of industrial mining
pushes aside ASM, causing displacement of
artisanal miners from their excavation sites.
Several miners interviewed for the “Ethical
Laptop” project reported that their former
digging locations had been taken over by
industrial mines and that they had to move to
illegal sites with poorer ore quality. The
problematic scenario is easy to recognise:
formal employment with tolerable conditions
serving ethically stamped brands, while the
informal layer is pushed ever deeper into
marginalisation and poverty. In addition, two communities
around industrial mines as well as CSOs raised
the concern that land and water in many places
has been polluted due to industrial mining,
potentially depriving the community of clean
drinking water. Research also shows that
pushing out the artisanal miners can result in
contestation, conflict and even death of
miners, caused by state security forces
(Katz-Lavigne 2019). The arbitrary
displacement of communities and artisanal
miners without consultation is exacerbated by
corruption. Moreover, expanded industrial
mining is not an automatic substitute for lost
employment. Two CSO representatives
interviewed for the “Ethical Laptop” project
argued that Congolese workers are not even
wanted in the workforce in industrial mines as
they are perceived to “lack the
qualifications”. Instead mining companies
prefer to bring employees from abroad
(particularly China). “Ethical sourcing” could
then, in extreme cases, turn out to be an
excuse for discrimination. The main issue
remains: do companies approach the social
conditions in the DRC as a risk to their
reputation or as genuine concerns? In the
“Ethical Laptop” project, the former was
expressed through the fear of miners that
their interviews would scare away companies
and thereby affect their employment situation. Practically, if ethical
consumption is meant to generate positive
social change, cobalt sourcing must address
the general situation in the DRC. Thereby, a
complex set of problems needs to be
considered. For example, the root causes for
child labour are diverse, from the lack of
access to education to poverty of the parents
(Faber, Krause & Sanchez 2017). Continued
engagement with affected mining societies and
the planning of a policy to address child
labour are needed (ibid.). It is crucial to
try to improve the livelihoods of the miners.
In other words, disengagement does not suffice
if the label “ethical” should indicate that
the production line changes things for the
better. It is in the power of companies
to ensure decent wages, or at least make a
significant contribution towards this end.
This could for example include providing tools
for miners to test the quality of the ore, or
as noted, trading directly with miners and
ensuring a decent price. Action could also be
taken to use leverage over the industrial
mines to come to agreements with surrounding
or forcedly evicted communities, by providing
them employment, compensation or safe places
to dig, etc. Formalising mining and giving
miners access to safe artisanal mining zones
could decrease the risk of accidents, while
accidents are very commonplace as work is done
in the shade of the night. If companies sourcing cobalt
would see themselves having broader social
responsibilities, they would engage in serious
discussions with communities around the mines
and local organisations that might know the
background of the mine, and also build
capacity for these discussions (Kapelus 2002,
Carter 1997). While many matters may
lie beyond the powers of corporations, much
can be achieved through active engagement, at
least in the short term. In practice, recognising
responsibilities over direct and indirect
impacts on communities of cobalt sourcing
means relying on the idea of assessing company
conduct based on their commitment and
engagement, and the transparency of their
communication of achieved progress, as opposed
to merely evaluating them based on some
minimum criteria. The case for highlighting
commitment is supported by research showing
that even companies seen as ethical model
cases can cause harmful outcomes when
stakeholders broadly understood are not
consulted (Ballet & . This ethical approach also
involves risks, especially as the lack of
explicit criteria could lead to attempts of
diluting ethics into a kind of marketing
communication without substance. On the other
hand, it could function as a strategy for a
world of committed companies. Fundamentally,
however, the idea of ethical products should
align with commitments to social improvement
if ideas like the ethical laptop are to be
truly meaningful in the consequentialist
sense. Conclusions and
discussion
Above, we have sought to unfold a
meaningful understanding of “ethical” as
a quality of a good, a product or materials.
The “Ethical Laptop” project, along with which
this analysis was conducted, poses the
questions of which criteria should be
established for the label “ethical goods” and
related complexities. What needs to happen
before cobalt as a material, and thus the
laptop as a product, can be considered
ethical? Interestingly, the matter of the
meaning of terms like “ethical products” is
typically surpassed in studies of ethical and
responsible trade, or, at least, the use of
the word “ethical” is vague and unsystematic.
Therefore, the notion of “ethical” in this
context should be explicated and analysed. Constructing “an ethical laptop”
was thereby used as an entry point, shedding
light on related problems and dilemmas. As
noted, the case is of high importance due to
the lack of responsibility initiatives,
massive problems in the DRC, and the
indispensability of cobalt for contemporary
lifestyles. We began by noting the existing
problems, the currently largely voluntary
nature of corporate responsibility, along with
the difficulties (and excuses) related to
controlling the dispersed supply chains in the
electronics industry. Subsequently, we
discussed levels of responsibility over the
company’s supply chain, and the extent to
which one should demand that products labelled
as “ethical” contribute to social change. The complexities related to
ethical products arise from the fact that
there must be some positive qualities or
attributes related to the product, but it is
difficult to determine what these attributes
should be. It is convenient to lay out minimum
criteria for ethical corporate conduct and/or
clean the company’s immediate supply chain
from clearly harmful practices. By disengaging
from suspect practices, one could possibly
create ethical model products for niche
markets. Yet this shows the limitations of the
idea of “ethical products”. There are good
reasons to believe that “ethical” understood
in this sense does not necessarily imply any
ambitious attempts of improving the problems
at hand, and such disengagement can even turn
out to be harmful. Noteworthily, much has been
written on stakeholder theory (e.g. Friedman
& Miles 2006), also in the context of
mining (Muttia et al. 2012), but much less has
been written on the implications on informal
workforce, which constitutes the core of the
problem in the case of cobalt. Philosophically speaking, key
issues are related to the normative assessment
of company actions and the scope of
responsibility. We have argued that the
company’s actions should be considered in
terms of enabling harm – engaging in and
incentivising harmful practices – and the
criterion of ethical products should extend
beyond a niche market of ethical sourcing. For
companies to comply with their responsibility
not to enable harm to the members of the
mining communities, they should actively
engage in modifying their supply chains, as
well as more generally making a positive
contribution to the local community. Seen from
this perspective, “ethical products” are goods
produced by companies committed to proactive
conduct for social change. This means
affecting the supply chains and improving the
living conditions of the communities.
Notes
1 Specific
legislation is applied to materials
originating in areas where a violent conflict
is ongoing. For example, the Dodd
Frank Act “requires companies listed on the US
stock exchange to provide specific assurances
that any products that they have manufactured
or contracted to manufacture do not contain
minerals ‘that directly or indirectly finance
or benefit armed groups” in the DRC or its
neighbours’ (Cuvelier et al 2014, 1). See Sutherland
(2011) and Eichstaedt (2011) on conflict
minerals and the DRC. 3 See
Helbig et al. (2019) concerning the supply
risks related to other battery materials. 4 The
potential of ethical consumerism is a debated
issue. On the one hand, some ethical theorists
display optimism about the potential of
enlightened consumerism (e.g. Barry &
MacDonald 2018), On the other, reliance on
ethical consumerism has been criticised for
reproducing a neoliberal rationality and
particularly its very individualist
orientation, turning structural social
problems into problems of individual
valuations and motivations (Carrington, Zwick
& Neville 2016, Jones 2017, Fridell
2017). 5 Definitional
issues include, for example, what constitutes
a living wage: to what extent it should
include possibilities of feeding dependants or
acquiring semi-essential goods such as new
clothing. For a general list of relevant
conventions on human rights, see Telkki (2015,
14). 6 The
existing responsibility initiatives include
Responsible cobalt initiative, Responsible
Mineral Initiative, and The Cobalt Industry
Responsible Assessment Framework. 7 See
Sreenivasan (2016) on non-ideal theories. 8 A
complete ethical analysis on the relations
around cobalt would also include e-waste
handling procedures (e.g. Omokaro 2018). 9 The
most noted example is likely to be Fairphone. 10 The
existence of corruption practically also means
that mining rights are granted behind closed
doors (Callaway 2018). 11 It
consists of four core components: 1)
identifying and assessing actual or potential
adverse human rights impacts; 2) integrating
findings from impact assessments across
relevant functions and company processes and
taking appropriate action; 3) tracking the
effectiveness of measures and processes to
address impacts; and 4) communicating on how
impacts are being addressed (Working Group
Report for UN General Assembly 2018).
Amnesty
International
(2016) This is
what we die for,
human rights abuses
in the Democratic
Republic of the
Congo power the
global trade in
cobalt.https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents Amnesty
International
(2017a) The Dark
Side of Electric
Cars: Exploitative
Labor Practices.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest Amnesty
International
(2017b). Industry
giants fail to
tackle child labour
allegations in
cobalt
battery supply
chains.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/
2017/11/industry- (2014). ‘A
case study on human
development and
security:
Madagascar's mining
sector and
conservation-induced
displacement of
populations’. Journal
of
Global Ethics 10 (2), 216-230.
CrossRef
Aula, I.
(2019) Consuming
conflicts: consumer
responsibility
for armed conflicts
in DR Congo and
Nigeria. PhD
thesis, The London
School
of Economics and
Political Science. Barry, C. &
MacDonald, K. (2018)
Ethical consumerism: A
defence of market
vigilantism.
Philosophy &
public
affairs 46 (3),
293-322. CrossRef
Barry,
C. & Øverland, G.
(2016) Responding to
Global Poverty: Harm,
Responsibility, and
Agency. Cambridge:
Cambridge University
press. CrossRef
Bezencon, Valery
& Blili, Sam
(2010) ‘Ethical
products and consumer
involvements: what’s
new?’ European
journal of marketing
44 (9/10), 1305-1321.
CrossRef
Brown, K.
(2013). Buying
into fair trade:
culture, morality
and consumption.
New York: New York
University press. Browne,
A.W, Harris, P.J.C,
Hofny-Collins, A.H.,
Pasiecznik, N. &
Wallace, R.R. (2000).
‘Organic
production and ethical
trade: definition,
practice and links’. Food Policy 25 (1), 69-89.
CrossRef
Callaway, A.
(2018) Powering
down corruption
Tackling
Transparency and
Human Rights Risks
from Congo's Cobalt
Mines to Global
Supply
Chains. The
enough project.
https://enoughproject.org Carter,
A. S. (1997). Community
Participation as an
Indicator of Social
Performance
at International
Mining Projects.
Bath: Mining and
Environment Research
Network. Chatterjee,
S., Sreen, N., Rana,
J. et al. (2022)
Impact
of ethical
certifications and
product involvement on
consumers decision
to purchase ethical
products at price
premiums in an
emerging market
context. International
Review of Public and
Nonprofit Marketing 19,
737–762.
CrossRef
Cheyns,
K., Banza
Lubaba Nkulu, C.,
Ngombe, L. K., Asosa,
J. N., Haufroid, V.,
De Putter, T.,
Smolders, E. (2014).
‘Pathways of human
exposure to cobalt in
Katanga, a mining
area of the D.R.
Congo’. Science of
the Total
Environment 490,
313-321. CrossRef
Clarke,
T. and
Boersma, M. (2017).
‘The Governance of
Global Value Chains:
Unresolved Human
Rights, Environmental
and Ethical Dilemmas
in the Apple Supply
Chain’. Journal
of Business Ethics
143, 111–131.
CrossRef
Crane,
A. and Matten, D.
(2010). Business
ethics
managing corporate
citizenship and
sustainability in
the age of
globalization. Oxford:
Oxford University
Press. 3rd
ed. Cuvelier,
J., Bockstael, S. V.,
Vlassenroot, K, &
Iguma, C. (2014). Analyzing
the Impact of the
Dodd-Frank Act on
Congolese
Livelihoods. Conflict
Prevention and Peace
Forum. New York: SSRC. Du
Venage, G. (2018).
‘Despite Water Woes,
Mining Indaba 2018
Sees Signs of
Optimism’. Engineering
and
Mining Journal 219
(3), 42-44. Deetman,
S., Pauliuk,
S. van Vuuren, D.P.,
van der Voet, E. and
Tukker, A. (2018).
‘Scenarios for
demand growth of
metals in electricity
generation
technologies, cars,
and
electronic
appliances’. Environmental
Science and
Technology 52,
4950-4959. CrossRef
Eichstaedt,
P.
(2011). Consuming
the Congo. War and
conflict minerals in
the world's
deadliest place.
Chicago: Chicago
Review press. Eskelinen,
T.
(2011) Harming the
global poor. On the
causal and moral role
of
institutions. SATS
Northeuropean
journal of
philosophy 12
(1), 89–103. CrossRef
Eskelinen,
T.
& Mäkinen, J.
(2014) Financial risks
and the division of
moral labour. SATS
Northeuropean journal
of philosophy 15 (1),
55-74. CrossRef
Faber,
B., Krause, B., and
Sanchez De La Sierra,
R. (2017). Artisanal
Mining,
Livelihoods, and
Child Labor in the
Cobalt Supply Chain
of the
Democratic Republic
of Congo. Center for
Effective Global
Action.
Berkeley: University
of Berkeley.
Frankel,
T. C.
(2016). ’The Cobalt
Pipeline, Tracing the
path from deadly
hand-dug mines in
Congo to consumers’
phones and laptops’. The
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics Fridell,
G. (2009). ‘The
Co-Operative and the
Corporation: Competing
Visions of the Future
of Fair
Trade.’ Journal of
Business Ethics
86 (3), 81-95. CrossRef
Fridell,
G. (2007)
"Fair-Trade coffee and
commodity fetishism:
The limits of
market-driven
social justice." Historical
Materialism 15
(4), 79-104. CrossRef
Friedman,
M. (1962)
Capitalism and
freedom. Chicago:
Chicago University
press. Hahn, H.
P., Hayes.
K, and Kacapor. A.
(2013). Breaking
the Chain: Ending
the supply of
child-mined
minerals. Pact
World Inc.
https://www.pactworld.org/
sites/default/files Hastig, G. M., & Sodhi, M.
S. (2020). ‘Blockchain
for
supply chain
traceability: Business
requirements and
critical success
factors’.
Production and
Operations
Management 29
(4), 935-954. CrossRef
Heath, J.
(2020)
Morality, competition,
and the firm. Oxford:
Oxford university
press. Helbig,
C., Bradshaw,
A.M., Wietschel, L.,
Thorenz, A. and Tuma,
A. (2019). ‘Supply
risks associated
with lithium-ion
battery materials’. Journal
of Cleaner
Production 221,
899-903. CrossRef
(2021) ‘From
global justice to
supply chain
ethics’. Transnational
Legal Theory 12
(2), 213-229.
CrossRef
Kara, S.
(2018). Is
your phone tainted
by the misery of the
35,000 children in
Congo’s mines? The Guardian 12.10.2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct Kelly,
J.T.D., King-Close,
A. and Perks, R.
(2014). ‘Resources and
resourcefulness:
roles, opportunities
and risks for women
working at artisanal
mines in South Kivu,
Democratic
Republic of the
Congo’. Futures
62, 95–105. CrossRef
Kossmann,
E., Gómez-Suárez, M.
(2018).
Decision-making
processes for
purchases of ethical
products: gaps
between academic
research and
needs of marketing
practitioners. International
Review of Public
and
Nonprofit
Marketing 15,
353–370. KU Leuven
(2018) ‘Scientists
reveal the hidden
costs of cobalt mining
in DR Congo’. NewsRx
Health, p.
103. Kapelus,
P. (2002) ‘Mining,
Corporate Social
Responsibility and the
“Community”: The
Case of Rio Tinto,
Richard Bay Minerals
and the Mbonambi’. Journal of
Business Ethics
39, 275-296. CrossRef
Lindsey,
S. &
Toft, M. (2014). Reporting
Rape in Congo: A
Unique or
Paradigmatic Case?
APSA 2014 Annual
Meeting Paper.
Washington, D.C.:
ASPA. Lund-Thomsen,
P.
& Lindgreen, A.
(2018). ‘Is there a
sweet spot in ethical
trade? A critical
appraisal of the
potential for aligning
buyer, supplier and
worker interests in
global production
networks’. Geoforum
90, 84-90. CrossRef
MacEwan,
C. &
Bek, D. (2009).
‘Placing ethical trade
in context: wieta and
the South African
wine industry’. Third
World Quarterly 30
(4), 723-742. CrossRef
Manners-Bell,
J. (2017) Supply
chain ethics:
Using CSR and
sustainability to
create competitive
advantage.
London: Kogan Page.
Meger, S.
(2010). ‘Rape
of the Congo:
understanding sexual
violence in the
conflict in the
Democratic
Republic of Congo’.
Journal
of
Contemporary African
Studies 28 (2), 119-135. CrossRef
Middleton,
C.,
McIntosh, M. and
Visser, W. (2006).
‘Corporate citizenship
in Africa. Lessons
from the past; paths
to the future’. In
Middleton, C.,
McIntosh, M., &
Visser, W. (eds). Corporate
Citizenship in
Africa: Lessons From
the Past,
Paths to the Future.
Oxon: Routledge. Muttia,
D., Yakovleva, N., Vazquez-Brust,
D. & Di Marcod,
M. H. (2012) ‘Corporate
social
responsibility in
the mining industry:
Perspectives from
stakeholder groups
in Argentina’.
Resources
Policy
37,
212-222. CrossRef
Nath, S.
D., Eweje,
G. and Bathurst, R.
(2019). ‘Why Supply
Chain Sustainability
Matters for
Developing Countries’
Apparel Suppliers? An
Integrated Framework’.
In Capaldi, N.,
Idowu, S. O.,
Schmidpeter, R. &
Brueckner, M. (eds.)
(2019) Responsible
Business in
Uncertain Times
and for a
Sustainable Future. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
Naylor,
L. (2014)
“‘Some are more fair
than others’: fair
trade certification,
development, and
North– South
subjects”. Agriculture
and Human Values
31(2), 273–284. CrossRef
Nazarewicz,
T.
(2016). ‘Cobalt: a
Critical Commodity’. Resource
World, 52-53 Olivetti,
E. A.,
Ceder, G., Gaustad, G.
G. and Fu, X. (2017).
‘Lithium-ion battery
supply chain
considerations:
Analysis of potential
bottlenecks in
critical metals’.
Joule
1 (2), 229-243.
CrossRef
Omokaro,
B. (2018). Moving
Forward
Sustainability:
Material and Social
Conditions of
Electronic Waste
Management in
Nigeria.
University of
Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä. Osburg, V.,
Strack, M., Conroy, D.
M.
& Toporowski, W.
(2017) ‘Unveiling
ethical product
features: The
importance
of an elaborated
information
presentation’. Journal
of Cleaner
Production 162,
1582-1591. CrossRef
Patterson,
S. & Gold, R.
(2018). ‘There's a
global race to control
batteries -- and china
is winning --- it's
locking up the supply
chain for
cobalt, essential to
lithium-ion
batteries’. Wall Street
Journal. p. A.1.
Retrieved from
https://search-proquest- Pinna,
M. (2020) ‘Do gender
identities of
femininity and
masculinity affect the
intention to buy
ethical products?’ Psychology
& marketing
37 (3), 384-397.
CrossRef
Pogge, T.
(2002) World
poverty
and human rights.
Cosmopolitan
responsibilities and
reforms.
Cambridge: Polity. CrossRef
Pogge,
T. (2005) "Real World
Justice," Journal
of Ethics 9,
29-53. CrossRef
Prendergast,
J. (2009). Can You
Hear Congo Now? Cell
Phones, Conflict
Minerals, and the
Worst Sexual
Violence in the
World. Enough
Project.
Retrieved from
https://enoughproject.org/reports/can- Quarshie,
A. M.,
Salmi, A. and Leuschner, R. (2016).
‘Sustainability
and corporate social
responsibility in
supply chains: The
state of research in
supply chain
management and
business ethics
journals’. Journal
of
Purchasing and
Supply Management 22 (2), 82-97. CrossRef
Rajak, D.
(2006). ‘The gift of
CSR
power and the pursuit
of responsibility in
the mining industry’.
In Middleton,
C. et al. (eds.)
Corporate
Citizenship in
Africa: Lessons From
the Past,
Paths to the Future.
Oxon: Routledge. Reitberger,
Magnus. "Poverty,
negative duties and
the
global institutional
order."Politics,
philosophy &
economics 7.4
(2008): 379-402. CrossRef
Pierik,
R. (2013). Do we have
a negative duty
towards the
global poor? Thomas
Pogge on global
justice. In J-C. Merle
(Ed.), Spheres of
global justice. Vol.
2: Fair distribution -
global economic,
social and
intergenerational
justice, pp. 595-609.
Springer. CrossRef
Robinson,
P.K. (2009).
‘Responsible
retailing: Regulating
fair and ethical
trade’. Journal of
international
development 21
(7),
1015-1026. CrossRef
Ruwanpura,
K. N. (2013).
‘Scripted
performances? Local
readings of “global”
health and safety
standards (the
apparel sector in Sri
Lanka)’. Global
Labour Journal 4
(2), 88–108. CrossRef
SOMO.
(2016). Cobalt
blues, Environmental
pollution and human
rights violations in
Katanga’s copper
and cobalt mines.
https://www.somo.nl/cobalt-blues/ Sreenivasan,
G. (2016) What
Is Non-Ideal
Theory?. In
Melissa S.
Williams (ed.), Transitional
Justice: NOMOS LI.
New
York: NYU
Press Scholarship
Online. Suikkanen,
J. (2014).
This is ethics: an
introduction. Hoboken:
Wiley, Sutherland,
E.
(2011). Coltan,
the Congo and your
cell phone. CrossRef
(2021) Arguments
from Need in Natural
Resource
Debates, Ethics,
Policy &
Environment, 26:1, 19-33.
CrossRef
Tännsjö,
T. (2008).
Understanding ethics:
an introduction to
moral theory.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University press. Telkki,
H. (2015). A
living wage, a human
right. A model for
calculating a living
wage and related
recommendations.
Helsinki: Finnwatch. Tisserant,
A. and
Pauliuk, S. (2016)
‘Matching global
cobalt demand under
different scenarios
for
coproduction and
mining
attractiveness’. Journal
of Economic
Structures
5 (4), 1-19. CrossRef
United
Nations.
(2011). Guiding
Principles on
Business and Human
Rights. United
Nations
Human rights, Office
of the High
Commissioner, New York
and Geneva. Available
at:
https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/
guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf Van Den
Brink, S.,
Kleijn, R., Sprecher,
B. and Tukker, A.
(2020). ‘Identifying
supply risks by
mapping the cobalt
supply chain’. Resources,
Conservation &
Recycling
156. CrossRef
Vintró,
C. and Comajuncosa, J.
(2010). ‘Corporate
social responsibility
in the mining
industry: Criteria and
indicators’. DYNA
77 (161),
31-41. Walther,
C. (2012). In
DR Congo, UNICEF
supports efforts to
help child labourers
return to school.
Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org Weber, J.
G. (2011). ‘How
much more do growers
receive for Fair
Trade-organic coffee?’
Food Policy
36 (5), 677-684. CrossRef
White, K.,
MacDonnell, R. &
Ellard, J.H. (2012).
‘Belief in a just
world: Consumer
intentions and
behaviors
toward ethical
products’. Journal
of marketing 76
(1), 103-118. CrossRef
The World
Bank.
(2015). Resources
and resourcefulness:
gender, conflict,
and artisanal
mining communities
in Eastern
Democratic Republic
of Congo.
Retrieved from
http://wwwwds.worldbank.org Yakovleva,
N.
(2016). Corporate
Social
Responsibility
in the Mining
Industries.
Oxon:
Routledge. CrossRef
|