In reality many of us only care because it is fashionable to do so.
Anyone who acts like they're pro environment, anti-rights-abuse, and so on while using lots of technology is full of shit given its supply chain and corporate support. Better admit they're willing to let some kids and people suffer to advance their agenda. I will. I don't like it but the situation is complex and warrants it.
Suddenly, the good and bad people in such a situation ain't so black and white. Rarely is but I think many activists think it is for them. They just ignore the underlying realities except for their causes.
Of course you'd have companies claiming that $1/day is middle class in certain countries, etc, so maybe you'd have to set some sort of standardized chart based on CPI, but y'all get what I'm saying here. I think it would be more informative than "conflict-free", especially since it gets to the root of ensuring a lack of slave-labor-like conditions for workers. Most of the fashion industry, for example, would never manage to hold itself to such a standard. "Made in Italy" is a lot more expensive when you can't pay table scraps to your Chinese "guest workers"...
I'll also add Israel is more selective and defensive in its conflict while doing what it can to prop up its country and people. African dictators and such are on a much lower and twisted level.
[0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/...
It's an easy thing to confuse. Your model, no components from any country at war is admirable, but not likely feasible.
"Conflict-free" is like "inoffensive". It's impossible to apply for everyone.
But hey, better than nothing.
[1]: http://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/unconflicted.pd...
