>Yet, somehow, a multiBILLION dollar company can just buy material from warlords or whatever tribe in remote parts of China, and ship MILLIONS OF POUNDS of it out of that region, but nobody can get a fucking receipt?

What normally happens in this process is that the selling country's government official who is tasked with verifying the integrity of the receipt is bribed with a month or more salary to sign the exchange off as legitimate, e.g. the Kimberley Process. There has got to be a solution to this problem but paper trails are notoriously unreliable in scenarios like this one.

Not disagreeing with you, but I would be surprised if they're buying it directly from the mine and not from some sort of market/middleman/third party company. I wouldn't hold my breath for extensive receipts and documentation either. The miners pictured in the article don't even have shoes and the "hammers" they're given appear to be two pieces of rebar welded together. I'd be surprised to find much documentation at all.

What good do you think a receipt is in that part of the world? Of course they get a certificate of conflict-free production. And if you have a couple bucks in the DRC/Rwanda, you can get one too! Look at diamonds, gold and coltan as useful precedents that show how buyer-side pressure will not improve things unless the buyers choose to stop using the minerals altogether.

>They can know more if they want to

Sure they could. They would basically need to set up a modern version of the East India Trading Company, build themselves a mercenary army, and go in there and set up a proxy government that adheres to whatever regulatory policies they want to define.

We called that "colonialism" the last time around though, and most of the countries it happened to were not fans.

You should do a little more research. The problem that we've been trying to solve for over three decades is not easily solvable with your naive ideas - do you really think we haven't tried your ideas? The problem is that there are mines that pass all inspections that then sell minerals produced elsewhere. Given the chaos in that part of the world, it is not realistic to prevent this from happening because there is not a way, last I checked, to differentiate between the minerals produced using ethical methods and minerals produced using conflict methods. Finding a different mine does not mean you have impacted the original mine.

Unless you have a way to prevent demand for these minerals, there is not a known, effective solution to these problems.

There's a historical story that's relevant here. In the building of the Brooklyn Bridge, the contract for steel cable was let to someone whose reputation was such that the engineer insisted that all of the output tested for quality, and none of the bad cable was to be let installed on the bridge. Yet almost all of the bad cable made it onto the bridge, because the contractor did a good job of figuring out how to frustrate all of the compliance and inspection procedures for the cable.

That's the hard part of supply chain vetting: trying to ensure that your contractor isn't trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If you think "a plane trip and a few days of a couple people's time" is going to be sufficient to actually ensure that you're getting responsible cobalt, well, I have a bridge for you.

>Do you know how hard it would be for Apple to check out a mining operation? A plane trip and a few days of a couple people's time.

No. Not at all. It takes more than that to vet suppliers in a place as developed as China. If you think that's all it takes in an ACTIVE WAR ZONE you're delusional.

I think it's a bit harder than that. But Apple is already doing it (or claims to be doing it). The latest Supplier Responsibility report claims that 100% of their Cobalt supplies is audited: https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2... And Apple claims to regularly remove suppliers for violations.

Up until a few years ago, Cobalt was specifically called out as being a problematic resource, with incomplete audits and widespread violations. Now, Apple claims to have this under control. Either Apple is lying or misguided, or the initiators of the lawsuit are.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the initiators of the lawsuit were wrong. It seems that Apple often gets lumped in with other tech companies' labor and supply practices, regardless of whether their specific policies are actually more strict than common industry practice (cf Mike Daisey's "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs")

Disclaimer: I work for Apple, but don't shop for their Cobalt, so I have no firsthand knowledge of the actual situation.

You seem to know the answer but are you currently in Africa doing anything? Do you sit there and post from a computer/phone/ use these companies services? Magic is all you’re speaking. Social media virtue signaling while you are not solving the problem. Arguing just to argue. If it was so simple as just hop on a plane and/or just don’t buy from there then the companies worth billions would have already done that.