Stanford Anti-Genocide Coalition Makes University Take Stand on Conflict Minerals

Stanford University students seeking to encourage electronics companies to investigate the origins of minerals used in their products made a leap forward in their campaign this week when the Stanford Board of Trustees made an important announcement. On June 18 Stanford University became the first major institution to address their policy regarding conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

In an official announcement Friday, Stanford said it will vote yes on shareholder resolutions asking companies to report their efforts to avoid using conflict minerals from the DRC. Members of STAND, a student-led group for genocide intervention, say the university's decision is an important step toward ensuring that Stanford is not contributing to the ongoing violence in that country.

At issue is a humanitarian crisis: In the Democratic Republic of Congo, armed groups force villagers to mine minerals like wolframite and cassiterite. These so-called "conflict minerals", and metals like tungsten and tin that are derived from them, finance the violence in eastern Congo.

Although Stanford has no plans to promote shareholder resolutions at companies in its investment portfolio, the new guidelines would compel the university to support such shareholder resolutions when they are introduced. Students say they are happy to have been a big part of the reason Stanford will now be among organizations that promote socially responsible investing.

American companies are facing increasing pressure from activist organizations like STAND to scrutinize supply chains for minerals. Stanford has close ties with Silicon Valley industry and Stanford students and alumni hope that the university can influence the electronics industry to create voluntary guidelines for responsible acquisition and use of minerals and metals.

In a related campaign in the Bay Area, the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition has an ongoing campaign to influence manufacturers of solar panels to acquire, use, and recycle metals throughout the life span of the products they create. Currently, there is little oversight in the solar panel industry to protect workers using toxic metals. Of particular concern is the fact that some of this work is done in prisons, where the workers have little recourse to seek protection from toxic exposure.

SVTC says that cadmium telluride panels and emerging thin film technologies that utilize untested nanomaterials can pose a threat to the environment and workers during the manufacturing and recycling stage. They want solar PV manufacturers to be responsible for the lifecycle impacts of their products through Extended Producer Responsibility and takeback programs; they are asking manufacturers to take voluntary action.

While activists in both STAND and SVTC are hopeful that Silicon Valley industry can act responsibility with pressure from their groups, others want strict regulation of industry, saying voluntary guidelines don't work.