Conflict Minerals: Consider this before buying a new electronic product.

[Yuki-Anne]

After looking into what Apple is doing about the problem and what they are also doing about unethical business practices in their overseas factories, I have decided that I am okay with buying an Ipod. Apple has stated a desire and made several actions toward using conflict-free minerals. They require their suppliers to be conflict-free, but they don't yet have a means of assuring that those suppliers are being truthful about their sources. They have also ceased to do business with factories that they discovered (by their own investigation) were using unethical business practices. Could they do more? Yes. Will they do more? I think they will. But in such a massive company which has to gather supplies from so many places, these things probably take a lot of time.

[TopazRaven]

Well, my PS2 and Gameboy Advance are probably to old to sell now. PS2 is on it's way out I think, makes some pretty loud noises whenever it's turned on these days. I really don't want to have to sell my PSP or DS, especilly since they where gifts. This thread kind of makes it sound like you're an evil heathen if you keep them though. If I sold these games then I'd have to sell all my clothes and shoes to because they are made in India and China for the most part. I'd have to get rid of every item in my house because I didn't even know where it came from. Heck, even the house and my mom's car and my cell phone would probably have to go. Not to mention food and drinks.

[Atria35]

As they keep repeating, Topaz, you don't have to do that, and actually doing it is completely impractical. It's just being aware of the choices you make from now on, and to try and buy from companies that are attempting to do well when you can.

[TopazRaven]

How do I even find out what companies do that though? I don't even know where to look. Every piece of clothing or shoe I look at is made in China or India and I can't afford to buy clothes made specfically in America. What about food then and other items to? I'm sorry to keep repearing myself, but I find the whole subject very stressing. I feel like an evil person now because I promoted human suffereing. I'm just going to back out of this whole conersation for good now. I'm only going to end up repeating myself over and over again anyway.

[Atria35]

Relax. Check out what others are saying. Not all companies are perfect, but you can Google them and whatever topic you're concerned about. There are companies that you won't be able to find anything on- that's okay. Then buy in good faith and write letters. If you can't afford to buy something ethically made, then don't freak out about it.

[mechana2015]

You bring up a very good point. I really don't know, Mech. I guess the logical point would be to be against buying them too. But what I think that is important is that we as consumers are conscious of outcomes of our purchases. What is best is that we are trying and by doing so we are also spreading a message to all companies. Not just the ones in the report.

As for your second question... I dunno. I'll need to think about that.

That's ridiculous to limit your purchasing to companies who are ranked on this list, more so for the 'green ranked' companies. If you follow that logic you'll have to drop all car purchases as well, since no car companies were listed and no car is produced today without computer components. Neither of the major graphics card manufacturers are on the list either, so therefore you can only use computers with Intel graphics cards. Same with hard drives, and all AMD powered computers. No motherboard supplier was listed either. Sure Dell and Apple may be on there, but the suppliers of the internal components of their tech are not. It's nice to be aware of this sort of thing, but without a wider pool of information we're going to run into a big fat wall of uncertainty very quickly, especially those of us that ARE aware of the piecemeal construction of much of our most popular tech.

Another major question is Cisco. They aren't ranked and I'd challenge you to find an internet or wireless router from a ranked company on that list, or a place to get online that doesn't have a piece of Cisco technology in their data pipeline.

Another example, Microsoft is in the green, but the processor on the X-Box is from IBM, a yellow company, and the graphics card is ATI, unranked. What do you do about that?

On the inverse, Apple is a yellow ranked company that uses processors exclusively from a green ranked company, and graphics cards and hard drives from unranked companies.

The office I work in has Dell computers connected to a Kyocera print server that allows them access to a Xerox printer.

My personal desktop has an Intel processor, a Sony CD drive, Intel Audio, Nvidia graphics, RAM from an unknown supplier, connected to EPSON printers and a Wacom tablet. It has 2 hard drives, one from Western Digital and one from (I think) Seagate. By your logic I can't buy a new hard drive or graphics card because there aren't any hard drive or manufacturers listed, which is asinine.

This idea is good in concept but the lack of information makes execution tenuous at best, especially if one is aware of the persistent levels of technology in our daily lives, and how interconnected these companies actually are.

Edit: A further question. Should we accept employment by companies using technology produced by unranked or yellow ranked companies? How about attending schools that use technology from unranked companies? Those are direct choices we can make.

[TopazRaven]

Every company I looked up where I buy clothes either is or has once been tied to a sweatshop. Fantastic. Even if I try to stop shopping at these places I'm sure my friends and the rest of my family won't. Though I was reading some people say to look for a Union label on clothes and shoes as that usually indicates good working conditions.

[ShiroiHikari]

Seriously, don't worry about it.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Again, I never said any solutions I proposed were perfect and I have also said before that we can't really 100% fully combat it. Some people can do it radically, but others can't. Others need their computers and cellphones to function in their respective parts of society. I know I do.

My main point is that we as consumers are aware and we can try to curb promoting unethical practices to the best of our ability. Okay so Dell computers may have parts from other companies, but buying a Dell product means that your money is not going to, say, Toshiba. Sure you can say "well AMD is still getting money", but the point is that we're trying.

Little progress is more important than having no steps.

[TopazRaven]

I just feel bad. I would want someone to care about my suffering if I was forced to work in a sweatshop or somewhere like the Congo. I do apparantly have an American Apparel somewhere around here, but it's a bit of a distance and I don't drive. People aren't going to drive me up there every time I need clothes. I'll have to look around at other stores I guess.

Edit: Does anyone know where I can get sweatshop free sneakers though? I don't wear anything but sneakers...and sometimes snow boots. Other stuff hurts my feet. Seriously. Lol. I always got Sketchers, but it's really bad in their company from what I've been reading. Man, what about chocolate to. I love Hershey, but I'm hearing some bad stuff about them to now. I guess I don't really need it, but what about food in general? Like especially stuff made with chocolate?

Yet another edit: American Apparal really is to far and I can't find any other sweatfree stores in my area. Maybe it's for the best for now. I can't afford $60-70 clothes/shoes anyway I'm afraid. Not to mention my mom thinks I'm overeacting and doesn't believe me. That doesn't help either.

[mechana2015]

Again, I never said any solutions I proposed were perfect and I have also said before that we can't really 100% fully combat it. Some people can do it radically, but others can't. Others need their computers and cellphones to function in their respective parts of society. I know I do.

My main point is that we as consumers are aware and we can try to curb promoting unethical practices to the best of our ability. Okay so Dell computers may have parts from other companies, but buying a Dell product means that your money is not going to, say, Toshiba. Sure you can say "well AMD is still getting money", but the point is that we're trying.

Little progress is more important than having no steps.

How do you know that Dell isn't using Toshiba DVD drives in some of their computers? I find the scattershot results of this report rather difficult to transport into action. I would be more inclined to pay attention if they were to focus on say, Phone manufacturers first, and do a thorough breakdown of that industry, rather than swinging at a (seemingly arbitrary) list of brand name companies while ignoring direct competitors in the same industry.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

*And Again* there is no perfect solution nor did I ever propose a perfect solution. But we should try the best we can. All I know is that there is an ethical problem of human rights abuses going on and I as an individual want to try the best I can to stop supporting these abuses.

[mechana2015]

My point is that the study posted at the beginning of the thread is too general. The lack of direct competitors or even a coherent list of companies makes these choices impossible. Their rubric is also rather confusing to interpret, with one of their criteria being 'involved with the NGO coalition we lead'. The most I can see being able to conclude from it is 'don't get Sandisk or Toshiba stuff if you want to act on this stuff, everyone else is at least trying.'

[Mr. SmartyPants]

This specific ethical issue has garnered attention less than two years ago so it is a VERY recent base-study. Your point is valid in that the study is too general, but understand that all research studies on a new topic will start out as general as their subsequent literature which they reference deals with other similar (but not identical) issues. This enables follow-up studies to be conducted in the future years to come which will hopefully hone down on more specific areas of focus. You cannot ever expect a new study on a new subject to cover every single base and aspect which has been left out. This is simply infeasible when it comes to proper research and statistical methods. To do so requires more time and resources. But as legislation passes we may see more information. They're not the ones proposing any sort of boycott/semi-boycott. That's my own decision based off the information that is given to me.

They need to start somewhere. And it's pretty obvious that there is an issue. So we should do what we can; as little as it may be.

[Yamamaya]

This thread totally made me envision Nintedo buying all their materials from the salesman in Resident Evil 4

Got a lot good things on sale stranger!

[Peanut]

This specific ethical issue has garnered attention less than two years ago so it is a VERY recent base-study. Your point is valid in that the study is too general, but understand that all research studies on a new topic will start out as general as their subsequent literature which they reference deals with other similar (but not identical) issues. This enables follow-up studies to be conducted in the future years to come which will hopefully hone down on more specific areas of focus. You cannot ever expect a new study on a new subject to cover every single base and aspect which has been left out. This is simply infeasible when it comes to proper research and statistical methods. To do so requires more time and resources. But as legislation passes we may see more information. They're not the ones proposing any sort of boycott/semi-boycott. That's my own decision based off the information that is given to me.

They need to start somewhere. And it's pretty obvious that there is an issue. So we should do what we can]little[/i] as it may be.

To quote Bertrand Russell

The good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge.

I think this thread has established that there definitely is love as an inspiration but not nearly enough knowledge to act just yet. Perhaps waiting until some follow up studies were done would be a better idea and ultimately more helpful to the problem. Let's not become like Dr. Prevette pre-Sociology degree Ryan.

[Dante]

I realize its been a page since this was posted but, this statement bothers me a lot. Honestly, I can't believe you said it Ryan. Because, how this is worded right now, is about the same type of logic that could be used to accuse an innocent man of a crime just because he doesn't say "I'm innocent." I understand these are companies and its easy to hate something like that, but I don't see why we should treat them any different in this case. You know, innocent until proven guilty. After all, these corporations are made up of people like you and I who are trying to support their families in a difficult economic time.

This is about the best evidence against boycotting these companies. To put it simply, Peanut is correct, companies haven't openly declared they would take these resources from someone they knew to be committing these crimes, they simply haven't addressed the issue. In such a case, it is wrong to try and persuade the market against doing something that it isn't even aware it's doing. (Even though you would be right that the music industry has gone ballistic over far less, but we shouldn't emulate the worst people the world can muster)

Instead, in order to persuade these companies, it would be much better to inform them of the results of this study and suggest that you, as a representative of the average consumer, would prefer to deal with companies that acquire their materials through ethical means and that the acquisition of a product gained at the suffering of another human being is unacceptable to you and many others.

It is important to also realize that companies change materials sources and designs all the time. They could acquire things from such markets today and from another market tomorrow, simply because it helps them meet their target goals. What is important is to let them realize that such ethical practices are important to you. Another person that would truly support something like this Ryan, is Will Marre, he is a major advocate of cooperate responsibility and an excellent motivational speaker. He might be someone to look into, although if you may or may not disagree with him (each person will probably have very polarized views on Will Marre - but that's because these things do tend to be somewhat political in nature).

[mechana2015]

I honestly think this would have been a better study if it had been focused on cell manufacturers and their actions on cell phone products alone, and would have provided data that a consumer could remember and act on the next time they walk by a kiosk in a mall and think about upgrading their phone.

The sample size would have been about the same, and enough information would have been provided to generate definite data to act on in a specific market, and a large (and expanding) market at that, with much fewer complications than the computer market.
There also could have been straight line comparisons made, and the fact that this seems to be one of the especially focused markets in this debate, since they tend to mention the minerals used to make cell phones vibrate quite a bit in discussions of the topic. It would have been no more difficult, more direct and to the point, less confusing and much more action ready than comparing:

5 home computer hardware producers,
5 consumer electronics companies that also make phones
3 mobile phone hardware (mostly) companies
2 video game hardware producers
1 consumer electronics giant that doesn't make phones
1 microprocessor company
1 camera company
1 business computer hardware producer
1 company that is about half computer hardware and half phone hardware
1 rewritable memory hardware producer

They all may be connected, but the list is too disparate to act on. Even with this list the best actions you can take are only regarding cell phones and that takes a great deal of extra research to determine that that IS a semi running theme. I GUESS one could make a stand with Sandisk, though the fact that their major competitors are missing really makes that a hard call.

[Cognitive Gear]

Question, how would shopping at a thrift store help? They don't make their own clothes, it's donated or they buy used or unwanted merchandise from local shops or just random people. As far as I know in least. You still don't know where the clothes came from. It could even be from over-seas as far you know unless you know where the owner of the thrift store gets their inventory. Meanwhile, I usually shop at Wal-Mart, Target and JCPenny for clothes I'll admit. The site Warrior4Christ posted gave Wal-Mart a C- grade when it came to wither there materiel was made through slave labor or not, but I didn't see Target or JCPenny. I was rather upset that Sketchers got an F, that's my favorite brand of shoe and the only sneakers I ever where. I've been buying them my whole life. Meanwhile Hershey got a C- to. Why chocolate, why!?

Edit: Also, I REALLY stink when it comes to doing research. I can never find what I'm looking for. Does anyone know of a website that will actually list how and where all the major companines purchase their iventory?

I see a problem.

If you're buying thrift store goods so you can remain "cruelty free", then aren't you really just relying on Those Poor Saps who don't know/don't care about INJUSTICE to fulfill your material needs? And in that case, aren't you really only helping your own conscience rather than ending human suffering?

Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier, I was out and away from the computer all day.

Buying at a thrift store means that the money you spend isn't going to support manufacturers or companies etc that cause human suffering. Therefore, by buying in thrift stores, we are not supporting the suffering. Buying things second-hand instead of new means that there is now one less of that item sold.

So I don't think that it's only purpose is to "ease my own conscience". The reason I do it is because I am striving to learn to love as Christ loved, and I do not think that the Christ I know would knowingly contribute to the suffering of others.

Besides, there are also many thrift stores which are run by local churches or large worldwide charities that use the proceeds to aid those in need both in their local communities and in third world countries. If I can support those things while getting the material possessions I need, it's absolutely wonderful.

EDIT: Okay, this may be controversial, but consider this argument: suppose boycotting clothing made in sweatshops is bad. It's true that the working conditions are terrible and the workers ought to be paid more, but the workers probably have no other choices. If nobody bought their products, wouldn't they lose their (admittedly miserable) jobs and starve to death? I'm not entirely sure about this argument, but it seems sound to me. What do you think?

This is exactly why ending the support for the companies is only part of the "solution" (that's not the word I'm really looking for, but it is close enough). It is certainly my hope that in supporting companies that treat their workers well, other companies will eventually follow suit instead of just pulling out after they have destroyed the old ways of life of the people they got into this mess.

Another part of is finding ways to help those people. Most of us can't fly across the world to physically be there to help them, but we can contribute to help others get there, and help them provide these people with whatever aid they can provide. In short, support charities and missionaries however you can.

[Nate]

Okay, despite the things I said earlier, neither I nor anyone else advocating a boycott is saying that, for example, the human rights violations will stop if we do this. The slave owners aren't going to go "Well shoot, nobody's buying our gold, guess we might as well let all these slaves go free!"

But what it will do is prevent companies from exploiting that evil for profit. Because otherwise, it's just a free escape clause for companies. "Hey, we're not telling those people to do these horrible things, it's just the cheapest way to get those materials!"

And that's the thing. People shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of evil just because it's convenient for them. Just because it puts a few thousand dollars more in their bank account. Let's say I want to make a cake. I tell my brother to go get some eggs. My brother says "I was going to break into the neighbor's house, I'll get some of their eggs for you while I'm there." So he breaks into the neighbor's house and steals eggs (among other things) from them and brings them to me. Would it be right for me to use those eggs in my cake? I could just say "Well, he got the eggs illegally, but it doesn't matter to me, because it's a cheap way to get eggs!"

My brother was going to break into the house whether or not I needed eggs. Is it okay to take advantage of my brother doing illegal things just because it's convenient for me? If the answer is no, then why is it okay for companies to take advantage of guerrillas in the DRC doing illegal things just because it's convenient for the company?

Again, I don't think anyone here believes that the companies refusing to buy from suppliers that violate human rights is going to free slaves or anything. That's a separate issue. The issue here is companies turning a blind eye to it for profit. And hey, some of these companies might not actually know. That's entirely possible as well! In that case we should write the companies and say "Are you aware that the materials you use in your products come from places that violate human rights, and I will refrain from buying your products until this is corrected." Companies like money, so if they get enough of these letters, they'll get their materials from different sources.

So again. It's less an idealistic thing of "Doing this will stop all the harm going on in these countries!" and more of a "Companies really shouldn't be taking advantage of this just because they want another solid gold backscratcher."

[Midori]

This thread is about to get out of hand. We've had quite enough of this discussion, and now there's nowhere new for it to go besides downhill. I am closing it before it does that.