January 16, 2015 – January 23, 2015
The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP and should not be deemed to be endorsements of them. The Recap is intended to be a compilation of articles and events to encourage discussion within the conflict minerals community and to keep our readers updated on the most recent developments.

ERA Technology’s Head of Regulatory Compliance Discusses Results of Recent Survey

In an EBN article titled Conflict Minerals: A Happy New Year? Chris Robertson, Head of Regulatory Compliance at ERA Technology, discusses a survey circulated in a recent ERA Technology webinar that asked viewers “what they thought would be the most effective compliance solution for conflict minerals in the EU.” The survey was released on the backdrop of the EU Commission’s proposed regulation last year, which would create a voluntary process in which importers of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold into the EU can self-certify that they do not contribute to financing armed conflict.

The survey options for “most effective solution” were as follows: (1) Voluntary self-certification of importers of minerals/metals, (2) Mandatory certification of importers of minerals/metals, and (3) mandatory due diligence by the final product manufacturer/importer into the EU.

Mr. Robertson presented the results, “Our predominantly downstream industry audience identified the most effective approach, with 58% of the vote, as mandatory certification of importers (i.e. regulation). Meanwhile, 24% favoured mandatory due diligence by the party putting the product on the market in the EU (similar to the U.S. law). The Commission’s proposed approach (option 1) attracted only 19%.”

To view the survey results and Mr. Robertson’s observations please see Conflict Minerals: A Happy New Year?