Beyond the allure and seemingly limitless capabilities of your smartphone lies a crude backstory involving dependence on Earth’s minerals. What goes into the making of your phone is way more than the behind-the-scenes videos you see from the sleek production plants in China. In fact, an average smartphone contains 75 out of the 118 elements on the periodic table.

At the centre of this supply chain is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), home to vast reserves of cobalt, tantalum, tin, and tungsten — critical minerals in the production of modern electronics. However, the presence of these valuable resources is one of the major reasons the East African country is fraught with the deadliest conflict since World War II, majorly due to armed groups vying for control over the country’s mineral wealth. Despite being war-torn, minerals from Congo, like in other countries, are legally sourced, extracted,  refined, and shipped to factories in a licensed global supply chain. But that’s not the only path companies take to secure these minerals.

Since the 1990s, mining operations in the DRC have been linked to human rights abuses. Armed groups, often beyond government control, dominate many mining sites, using profits to fund ongoing conflicts.  As a result, the term “conflict minerals” has become synonymous with these resources. Minerals mined this way often find their way into the supply chains of multinational companies — and that’s precisely what the DRC government has accused Apple of.

In case you missed it: Earlier in April, the DRC government, through its lawyers, issued a formal warning to Apple to stop using minerals illegally mined from its territory. The DRC hinted at possible legal action, demanding clarity regarding Apple’s supply chain and accusing the company of sourcing minerals from its embattled eastern region. As expected, Apple denied sourcing from areas where human rights violations occur, asserting that it conducts business ethically and responsibly by sourcing minerals from the DRC and its neighbouring countries.

It appeared a legal battle was on the horizon, but the DRC did not follow through with further action (as known to the public) raising questions about whether the initial concerns go beyond human rights violations in mineral procurement.

Regardless, the call for consumer electronics companies to source minerals responsibly cannot be overstated. This movement gained fresh momentum following the launch of Apple’s iPhone 16 series, with campaigns encouraging consumers to boycott the new devices due to the alleged exploitation of DRC’s resources and the humanitarian crisis it contributes to.

A comprehensive account of how mineral sourcing from the DRC fuels conflict and exploitation would take thousands of pages, but here’s a makeshift effort: mining in the Congo is rife with danger, with children often at the forefront of this humanitarian crisis. According to human rights organisations, tens of thousands of children work in hazardous conditions in these mines, many losing their lives in the process. This has led to over six million deaths, 60% of which are children, according to the UNHCR. 

In addition to child labour, the fight for control over these resources also facilitates human trafficking, sexual violence and exploitation, and stringent economic hardships, which has led to the displacement of about 5.6 million Congolese as of February 2024. 

The situation creates a cycle of violence that also extends to the contamination and degradation of nature in the country and its surrounding regions. The extraction process, which is often conducted with little regard for environmental standards, leads to widespread deforestation, water contamination, and biodiversity loss. Toxic chemicals like mercury, cyanide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide — released during these substandard mining operations — breed a wide range of adverse environmental effects, including global warming.

What Role Do We Play?

When it comes to ethical consumerism, this issue extends beyond boycotting the latest iPhones. Other consumer electronics companies are also implicated. While Apple has been a vocal advocate for making supply chains more responsible, the fact remains that every time we purchase their products — or those of their competitors — we may be contributing to a global supply chain that fuels genocide.

That said, this doesn’t imply that Apple or its competitors are directly responsible for the unrest. However, their alleged reliance on suppliers linked to conflict zones raises serious concerns.

But can consumers realistically hold out for only ethical products in a setting where we only know what these tech giants want us to know? The onus on consumers remains light and somewhat ironic. Campaigns to boycott the iPhone 16 can be likened to eating with just one finger — fundamentally, other smartphones shouldn’t be spared from this scrutiny. Do we then stop buying phones altogether?

Addressing this issue requires collective responsibility. Major stakeholders — tech companies, the DRC government, and others must take full responsibility and do their due diligence. The path to a conflict-free supply chain is far from straightforward, but as the International Peace Information Service (IPIS) suggests, “both downstream (including tech companies) and midstream (smelters and refiners) actors should demand that their upstream due diligence systems, and in particular iTSCi, be more accountable for the deficiencies in their system. A better consultation of, and closer collaboration with, actors in the DRC (civil society, government representatives, and local economic actors) for the design, implementation, and evaluation of these systems is a crucial first step.’’