Twitter, DRC, PhDs and the End Consumer
After some crossed conversation about the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) on Twitter earlier this week DuckRabbitBlog sent me a link to Rocks, hard places and Congo minerals. I’ve read this article a number of times and find room for further discussion.
It Wasn’t the Last Word On DRC Forever
Was that article the last word ever on DRC conflict minerals, the role of companies like Apple and Nokia, or whether or not our part in the big picture is a top-down political perspective or a bottom-up consumer perspective? I’d be surprised.
But let’s backtrack along this conversation a little to the he says / she says point. It devolves to a tweet bagging out Ashlea Judd for her stance on Congo conflict minerals, particularly colton (that becomes tantulum and is used to make tantulum capacitors to keep your tech stuff from overheating). The tweet was a retweet from a PhD who studied the DRC conflict for her thesis (referenced in the article sent through from DuckRabbitBlog). And the original tweet was from another PhD with a Central African focus.
Nokia and Supply Chain Choke Points
First… I’m not a great believer in stars promoting themselves with causes but we can’t ban rich people from opening their mouths to state an opinion. I have no doubt in the world Ashlea Judd is well intentioned. There’s a thing called free speech. Second… I disagree emphatically that we can wash our hands of any responsibility as consumers on the assertion that the problem is too difficult to monitor at the choke points. It’s too difficult until Nokia, for example, is pressured from the grass roots to clean up it’s act.
You can’t tell me that a company with the market power of Nokia can’t exert market pressure on their supply chain… imagine the economic advantage that 1 choke point might gain from cleaning up it’s act and becoming a preferred supplier. Hands up the 1 choke point who wants the Nokia account? Yes Nokia and large tech corporations have power – the reason your iPhone is made by almost slave labour in appalling conditions is because you (and me, the advanced economy consumer) are demanding they are cheap.
So the bottom line is that Nokia don’t give a toss… because consumers don’t give a toss… and the corporate cycle rolls on with conflict minerals. Not only that, we currently contend with the lobbying power of companies like Nokia pressuring politicians around the world to let the good times keep rolling. Note that Nokia is just an example at hand… it’s far from the only culprit.
Exploiting the Weak is Unethical at Best
There is an assumption in Rocks, hard places and Congo minerals that we’re going to need these minerals anyway, that we’re going to have to get them from somewhere (some other exploitation isn’t going to be enough)… and that it’s a top down political and civil war problem within DRC. Which is the same rationale junkies use to justify why they pushed over an old lady to steal her handbag – they needed the resources.
And I digress from that article in the final assumption to which the analysis is pinned – I would assert this isn’t a choice between accepting conflict minerals to stop a war and bring peace. This is a choice to not accept conflict minerals because they are ethically muddied and we are profiting off a nation’s tragedy – as consumers and as countries.
Their Wealth is not ours to Plunder
OK, perhaps I’m looking at this from the stance of a merely uneducated and ignorant Australian MBA (in a few days) rather than as an American PhD, within an American cultural perspective, focused on the DRC conflict in particular or Africa in general. And I have no doubt that my political knowledge of the DRC conflict is far (immensely) smaller than anybody else’s in the conversation to date… that I take on board… but 50% or 8% of world colton coming from DRC makes no real difference.
My experience of the DRC is limited to being asked in person by local Congolese refugees who live in my neighbourhood, who have scars, who have family in the DRC, to encourage western consumers to think before buying new tech products. They implore us not to be so arrogant (and ignorant) that we assume their wealth is ours to plunder. They are not ignorant either… Christopher is studying an MBA and previously worked for the Congolese government prior to 7 years in the refugee camps.
My perspective is also from the corporate and consumer direction rather than a political one. The assumption about choke points I disagree with… and the economic assertion may be correct except for the fact that it relies on the industry chasing the bottom. It relies on the assumption we will demand… consumers will demand… cheaper phones rather than conflict and exploitation free phones. An assumption that consciousness and awareness don’t change or affect corporations over time. Because society (and God help us, Marketing) aren’t static goal posts.
But then that drives a circle straight back to my comments about The Myth and Arrogance of Consumer Absolution.
Ruining the World versus Understanding It
MBAs may have ruined the world but PhDs somehow believe they understand it. Meaning, if the world was as simple as being quantified in a political science PhD thesis we wouldn’t be in a world full of shit right now – global warming, loss of top soil… yada yada. There are simply a number of overlayed perspectives.
But on that, at least, we’ll all have to agree to disagree. I’ve had enough arguments with business PhDs in my MBA course to last a lifetime. [comments closed].
