Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Nintendo Businesses Games News Technology

Nintendo Ranks Last In Conflict Minerals Report 134

derekmead writes "A new report by the Enough Project, an arm of the Center for American Progress, shows that companies like Intel, Apple and Microsoft have been successfully scaling back their use of conflict minerals in their products. Other companies have been less helpful. Out of the 24 companies surveyed and ranked based on their use of conflict minerals, Nintendo came in dead last, having made no effort to ensure that its products weren't funding guerrilla warfare in Africa. 'Nintendo is, I believe, the only company that has basically refused to acknowledge the issue or demonstrate they are making any sort of effort on it,' said Sasha Lezhnev from the Enough Project. 'And this is despite a good two years of trying to get in contact with them.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo Ranks Last In Conflict Minerals Report

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @11:44AM (#41036551)

    If you formally score someone 0/10 points on measure X just because they don't want to talk to you about X, then your assessment is pretty much worthless.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @11:52AM (#41036621)

    It's also a report from an organization trying to push their own "certification" program, which in the corporate world means "pay us and give us significant influence over you or we'll do our best to make everyone hate you". If they actually wanted to help they'd be working on the actual supply chains, not trying to strong-arm big companies.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:30PM (#41036979)

    Because America is a huge market for that company's products. If people were to boycott them, it could hurt their profits. Of course no one will, and their competition does shit like this too. Another market failure.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:36PM (#41037021)

    Well, it's more like "It's ridiculous that they gave me a zero for a class grade and they're trying to tell everyone in the world, I wasn't even enrolled at the school!"

  • by Doctor_Jest ( 688315 ) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:16PM (#41037873)

    You make some interesting points, and it comes back to the inter-connected world economy. Most people remember the "Buy American" mantra in the 70's and 80's... because Detroit was taking it in the shorts from Japanese car companies. That translated into later "Buy American" campaigns where Wal Mart and other retailers were being targeted for using cheap Chinese goods instead of more expensive American goods. Now we have "conflict minerals" and "conflict diamonds" etc.. that no matter what you buy or who you buy from, at some point there is a distinct possibility that those minerals used in the components of your electronics came from war-torn regions.

    The problem exists in that people do a great deal of posturing and hand-wringing (even on /.), but it amounts to a tempest in a teapot. Most people would not give up their iPhone or 3D LCD television if it really came down to it, yet like celebrities trying to guilt people into donating to charity, it seems people have no shortage of puritanical guilt to spread around to "everybody else."

    The key here is not that the minerals are going to fund conflicts in the Congo. The key is what can be done to prevent the conflicts, but more importantly, what can be done to encourage the Congo to end the senseless civil wars. My guess is there isn't any quick-fix and the boycott of "conflict minerals" will not stem the tide of bloodshed.

    Should we encourage companies to avoid using these minerals when they can? Sure. But we should never look down our sanctimonious noses at those who don't "have our moral superiority" and claim how well we're doing to stop using these minerals as we type from our computers that contain mostly "conflict minerals" in some form or another.

    Political correctness, as you correctly mentioned, was just the tip of the iceberg. It's nothing more than a bunch of busybodies that want to inform you and I how to say something, what words to use, and what we can and cannot "morally" use (for food or whatever cause du jour comes up on the news.) I frankly don't give a shit. I boycott hollywood, the RIAA and Microsoft. If someone wants to know why, I tell them. Otherwise I simply do my bit and move on. (Oh and Disney fucking sucks and should be imploded and its grisly parts be shot from a rocket into the sun.)

  • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:56PM (#41038245) Homepage Journal

    It isn't as if the locals ran their own mines. Most were probably simple farmers, fisherman, etc. Removing this money will take the weapons out of the hands of criminals. No more, no less.

    See Gershwin's law.

    These people worked at the local mines, no matter who owned them, and up to 90% of them were legitimately owned, not controlled by a warlord. Now the workers have had their livelihood yanked from under them, and one of the few remaining options not to starve is to become a fighter.

    And "taking the weapons out of the hands of criminals" does nothing to solve the problem. Getting fewer guns doesn't mean the wars will cease - these guys kill, maim and rape with spears and knives -- it just takes much longer.

    Again, this does absolutely nothing to shorten the wars, just prolonging them. And making some westerners feel good about themselves.

Forty two.