EU Conflict Minerals Regulation at a glance

The European Union (EU) Conflict Minerals Regulation (fully in force since 2021) lays down (narrow) supply chain due diligence obligations for EU importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas. Importers to the EU must show results of third-party audits to EU Member States’ competent authorities and publicly report the results of their due diligence.

Which companies fall under the Conflict Minerals Regulation?

If you are concerned an importer falling under the Conflict Minerals Regulation may be connected to (local) risks and harms but you need to find out more, you can refer to basic guidance here.

The Regulation applies to EU-based companies that import tin, tantalum, tungsten, their ores, and gold. According to the European Commission, the Regulation directly covers approximately 600 to 1,000 importers.

There is no official list of companies covered, meaning any EU-based company that purchases these minerals from abroad could potentially fall under the Regulation, provided their import volumes exceed specific annual thresholds.

One way to find out if a company falls under the regulation is to look up the company online and add “conflict minerals regulation” to your search. Many companies provide information about their responsibilities and policies on their webpages. Often, these companies will be from sectors such as automotive, electronics, and general manufacturing.

What are companies expected to do?

1. Mandatory due diligence

EU-based importers of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold (3TG) are required to implement due diligence systems to mitigate the risk of sourcing minerals that contribute to armed conflict, human rights abuses or other illegal practices.

To achieve this, such EU importers must conduct supply chain due diligence. It should be conducted based on the five-step due diligence framework set out in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas.

Their legal obligations depend on what – or from what stage of the minerals supply chain – they import:

• EU companies that purchase raw minerals from foreign suppliers and import them into the EU must comply with mandatory due diligence requirements, as this stage of the supply chain is considered the highest risk.
• EU companies that purchase pure, processed metals (like refined gold bars) from foreign suppliers and import them into the EU are also subject to mandatory due diligence requirements.
• EU companies that buy these processed metals within the EU or import finished components and products (like microchips and smartphones) are not subject to mandatory obligations under the Regulation. However, they are expected to use reporting and other transparency tools to demonstrate their voluntary due diligence efforts.

Mandatory due diligence under the Regulation should be conducted based on the five-step due diligence framework set out in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas:

• establish strong company management systems;
• identify and assess risks within their supply chains;
• design and implement a strategy to respond to identified risks;
• carry out an independent third-party audit of their supply chain due diligence; and
• report annually on their due diligence activities.

2. Further information gathering and documenting

EU importers must gather, document, and store specific information about their supply chains.

3. Additional information requirements in case of minerals coming from CAHRAs

In case minerals originate from CAHRAs, importers are subject to additional information requirements. They must then provide information on:

• the specific mine from which the minerals originated;
• the exact locations where the minerals were consolidated, traded and processed; and
• the taxes, fees and royalties paid to governments along the way.

What can I do if a company does not meet the obligations?

The actions you can take under the Regulation do not require you to act through a lawyer. Nonetheless, it can be very helpful to seek support if you are consider taking action, especially if you or someone you are representing has experienced human rights harms. You may consider contacting NGOs for guidance or seeking legal advice from lawyers experienced in corporate accountability. They can help you understand your options, support the collection of evidence, assist in submitting complaints, and connect with others.

1. Complain through the company's grievance mechanism

Under the Regulation, importers must establish a grievance mechanism, or provide access to one through collaborative arrangements with other companies or organisations. The mechanism should allow any interested party to raise concerns about the way minerals covered by the Regulation are being extracted, traded or handled.

A grievance mechanism can therefore provide a way to raise concerns directly with the company and ask it to investigate and address potential problems in its due-diligence practices or supply chain. For more information on how these mechanisms work, including their challenges and limitations, see here.

2. Communicate your concern to the competent authorities

If you have concerns that an EU importer is not complying with its obligations under the Conflict Minerals Regulation, including concerns about how it is addressing a particular risk or harm, you can communicate your concern to the competent authority in the Member State where the importer is established.

This includes concerns raised by civil society, affected workers and communities. For example, after Global Witness reported concerns about the implementation of the Regulation, the European Commission encouraged NGOs to report suspected infringements to the relevant Member States.

Communicate a concern:

The list of national authorities in each Member State is accessible here.

There is no single EU-wide procedure for submitting a concern. In practice, the way concerns can be submitted varies between Member States. Some Member States have established dedicated email contacts for Conflict Minerals Regulation matters, while others provide general contact details for their competent authority.

The Regulation does not specify whether a concern can be submitted anonymously. If you wish to remain anonymous, you should check the information provided by the relevant national competent authority or contact the authority to ask whether it accepts anonymous information and how confidentiality is handled.

When communicating a concern, it is useful to provide as much specific and supporting information as possible. This can include:

• the company's name and registered address;
• the minerals or metals concerned and, if known, the relevant imports;
• the obligation under the Conflict Minerals Regulation that you believe the company may have breached; and
• if the concern relates to a specific risk or harm, relevant dates and a description of what happened, including any available evidence.

You do not need to have all of this information to submit a concern. You can provide whatever information you have and explain what you do not know. In particular, you do not need to prove yourself that the company has breached the Regulation. The purpose of communicating the concern is to provide relevant information that may assist the competent authority in deciding whether to check an importer’s compliance with the Regulation.

What happens when you communicate a concern / what to expect:

• National competent authorities are responsible for checking whether importers are complying with their obligations under the Regulation. These checks are known as “ex-post checks” and can include reviewing company documentation and records, examining the results of audits and, where appropriate, carrying out on-the-spot inspections.

Importantly, substantiated concerns provided by third parties can be relevant to the authority's decision about which importers to check. However, submitting a concern does not guarantee that the authority will open an investigation or carry out an ex-post check.

• Where a competent authority identifies an infringement of the Regulation, it must issue a notice of remedial action requiring the EU importer to take corrective measures. Typically, these corrective measures have required the company to fix gaps in its internal processes within a specific deadline, such as improving supply chain tracing, upgrading risk assessments, or enhancing public transparency. What happens if the importer does not comply with those measures depends on the enforcement rules of the Member State concerned. The Regulation requires Member States to establish rules applicable to infringements, so the available measures can differ between countries. Fines are one possible form of enforcement in some Member States.
• The way competent authorities operate also varies between Member States. The European Commission noted in its 2024 review of the Regulation that Member States differed considerably in their organisation, capacity and resources, as well as in how they carried out and followed up on ex-post checks.

What about a specific human rights harm or risk?

• The Regulation requires importers to identify, assess and address risks in their supply chains as part of their due diligence. A concern about a specific human rights harm or risk can therefore be relevant to whether an importer has complied with these obligations, including whether it has taken appropriate steps to prevent, mitigate or remediate the harm.
• At the same time, the Regulation does not establish competent authorities as a remedy mechanism. Their role is to assess and enforce compliance with the Regulation, rather than to determine all questions of responsibility for human-rights harms or to provide remedies to affected people or communities. We have not identified a publicly documented case in which a Member State competent authority, acting under the Conflict Minerals Regulation, ordered an importer to provide direct remedy to a person or community for a human rights harm.
• Both a formal evaluation by the European Commission and analysis from civil society highlight shortcomings in the implementation and impact of the Conflict Minerals Regulation.
• For these reasons, where the concern relates to a risk or human rights harm, it may be appropriate to both communicate the concern to the competent authority and consider other grievance, complaints or remedy mechanisms that may be available.

Further information