SEC CONFLICT 

MINERALS RULE

Companies Face 

Continuing 

Challenges in 

Determining Whether 

Their Conflict Minerals 

Benefit Armed Groups

Report to Congressional Committees

August 2016

GAO-16-805

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-805, a report to 

congressional committees

August 2016

SEC CONFLICT MINERALS RULE

Companies Face Continuing Challenges in

Determining Whether Their Conflict Minerals 

Benefit Armed Groups

What GAO Found

As a result of country-of-origin inquiries, an estimated 19 percent more 

companies that filed a specialized disclosure form (Form SD) with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (SEC) reported that they knew or had reason to 

believe they knew the source of the conflict minerals in their products in 2015 

than in 2014, based on a generalizable sample of filings GAO reviewed. 

However, after an estimated 79 percent of the companies that filed a Form SD 

performed due diligence, an estimated 67 percent of them reported they were 

unable to confirm the source of the conflict minerals in their products, and about 

97 percent of them reported that they could not determine whether the conflict 

minerals financed or benefited armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo (DRC) and adjoining countries. 

Facilities that process conflict minerals pose challenges to the disclosure efforts 

of companies filing a Form SD because (1) these facilities generally rely on 

documentary evidence about the origin of conflict minerals, which may be 

susceptible to fraud; and (2) multiple levels of processing operations introduce 

fraud risk and may increase the cost associated with disclosures. Industry and 

other stakeholders have developed or are pursuing efforts to mitigate these risks, 

such as chemical “fingerprinting” to verify documentary evidence.

Commingled Ore from Multiple Sources for Processing

As of July 2016, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) had not submitted a 

report that was required in January 2013, assessing the accuracy of the 

Independent Private Sector Audits (IPSA) filed by some companies that filed a 

Form SD, nor had it developed a plan to do so. Ten companies filed the audits 

between 2014 and 2015 as part of their Conflict Minerals Reports, none of which 

Commerce has assessed. Commerce officials said they established a team in 

March 2016, but they noted that they did not have the knowledge, skills, or 

expertise to conduct IPSA reviews or to establish best practices. As a result, 

Congress lacks information on the accuracy of the IPSAs and other due diligence 

processes used by filing companies. 

View GAO-16-805. For more information, 

contact Kimberly M. Gianopoulos at (202) 512-

8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Armed groups in eastern DRC 

continue to profit from the exploitation 

of minerals, according to the United 

Nations. Congress included a provision 

in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

that, among other things, required SEC 

to promulgate regulations regarding 

the use of conflict minerals from the 

DRC and adjoining countries. The act 

also required Commerce to develop a 

list of worldwide processing facilities 

and to assess IPSAs filed in 

conjunction with SEC disclosures, and 

included provisions for GAO to assess

the SEC regulations’ effectiveness in 

promoting peace and security and 

report on the rate of sexual violence in 

the DRC and adjoining countries.

This report examines (1) company 

disclosures filed in 2015 in response to 

the SEC conflict minerals regulations, 

(2) challenges to companies’ due 

diligence efforts related to the 

processing facilities in conflict minerals 

supply chains and efforts to mitigate 

those challenges, and (3) Commerce’s

actions regarding its conflict mineralsrelated requirements under the DoddFrank Act. The report also provides 

information on sexual violence in the 

DRC and three adjoining countries. 

GAO analyzed a generalizable random 

sample of SEC filings and interviewed 

relevant officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Commerce 

establish a plan outlining steps and 

time frames for assessing the accuracy 

of due diligence processes such as 

IPSAs, and developing the necessary 

expertise to fulfill these requirements.

Commerce concurred with GAO’s 

recommendation.
Page i GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Letter 1

Background 4

Second-Year Filings in Response to SEC Rule Show Increases in 

Companies’ Information about Their Supply Chains, but 

Uncertainties Remain Regarding Most Companies’ Sources of 

Conflict Minerals 16

Uncertainty about Source and Chain of Custody of Conflict 

Minerals at Processing Facilities May Pose Challenges to 

Companies’ Due Diligence Efforts, but Industry and Others’ 

Efforts May Reduce Risks 23

Commerce Has Produced Lists of Conflict Minerals Processing 

Facilities but Has Not Developed Plans to Assess or Advise 

Audits of Conflict Minerals Filings 32

Conclusions 35

Recommendation for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments 36

Appendix I Additional Information Available on Rate of Sexual Violence in 

Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and Adjoining Countries 

since GAO’s August 2015 Report 40

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 46

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Commerce 49

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 50

Figures

Figure 1: The Democratic Republic of the Congo with Provinces 

and Adjoining Countries 5

Figure 2: Capacitor-Grade Tantalum Powder 7

Figure 3: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Flowchart 

Summary of the Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule 12

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Figure 4: Company Determinations from Reasonable Country-ofOrigin Inquiries, 2014 and 2015 18

Figure 5: Simplified Conflict Minerals Supply Chain Showing the 

Path of Companies’ Due Diligence Inquiries 20

Figure 6: General Processing Path of Tungsten 26

Figure 7: Processors May Commingle Ore Concentrate 

Purchased from Multiple Sources 27

Figure 8: Ore from Multiple Sources May Be Commingled at 

Several Stages of Processing 28

Figure 9: Timeline of Population-Based Surveys Estimating the 

Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern Democratic Republic 

of the Congo (DRC), Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi 43

Abbreviations

CFSI Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative

CFTI Conflict-Free Tin Initiative

CMR Conflict Minerals Report

Commerce Department of Commerce

DHS Demographic and Health Survey

Dodd-Frank Act Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

 Protection Act
Page iii GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo

EDGAR Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval

ICGLR International Conference on the Great Lakes 

 Region

IOM International Organization for Migration

IPSA Independent Private Sector Audit

iTSCi ITRI Tin Supply Chain Initiative

LBMA London Bullion Market Association

MONUSCO UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the 

 Democratic Republic of the Congo

NGO nongovernmental organization

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

 Development

RCM Regional Certification Mechanism

RCOI reasonable country-of-origin inquiry

RJC Responsible Jewellery Council

SD Specialized Disclosure

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission 

Securities Exchange Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

 Act

State Department of State

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNFPA United Nations Fund for Population Activities

USAID United States Agency for International 

 Development

USGS United States Geological Survey

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

August 25, 2016

Congressional Committees

Over the past decade, the United States and the international community 

have sought to improve security in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 

(DRC), the site of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. An 

estimate by the International Rescue Committee indicated that since 

1998, more than 5.4 million people have died in the DRC as a result of 

this crisis, which has also destabilized the minerals-rich eastern part of 

the country, created insecurity, displaced thousands of people, and 

perpetuated a cycle of poverty. As we previously reported, illegal armed 

groups and some units of the Congolese national military have committed 

severe human rights abuses and mass killings and profited from the 

illegal exploitation of minerals originating in eastern DRC, particularly in 

the provinces of Nord-Kivu and Sud-Kivu.1 In May 2016, the United 

Nations (UN) reported that although the Armed Forces of the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo conducted military operations against both foreign 

and local armed groups in eastern DRC in 2015, these groups continue to 

control territory and profit from natural resources. Fragmentation of some 

of the armed groups and decreases in troop strength failed to translate 

into significant improvements in security in 2015 in eastern DRC. The UN 

also reported that armed groups continue to generate significant revenue 

from the control, taxation, or looting of all of the “conflict minerals”—gold, 

tin, tantalum, and tungsten—despite the expansion of traceability and due 

diligence efforts to more mining sites in the DRC.2

This report is a continuation of GAO’s annual reporting requirement 

included in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

 1

GAO, The Democratic Republic of the Congo: U.S. Agencies Should Take Further Action 

to Contribute to the Effective Regulation and Control of the Minerals Trade in Eastern 

Democratic Republic of the Congo, GAO-10-1030 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2010). 

2

The Dodd-Frank Act defines “conflict minerals” as columbite-tantalite (coltan), cassiterite, 

gold, wolframite, or their derivatives, or any other mineral or its derivatives that are 

determined by the Secretary of State to be financing conflict in the DRC or an adjoining 

country. See Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1502(e)(4). Columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, and 

wolframite are the ores from which tantalum, tin, and tungsten, respectively, are 

processed. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Protection Act3 (hereafter referred to as the Dodd-Frank Act) that 

addressed the trade in conflict minerals. Section 1502 of the act required

several U.S. agencies—the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 

the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID), and the Department of Commerce (Commerce)—

to take certain actions to implement the act’s conflict minerals provisions. 

For example, Section 1502(b) of the act required SEC, in consultation 

with State, to promulgate disclosure and reporting regulations regarding 

the use of conflict minerals from the DRC and adjoining countries.4 SEC 

adopted its conflict minerals disclosure rule in August 2012.5 Under the 

act, Commerce is responsible for annually submitting a report to 

appropriate congressional committees that includes a list of all known 

conflict minerals processing facilities worldwide and an assessment of the 

Independent Private Sector Audits (IPSA) and other due diligence 

processes described by the Dodd-Frank Act conflict minerals provisions.6

The act also required State, in consultation with USAID, to submit to 

appropriate congressional committees a conflict minerals strategy to 

address the linkages between human rights abuses, armed groups, 

mining of conflict minerals, and commercial products. In addition, the act 

included a provision for GAO to report, beginning in 2012, and annually 

thereafter, on the effectiveness of the SEC rule in promoting peace and 

security in the DRC and adjoining countries and to report annually, 

beginning in 2011, on the rate of sexual violence in war-torn areas of the 

DRC and adjoining countries, among other things.7

To respond to the act, in this report we examine (1) company disclosures 

filed with SEC in 2015 in response to the SEC conflict minerals disclosure 

 3

Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1502, 124 Stat. 1376, 2213-18.

4

Section 1502(b) added section 13(p) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 

78m(p). Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 stat. 1376, 2213-2218.

5

Conflict Minerals, 77 Fed. Reg. 56,274, (Sept. 12, 2012) (codified at 17 C.F.R. § 

240.13p-1).

6

See Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1502(c). Section 1502 of the act defines “appropriate 

congressional committees” to mean the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Financial 

Services of the House of Representatives; and the Committee on Appropriations; the 

Committee on Foreign Relations; the Committee on Finance; and the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.

7

Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1502(d).
Page 3 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

rule, (2) challenges to companies’ due diligence efforts related to the 

processing facilities in conflict minerals supply chains and efforts to 

mitigate those challenges, and (3) Commerce’s actions regarding its 

conflict minerals-related requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act. In 

addition, we provide information on the rate of sexual violence in eastern 

DRC and three adjoining countries—Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda—that 

has become available since we issued our 2015 report (see appendix I).

To address our objectives, we analyzed documents and data and 

interviewed officials from SEC, State, USAID, Commerce, the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS), nongovernmental organizations 

(NGO), industry, and international organizations. To examine company 

disclosures filed with SEC in 2015 in response to the SEC conflict 

minerals disclosure rule, we downloaded Specialized Disclosure reports 

(Form SD) and Conflict Minerals Reports (CMR) from SEC’s publicly 

available Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) 

database. We randomly sampled 100 reports from a population of 1,281 

to create estimates generalizable to the population of all companies that 

filed in response to the SEC rule. All estimates based on our sample have 

a margin of error of plus or minus 10 percentage points or less at the 95-

percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted. We determined for our 

2015 conflict minerals report that the EDGAR database was sufficiently 

reliable for identifying the universe of Form SD filings.8 As described in 

that report, to review the completeness and accuracy of EDGAR 

database, we reviewed relevant documentation, interviewed 

knowledgeable SEC and GAO officials, and reviewed prior GAO reports 

on internal controls related to SEC’s financial systems. We reviewed the 

Dodd-Frank Act and the requirements of the SEC disclosure rule to 

develop a questionnaire that guided our data collection and analysis of 

the filings. We also attended an industry conference on conflict minerals 

and spoke with company representatives to provide additional 

perspective. In the United States and Asia, we met with a range of 

stakeholders, including NGOs, contractors, international organizations, 

and the private sector, and visited conflict minerals processing facilities to 

 8

GAO, SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: Initial Disclosures Indicate Most Companies Were 

Unable to Determine the Source of Their Conflict Minerals, GAO-15-561 (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 18, 2015).
Page 4 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

observe conflict minerals processing and due diligence processes.9 For a 

complete description of our scope and methodology, see appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to August 

2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The DRC is a vast, mineral-rich nation with an estimated population of 

about 75 million people and an area that is roughly one-quarter the size of 

the United States, according to the UN. Figure 1 shows the DRC’s 

provinces and adjoining countries.

 9

We chose to meet with officials and company representatives in Asia as part of our 

fieldwork to address our objective focusing on the processing facility stage of conflict 

minerals supply chains. Asia, led by China, has the largest number of processing facilities 

identified worldwide. We had previously visited and interviewed officials and 

representatives of processing facilities in Europe as part of our fieldwork for a previous 

GAO report on conflict minerals. Moreover, according to officials at State, many of the 

processing facilities that source conflict minerals from the DRC and adjoining countries 

are located in Asia.

Background

Brief History of Conflict in 

the DRC and the Region
Page 5 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Figure 1: The Democratic Republic of the Congo with Provinces and Adjoining Countries
Page 6 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Since its independence in 1960, the DRC has undergone political 

upheaval, including a civil war, according to State. In particular, eastern 

DRC has continued to be plagued by violence, often perpetrated against 

civilians by illegal armed groups and some members of the Congolese 

national military. In November 2012, M-23, an illegal armed group, 

occupied the city of Goma and other cities in eastern DRC and clashed 

with the Congolese national army. During this time, the UN reported 

numerous cases of sexual violence against civilians, including women 

and children, which were perpetrated by armed groups and some 

members of the Congolese national military.

Some of the adjoining countries in the region have also experienced 

recent turmoil, which has led to flows of large numbers of refugees and 

internally displaced persons into the DRC.10 The United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that as of mid-2013,

there were close to 50,000 refugees from the Central African Republic, 

over 120,000 refugees from other countries, and about 2.6 million 

internally displaced persons living in camps or with host families in the 

DRC.

Various industries, particularly manufacturing industries, use the four 

conflict minerals in a wide variety of products. For example, tin is used to 

solder metal pieces and is also found in food packaging, steel coatings on 

automobile parts, and some plastics. Most tantalum is used to 

manufacture tantalum capacitors, which enable energy storage in 

electronic products such as cell phones and computers, or to produce 

alloy additives, used in turbines in jet engines (see fig. 2). Tungsten is 

used in automobile manufacturing, drill bits and cutting tools, and other 

industrial manufacturing tools and is the primary component of filaments 

in light bulbs. Gold is used as reserves and in jewelry and is also used by 

the electronics industry, including, for example, in cell phones and 

laptops.

 10According to the UN, internally displaced persons are people who have not crossed an 

international border but have moved to a different region than the one they consider home 

to escape war, persecution, or terror.

Uses of Conflict Minerals
Page 7 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Figure 2: Capacitor-Grade Tantalum Powder

Conflict minerals are mined in various locations around the world. For 

example, tin is predominantly mined in China, Indonesia, Peru, and 

Bolivia, as well as in the DRC, while tantalum is reportedly predominantly 

mined in areas such as Australia, Brazil, and Canada. Gold, however, is 

mined in many different countries, including the DRC.

Congress has focused on issues related to the DRC for more than a 

decade. In 2006, Congress passed the Democratic Republic of Congo 

Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006, stating that U.S.

policy is to engage with governments working for peace and security 

throughout the DRC and hold accountable any individuals, entities, and 

countries working to destabilize the country.11 In July 2010, Congress 

 11Pub. L. No. 109-456, § 102(14), 120 Stat. 3384.

U.S. Government 

Response to Conflict in 

the DRC
Page 8 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

passed the Dodd-Frank Act, of which Section 1502 included several 

provisions concerning conflict minerals in the DRC and adjoining 

countries.12 The act requires SEC, State, USAID, and Commerce to take 

steps on matters related to the implementation of those provisions (see 

text box).

As we have previously reported, SEC, State, USAID, and Commerce 

have each taken steps to address the provisions of the act.13

SEC adopted its conflict minerals disclosure rule in August 2012 and 

published the adopting release in the Federal Register in September 

201214 in response to Section 1502(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The act 

required that SEC promulgate disclosure and reporting regulations 

regarding the use of conflict minerals from the DRC and adjoining 

 12Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1502.

13GAO-15-561.

1477 Fed. Reg. 56,274. According to SEC, when SEC proposes or adopts a set of rules, 

those rules are published in a document called a “proposing release” or “adopting 

release.”

SEC Promulgated the 

Conflict Minerals 

Disclosure Rule in 2012
Page 9 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

countries (or “Covered Countries”)15 by April 2011. In its summary of the 

rule, SEC noted that to accomplish the goal of helping to end the human 

rights abuses in the DRC caused by the conflict, Congress chose to use 

the securities laws disclosure requirements to bring greater public 

awareness of the source of companies’

16 conflict minerals and to promote 

the exercise of due diligence on conflict mineral supply chains.17

In the SEC adopting release, SEC noted that it understood Congress’s 

main purpose in doing so was to attempt to inhibit the ability of armed 

groups in the DRC and adjoining countries to fund their activities by 

exploiting the trade in conflict minerals. According to SEC, Congress’s 

objective was to promote peace and security, and reducing the use of 

such conflict minerals was intended to help reduce funding for the armed 

groups contributing to the conflict and thereby put pressure on such 

groups to end the conflict. SEC also indicated that one of the cosponsors 

of the provision noted that the provision would “enhance transparency”

and “also help American consumers and investors make more informed 

decisions.”18

The rule requires companies to file a Specialized Disclosure report (Form 

SD) if they manufacture or contract to have manufactured products that 

 15The term “adjoining country” is defined in Section 1502(e)(1) of the act as a country that 

shares an internationally recognized border with the DRC, which included Angola, 

Burundi, Central African Republic, the Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, South Sudan, 

Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia at the time that SEC issued its conflict minerals rule. Pub. 

L. No. 111-203, § 1502. For the purposes of the conflict minerals rule, SEC refers to these 

countries as “Covered Countries.”

16The rule uses the term “issuers.” As adopted, the final rule applies to any issuer that files 

reports with SEC under Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a) and 78o(d)) and uses conflict minerals that are necessary to 

the functionality or production of a product manufactured or contracted by that issuer to be 

manufactured. For the purposes of our report, we refer to those issuers affected by the 

rule as “companies.”

17The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines “due 

diligence” as an ongoing, proactive, and reactive process through which companies can 

ensure that they respect human rights and do not contribute to conflict. Due diligence can 

also help companies ensure that they observe international law and comply with domestic 

laws, including those governing the illicit trade in minerals and UN sanctions. Risk-based 

due diligence refers to the steps companies should take to identify and address actual or 

potential risks in order to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts associated with their 

activities or sourcing decisions.

1877 Fed. Reg. 56,274. 
Page 10 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

contain conflict minerals necessary to the functionality or production of 

those products and, as applicable, file a CMR. The form provides general 

instructions to companies for filing the conflict minerals disclosure and 

specifies the information that their Forms SD and conflict minerals reports 

must include. Companies were required to file under the rule for the first 

time by June 2, 2014, and annually thereafter on May 31.19

Companies filed for the second time in response to the SEC rule in 2015 

on conflict minerals used in calendar year 2014. As we previously 

reported, SEC adopted the final conflict minerals disclosure rule on 

August 22, 2012.20 As adopted, the final rule applies to any company that 

files reports with SEC under Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 193421 and uses conflict minerals that are 

necessary to the functionality or production of a product manufactured or 

contracted by that company to be manufactured.22 The SEC conflict 

minerals disclosure rule details a process for companies to follow, as 

applicable, to comply with the rule. Broadly, the process falls into three 

steps requiring a company to (1) determine whether it manufactures or 

contracts to have manufactured products with “necessary” conflict 

minerals; (2) conduct a reasonable country-of-origin inquiry (RCOI) 

concerning the origin of conflict minerals used; and (3) exercise due 

diligence, if appropriate, to determine the source and chain of custody of 

conflict minerals used. Companies that disclose that their products are 

DRC Conflict Free are required under the SEC rule and SEC staff 

guidance to include documentation of an Independent Private Sector 

 19The first filing by the SEC-reporting companies was set for June 2, 2014, because May 

31, 2014 occurred on a weekend. As explained in the SEC adopting release published in 

the Federal Register, if the deadline for filing the conflict minerals disclosure report occurs 

on a weekend, or a holiday on which SEC is not open for business, then the deadline shall 

be the next business day. 

20GAO-15-561.

2115 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a) and 78o(d).

2277 Fed. Reg. 56,274.
Page 11 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Audit (IPSA) in their disclosure.23 Figure 3 depicts SEC’s flowchart 

summary for the conflict minerals disclosure rule.24

 23Keith F. Higgins, Director, SEC Division of Corporation Finance, Statement on the Effect 

of the Recent Court of Appeals Decision on the Conflict Minerals Rule (Apr. 29, 2014), 

available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PublicStmt/Detail/PublicStmt/1370541681994. 

24SEC notes that the flowchart is intended merely as a guide and that companies should 

refer to the rule text and the preamble’s narrative description for the requirements of the 

rule. While our discussion in this section is guided by the SEC flowchart, for the purposes 

of this report, we do not elaborate on every element in the flowchart. 
Page 12 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Figure 3: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Flowchart Summary of the Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule
Page 13 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Supply chains for companies using tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold 

generally begin at the mine site, where ore is extracted from the ground 

with mechanized or artisanal mining techniques. However, these supply 

chains can be complex and vary considerably, according to some industry 

association and company representatives. For example, in the “upstream”

segment of the supply chain—that is, from mine to processing facility—

ore may be purchased by a local trader and then by an exporter, who 

ships it to a processing facility, such as a smelter, for refinement; in other 

cases, the ore may be sold directly to an exporter. The “downstream”

segments of conflict mineral supply chains—that is, from processing 

facility to manufacturer—may vary as well, depending, in part, on the type 

of mineral.

Processing facilities are considered the “choke points” in the supply 

chain, since a limited number of such facilities process conflict minerals 

worldwide and the origin of the minerals after processing can be difficult 

to verify. Processing facilities primarily provide high-purity tin, tantalum, 

and tungsten directly to component parts manufacturers, although some 

sell high-purity metals through traders or exchanges. Gold refiners 

typically sell high-purity gold to banks or to international exchanges where 

gold is bought and sold, although some refiners sell gold directly to 

manufacturers; banks and traders may also sell gold to manufacturers, 

including jewelry and component parts manufacturers. Component parts 

manufacturers use the refined tin, tantalum, tungsten, or gold to construct 

individual parts—such as capacitors, engine parts, or clasps for 

necklaces—that they sell to equipment manufacturers. The original 

equipment manufacturers complete the final assembly of a product and 

sell the final product to the consumer.

Various stakeholders—including governments, industry associations, 

international organizations, and international and local NGOs working in 

the Great Lakes Region—operate or support initiatives to promote and 

exercise responsible sourcing of conflict minerals. Stakeholder-developed 

initiatives—which include the development of guidance documents, audit 

protocols, and sourcing practices—put themselves out as supporting

efforts by companies reporting to SEC under the rule to (1) conduct due 

diligence of their conflict minerals supply chain, (2) identify the source of 

conflict minerals within their supply chain, and (3) responsibly source 

conflict minerals.

The initiatives can be divided into two categories: global or in-region. 

Most responsible sourcing initiatives follow the Organisation for Economic 

Conflict Minerals Supply 

Chain

Responsible Sourcing 

Initiatives
Page 14 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) due diligence guidance. The 

guidance is for use by any company potentially sourcing minerals or 

metals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas and, according to the 

OECD, is one of the only international frameworks available to help 

companies meet their due diligence reporting requirements.25 Global 

sourcing initiatives, such as the Conflict-Free Smelter Program, the 

Responsible Gold Program, and the Chain-of-Custody Certification 

Program, may minimize the risk that minerals that have been exploited by 

illegal armed groups will enter the supply chain and may also support 

companies’ efforts to identify the source of the conflict minerals across 

the supply chain around the world. In-region sourcing initiatives, such as 

the Conflict-Free Tin Initiative (CFTI), the International Conference on the 

Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) regional certification mechanism, and the 

ITRI Tin Supply Chain Initiative (iTSCi), may support responsible sourcing 

of conflict minerals from Central Africa and the identification of specific 

mines of origin for those minerals. Such initiatives in the DRC and 

adjoining countries focus on tracing minerals from the mine to the 

processing facility by supporting a bagging-and-tagging program or some 

type of traceability scheme. Below are the descriptions of these initiatives.

Global Initiatives

• Conflict-Free Smelter Program: The flagship program of the ConflictFree Sourcing Initiative (CFSI) is a voluntary program in which 

processing facilities undergo an independent third-party audit, in 

accordance with the OECD due diligence guidance, to verify the origin 

of minerals processed at their facilities. The Electronic Industry 

Citizenship Coalition and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative have 

also developed audit protocols for the program in consultation with a 

number of stakeholders—including NGOs, smelters, component 

manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers, and industry 

associations within and outside the electronics industry—to ensure 

widespread support for the program.

• Responsible Gold Program: The London Bullion Market Association 

(LBMA), which represents the global market for gold and silver, 

 25The OECD guidance, according to OECD officials, is not only for companies performing 

conflict minerals-related due diligence. It is general and can be used by organizations 

anywhere in the world that seek to establish a due diligence program that meets 

international standards. 
Page 15 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

established its Responsible Gold Guidance in January 2012 to ensure 

that the gold refiners it accredits purchase only conflict-free gold. The 

refiners accredited by LBMA are required to complete an annual thirdparty audit to verify their compliance with the LBMA guidance, 

according to an LBMA official. According to LMBA, compliance with 

this framework is mandatory for all refiners wishing to sell into the 

London Bullion Market.

• Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) Chain-of-Custody Certification 

Program: The RJC—a diamond and precious metals industry 

association—launched a chain-of-custody certification program in 

March 2012 to help its member companies identify and track conflictfree gold throughout their supply chains. The program’s requirements, 

which are aligned with the OECD due diligence guidance for gold, 

include a third-party audit of each certified entity to ensure that its gold 

is conflict free, according to the RJC. According to an official with the 

RJC, this certification can support companies’ compliance with the 

Dodd-Frank Act.

In-Region Sourcing Initiatives

• CFTI: The CFTI, a multistakeholder effort, is a closed-pipeline 

initiative that started in October 2012 for sourcing tin from the SudKivu Province of the DRC. According to CFTI, the initiative has 

expanded its mining operation to Maniema, a province bordering SudKivu, which is less prone to conflict and where the government is 

reinvesting tax income into the mining communities.

• ICGLR Regional Certification Mechanism (RCM): In 2010, ICGLR 

began working with an NGO to develop a regional certification 

mechanism to ensure that conflict minerals are fully traceable.26

ICGLR’s RCM enables member countries and their mining companies 

to demonstrate where and under what conditions minerals were 

produced, allowing member governments to issue ICGLR regional 

certificates for those mineral shipments that are in compliance with 

the standards of the mechanism. The ICGLR issued its first certificate 

in November 2013 to a mine in Rwanda.

 26ICGLR is composed of 12 member states: Angola, Burundi, the Central African 

Republic, the Republic of the Congo, the DRC, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan, 

Sudan, Tanzania, and Zambia.
Page 16 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

• iTSCi: iTSCi works with “upstream” entities (i.e., companies involved 

in the conflict minerals supply chain from mine to smelter) that seek to 

institute actions, structures, and processes that conform with the 

OECD due diligence guidance and helps relevant U.S. companies 

report on their due diligence efforts, as required by the Dodd-Frank 

Act and SEC rule. The assistance that iTSCi provides includes a 

system to trace bags of minerals from the mines to the exporter, due 

diligence audits of iTSCi’s member companies, and assessments of 

the political and security situations, which have been conducted at 

various mine sites in the DRC and Rwanda.

The number of companies that filed conflict minerals disclosures in 

2015—the second year of filing—is about the same as in the first year, 

with a majority being domestic companies. A higher estimated percentage 

of companies in 2015, compared to 2014, disclosed that they knew or had 

reason to believe they knew the source of the conflict minerals in their 

products as a result of performing an RCOI, which indicates that they 

have more information about their supply chains. However, after 

performing due diligence, as in 2014, a majority of the companies 

ultimately reported that they were unable to determine the country of 

origin of the conflict minerals in their products and whether or not such 

minerals benefited or financed armed groups in the Covered Countries. 

Companies reported a range of actions they have taken or plan to take to 

build upon or improve their due diligence efforts, but we did not verify the 

actions companies reported having taken.

The number of companies that filed conflict minerals disclosures in 2015 

is 1,283, slightly lower than the 1,321 that filed in 2014 (see fig. 3, step 

1).27 Based on our analysis of a sample of 2015 filings, an estimated 86 

percent of the companies that filed in 2015 were domestic, while the 

remainder (an estimated 14 percent), were foreign companies, similar to

the percentages in 2014.28 Also, our analysis of the filings shows that all 

four of the conflict minerals were used in 2015. Specifically, while not all 

 27GAO-15-561.

28Our generalizable sample of 100 filings for 2015 resulted in confidence intervals of +/-

10 percent, except where noted. 

Second-Year Filings 

in Response to SEC 

Rule Show Increases 

in Companies’

Information about 

Their Supply Chains, 

but Uncertainties 

Remain Regarding 

Most Companies’

Sources of Conflict 

Minerals

About as Many 

Companies Filed Conflict 

Minerals Disclosures in 

2015 as in 2014
Page 17 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

companies reported the conflict minerals they used,29 of those that did, an 

estimated 55 percent reported using tin, 40 percent reported using 

tantalum, 37 percent reported using tungsten, and 48 percent reported 

using gold.

Based on our analysis of a generalizable sample of 2015 filings, almost 

all companies that filed conflict minerals disclosures in 2015 indicated that 

they performed an RCOI (see fig. 3, step 2.1). Specifically, an estimated 

99 percent of the companies reported that they performed an RCOI, 

similar to the percentage that reported doing so in 2014.30 Our analysis 

also estimates that a higher percentage of companies in 2015 indicated 

knowing more about their supply chains as a result of the RCOI than in 

2014. As a result of the increases in information collected from RCOI 

surveys of their suppliers, an estimated 19 percent more companies 

reported in 2015 being able to make a determination on whether or not 

the conflict minerals in their products came from Covered Countries than 

in 2014 (see fig. 4).31

 29As we noted in our 2015 report, there is no requirement in the SEC rule for companies 

to disclose which conflict minerals they used.

30If a company determines that it is subject to the SEC conflict minerals disclosure rule, 

the company is required to conduct a reasonable country-of-origin inquiry regarding the 

origin of its conflict minerals and disclose its determination in a Form SD (illustrated by 

step 2.1 of fig. 3). The rule does not prescribe the specific actions that are required for an 

RCOI, noting that it will depend on each company’s facts and circumstances. However, 

the rule provides general standards: A company must conduct an inquiry regarding the 

origin of its conflict minerals that is reasonably designed to determine whether any of its 

conflict minerals originated in the Covered Countries or are from recycled or scrap 

sources and must conduct the inquiry in good faith. 

31This year-to-year change in the percentage of companies able to make a determination 

of country of origin is statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level. The rule 

recognizes that a company, after conducting an RCOI, may not know whether its conflict 

minerals originated from a Covered Country. For example, the rule explains that a 

company should perform due diligence on the source and chain of custody of its conflict 

minerals if it knows or has a reason to believe that its necessary conflict minerals may 

have originated in the Covered Countries and may not have come from recycled or scrap 

sources. 

Almost All Filers in 2015 

Performed an RCOI, and 

Inquiries Show Increases 

in Companies’ Knowledge 

about Their Supply Chains
Page 18 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Figure 4: Company Determinations from Reasonable Country-of-Origin Inquiries, 2014 and 2015

Companies reported similar overall rates of information received from 

suppliers in response to their RCOI information requests about the use, 

source, and/or processor of the conflict minerals in their products. In 

2015, an estimated 99 percent of companies reported surveying their 

suppliers for information, a percentage similar to the estimated 96 percent

in 2014. We estimated that a similar number of companies reported that 

they received responses from suppliers in 2015 (55 percent) as in 2014 

(47 percent). Of those companies reporting responses from suppliers in 

2015, supplier response rates ranged from 22 percent to 100 percent, 

with an estimated average of 81 percent responding. Companies’
Page 19 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

methods for selecting how many and which suppliers to survey varied, but 

an estimated 75 percent of filing companies reported using a template 

produced by CFSI, an industry group.

Some filings and representatives of some companies we interviewed 

reported difficulties in getting sufficient information from all suppliers to 

enable them to determine the country of origin of all conflict minerals in 

their products. Some companies reported in their filings that they could 

not determine the country of origin of some of their conflict minerals 

because some suppliers did not respond to requests for information. For 

example, one company reported that it did not receive survey responses 

from 23 of its 38 suppliers. Additionally, representatives of some 

companies that we spoke with told us that they received information from 

suppliers that was incomplete, limiting their ability to determine the source 

and chain of custody of the conflict minerals in their products. However, 

several companies reported in their filings or in interviews that they made 

efforts to follow up with suppliers that did not reply to survey requests, 

resulting in an increased response rate.

Despite some improvement in companies learning about the source of 

their conflict minerals by performing an RCOI, the difficulty expressed by 

companies in obtaining information from suppliers to facilitate a countryof-origin determination seems to reflect the dynamics of the conflict 

minerals supply chain that we have previously described.32 As we have 

previously reported, a company’s supply chain can involve multiple tiers 

of suppliers, potentially delaying a company’s request for information 

about upstream companies. For example, companies required to report 

under the rule could submit the inquiries to their first-tier suppliers. Those 

suppliers could either provide the reporting company with sufficient 

information or initiate the inquiry process up the supply chain, such as by 

distributing the inquiries to suppliers at the next tier—tier 2 suppliers. The 

tier 2 suppliers could inquire up the supply chain to their suppliers (tier 3), 

and this process could continue until inquiries reached the processing 

facility level. Each tier could add time to the process. Processors could 

then provide the requested information about the origin of the conflict 

minerals. Figure 5 illustrates the flow of information through the supply 

chain.

 32GAO, SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: Information on Responsible Sourcing and Companies 

Affected, GAO-13-689 (Washington D.C.: July 18, 2013). See also GAO-15-561.
Page 20 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Figure 5: Simplified Conflict Minerals Supply Chain Showing the Path of 

Companies’ Due Diligence Inquiries

Although a higher percentage of companies reported that they were able 

to make a determination about the country of origin based on their RCOI 

than in 2014, after conducting due diligence, the majority were unable to 

confirm the origin of the conflict minerals in their products or whether the 

minerals financed or benefited armed groups in the Covered Countries.33

According to the SEC rule, based on a company’s RCOI, if a company 

knows its conflict minerals originated in the Covered Countries and did 

not come from recycled or scrap sources or has reason to believe that 

they may have originated in the Covered Countries and may not have 

come from recycled or scrap sources, the next step is to exercise due 

diligence using a nationally or internationally recognized due diligence 

 33We asked SEC staff to define “source and chain of custody of conflict minerals” in the 

context of a company’s exercise of due diligence. SEC staff noted that SEC did not define 

these terms as the terms were taken from Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act and did not 

specifically address in its releases how chain of custody relates to benefitting or financing 

armed groups. However, as depicted in figure 3, exercise of due diligence on source and 

chain of custody is associated with a company’s ability to determine whether its conflict 

minerals are not from Covered Countries or are from scrap or recycled sources (see fig. 3, 

step 3.1), and whether its conflict minerals financed or benefited armed groups (step 3.3). 

Companies Reported 

Performing Due Diligence, 

but the Majority Were Still 

Unable to Confirm the 

Origin of Their Products’

Conflict Minerals or 

Whether They Benefited 

Armed Groups
Page 21 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

framework, if such a framework is available for the necessary conflict 

minerals (see fig. 3, step 3.1).34

An estimated 80 percent of all companies that performed an RCOI in 

2015—which is almost all companies that filed a Form SD with SEC—

reported that they exercised due diligence. Of these, an estimated 94 

percent (similar to the estimated 92 percent in 2014) reported using the 

OECD framework to perform due diligence, but descriptions of 

companies’ efforts to implement the framework varied widely. For 

example, some companies stated that they followed the framework 

without providing descriptive detail for each step of the framework, while 

other companies documented their implementation of each step. Some 

companies also identified other resources, such as information from 

CFSI, LBMA, RJC, and Commerce, as additional verification of their 

survey results. Based on our analysis, an estimated 79 percent of the 

companies should have filed a conflict minerals report as an exhibit to the 

Form SD (similar to an estimated 71 percent in 2014); almost all—an 

estimated 97 percent—of those companies did so.

A majority of the companies that performed due diligence reported that 

they were ultimately unable to confirm the origin of their products’ conflict 

minerals or whether the minerals financed or benefited armed groups. 

According to our analysis, an estimated 67 percent of the companies that 

performed due diligence determined that they could not definitively 

identify the origin of the conflict minerals in their products based on the 

due diligence they performed. A small percentage—an estimated 3 

percent—of companies that indicated they performed due diligence 

reported in 2015 that they were able to determine whether conflict 

minerals in some of their products financed or benefited armed groups. 

These companies all reported that they determined that some of the 

 34While SEC did not specifically mandate the framework to be used, the SEC adopting 

release noted that it appeared the only nationally or internationally recognized due 

diligence framework available was the due diligence guidance approved by the OECD. 

The OECD due diligence guidance, which OECD adopted in 2011, includes supplements 

on tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold. The framework’s five steps are (1) establishing strong 

company management systems, (2) identifying and assessing risk in the supply chain, (3) 

designing and implementing a strategy to respond to identified risks, (4) carrying out an 

independent third-party audit of supply chain due diligence at identified points in the 

supply chain, and (5) reporting on supply chain due diligence. Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply 

Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas: Second Edition, OECD 

Publishing (2013), accessed June 23, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264185050-en.
Page 22 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

conflict minerals in their products did not benefit or finance armed groups 

in the Covered Countries.35 Moreover, these companies chose to label 

their products as “DRC Conflict Free.” A company that labels any of its

products as DRC Conflict Free is required under SEC guidance to include 

in its CMR a certification that it obtained an IPSA. In our sample, we 

found that two companies should have included a certification that they 

obtained an IPSA and we found that one of them did. In total, six 

companies filed an IPSA during the 2015 filing year.

The SEC rule allows a temporary period during which, if after exercising 

due diligence for source and chain of custody of conflict minerals used in 

their products, companies remain unable to determine the origin of 

conflict minerals used and whether those minerals financed or benefitted 

armed groups, those companies can describe their products as “DRC 

Conflict Undeterminable” in their CMR. Under the rule, the temporary 

period was in place for 2 years for all companies and is in place for 4 

years for smaller reporting companies following the effective date of the 

rule. However, because of continuing litigation in a legal challenge to the 

conflict minerals rule, SEC staff has issued guidance stating, among other 

things, that companies are not required to describe their products as 

“DRC Conflict Undeterminable” or having “not been found to be ‘DRC 

Conflict Free.’”36 According to our analysis, an estimated 30 percent of 

companies described their products as “DRC Conflict Undeterminable.”

 35Our analysis of the 2014 filings found no companies that reported being able to 

determine whether conflict minerals in their products financed or benefited armed groups.

36Additionally, under the SEC staff guidance, an IPSA is not required unless a company 

voluntarily elects to describe a product as “DRC Conflict Free” in its CMR. See National 

Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. SEC et al., 800 F.3d 518 (D.C. Cir. 2015) and Keith 

F. Higgins, Director, SEC Division of Corporation Finance, Statement on the Effect of the 

Recent Court of Appeals Decision on the Conflict Minerals Rule (Apr. 29, 2014), available 

at http://www.sec.gov/News/PublicStmt/Detail/PublicStmt/1370541681994 Also, because 

of the continuing litigation, in 2014, the SEC issued a partial stay order, see SEC Issues 

Partial Stay of conflict Minerals Rules, available at 

https://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370541720516.
Page 23 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Based on our review of company filings and interviews with 

representatives of select companies that filed, some companies indicated 

they are or will be taking action to build upon or improve their due 

diligence efforts. Companies indicated, for example, that they either 

planned or performed the following actions:

• Shifting operations or encouraging those in their supply chain to shift 

from current suppliers to suppliers who are certified as conflict-free.

• Including language in new supplier contracts regarding the company’s 

expectations relating to conflict minerals.

• Continuing follow-up with suppliers that have not replied to survey 

requests for information or when there are questions regarding 

supplier responses.

• Providing training to suppliers on conflict minerals due diligence.

37

SEC-filing companies face challenges in their due diligence efforts related 

to uncertainty about the source and chain of custody of conflict minerals 

processed by processing facilities because (1) these facilities generally 

rely on documentary evidence from upstream stakeholders that may be 

susceptible to fraud, and (2) the complexity of processing operations also

introduces fraud risk and may increase the cost associated with 

disclosure efforts. However, a number of industry programs and other 

emerging initiatives aim to help companies reduce risks.

 37We did not verify any actions companies reported having taken.

Companies Reported a 

Range of Actions They 

Have Taken or Plan to 

Take to Build Upon or 

Improve Due Diligence 

Efforts

Uncertainty about 

Source and Chain of 

Custody of Conflict 

Minerals at 

Processing Facilities 

May Pose Challenges 

to Companies’ Due 

Diligence Efforts, but 

Industry and Others’

Efforts May Reduce 

Risks
Page 24 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Due diligence efforts at the processing facility level are made more 

challenging by uncertainties about source and chain of custody of conflict 

minerals in earlier stages of the supply chain. Processing facilities rely on 

paper documentation from miners and exporters for information on source 

and chain of custody, which, according to some industry officials, could 

be susceptible to fraud. Ore may pass through a number of traders and 

exporters before reaching a processing facility.38 The documentation of 

these stages may be falsified by smugglers or be incomplete, which may 

mask the actual source of the minerals being traded, according to some 

experts. Some programs exist to certify the chain of custody of minerals 

in some countries, but, as we have previously reported, these programs 

face operational challenges, including lack of infrastructure and 

government support.39 OECD reported in 2013 that as long as there are 

no traceability or certification schemes in place that cover the whole 

region, smuggling and contamination of conflict-free materials will 

continue to pose a threat to due diligence initiatives. There are challenges 

to the integrity of these programs. For example, a 2015 UN Group of 

Experts report documented the black-market sale of tin supply chain 

initiative tags; officials obtained two such illicit tags in the DRC and two in 

Rwanda. As we have previously reported, some agency officials and 

officials we interviewed from industry, NGOs, and international 

organizations commented that the DRC government lacks capacity to 

mitigate corruption and smuggling of conflict minerals.40 The UN Group of 

Experts reported in 2015 that, while there has been progress on 

traceability and due diligence efforts concerning minerals produced in the 

DRC, smuggling continues, and there is scant evidence of interest in 

traceability and due diligence by the governments of the DRC and 

Burundi.

 38As we have previously reported, ore may be purchased from a mine site by a local 

processor or trader and then by an exporter, who ships it to a processing facility; in other 

cases, the ore may be sold directly to an exporter. For artisanal mining, the local 

processor or trader (which may be an individual or company) purchases minerals directly 

from the mine sites and typically performs basic upgrading, such as concentration, before 

selling them to an exporter. Exporters may carry out upgrading before exporting materials 

to a processing facility.

39GAO, Conflict Minerals: Stakeholder Options for Responsible Sourcing Are Expanding, 

but More Information on Smelters Is Needed. GAO-14-575 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 

2014).

40GAO-13-689.

Uncertainty about Source 

and Chain of Custody as 

Well as Processing 

Complexities Make Due 

Diligence Efforts 

Challenging
Page 25 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Disclosure efforts at the processing-facility level are also made more 

difficult by the complexity of processing operations. As shown in figure 6, 

mineral processing may require many stages and distinct intermediate 

products. According to USGS officials, many processors perform only 

some of the refining work before selling intermediate products to other 

processors. Therefore, according to these officials, with each additional 

processing stage it becomes increasingly likely that minerals will change 

hands, complicating due diligence efforts that depend on chain-of-custody 

documentation by increasing opportunities for fraud or error, such as 

falsified source-of-origin documentation. Even within the context of a 

vertically integrated processor, such as a single company that performs 

all of the steps to turn raw concentrate into refined products sold to 

industry—processing may take place in multiple facilities located in 

different regions of the world.
Page 26 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Figure 6: General Processing Path of Tungsten

Tungsten processing, similar to tantalum, involves many stages and includes buying and selling of intermediate products by multiple 

processors, complicating due diligence efforts.
Page 27 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Further, processing companies may purchase products from multiple 

suppliers, commingling the products. Commingling can occur at multiple 

stages of processing, complicating due diligence efforts. “Primary” 

processing facilities, which upgrade ore concentrate into metal, may

source concentrate from multiple locations. These may be combined prior

to processing into a product with a higher purity or a different chemical

identity (as shown in fig. 7, a photograph we took at a processing facility 

in Asia). Moreover, intermediate products with different locations of origin 

may exchange hands at numerous stages. This “secondary” processingfacility commingling further complicates due diligence efforts to identify 

primary processing facilities and locations of origin because it adds 

points in mineral processing where fraud and error can be introduced 

(see fig. 8). In addition, it introduces additional points where downstream 

companies’ due diligence efforts to identify the source of their minerals 

can break down. 

Figure 7: Processors May Commingle Ore Concentrate Purchased from Multiple 

Sources
Page 28 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Figure 8: Ore from Multiple Sources May Be Commingled at Several Stages of Processing

In this example, Companies 1 and 2 have similar business models but only Company 1’s minerals are conflict free. Company 3 

purchases intermediates (such as a powder) from 1 and 2, which are commingled to produce refined, non-conflict-free metal.

Sourcing and chain-of-custody complexities, which companies reported to 

be a challenge, may increase the cost required for disclosure efforts or 

result in missing information. Several of the filings we reviewed indicate 

that suppliers could identify all of their suppliers but not the suppliers used 

for a particular batch of output, because they did not have the ability to 

track production in such detail. As a result, companies completing 

disclosure efforts may have needed to survey and examine many secondlevel suppliers from whom they did not actually source minerals, as well 

as suppliers of these second-level suppliers and their respective 
Page 29 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

processing facilities. Additional disclosure efforts may be needed because 

each refined form of tantalum and tungsten used, such as tantalum ingot, 

tantalum oxide, or tungsten carbide powder, follows from a production 

process that branches into distinct intermediate products. Many “primary”

processing facilities, which turn ore or concentrate into a different 

downstream product, produce a limited range of possible intermediate 

products for a given mineral. As a result, the chain of custody for each 

refined form of mineral used, not simply each mineral type, may need to 

be examined independently. Moreover, many companies reported that 

only a portion of their suppliers responded to surveys requesting 

information about the source and chain of custody of conflict minerals 

acquired through them. A company’s missing information from its 

suppliers at one level may result in its having incomplete information from 

all suppliers earlier in the supply chain. Without information on all 

companies in its supply chain, a company cannot report knowing the 

source of all of its conflict minerals or whether any of its conflict minerals 

benefited armed groups.

Industry participants may be reducing the cost of the disclosure process 

by encouraging the participation of processing facilities in conflict-free 

certification programs and through efforts to standardize the audit 

process. According to CFSI and OECD officials, CFSI, LBMA, RJC, and 

other industry groups are working to better align their programs with 

OECD’s due diligence guidance that can be used for conflict minerals 

disclosures, which SEC officials said is the most established due 

diligence framework for conflict minerals filings under Section 1502 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act.41 According to SEC officials, SEC’s conflict mineral 

processing facility disclosure requirements and terminology are intended 

to be consistent with OECD’s processing facility standards and 

definitions, which were the only established due diligence standards at 

the time SEC’s final rule was being prepared. According to CFSI officials, 

alignment on these standards reduces the need for redundant audits and 

encourages participation because it allows for cross-recognition of 

conflict-free certification by CFSI, LBMA, and RJC; in turn, according to 

OECD officials, downstream companies rely on these certifications in 

order to efficiently complete the disclosure process. A 2016 OECD report 

 41We found that nearly all companies exercising due diligence in both 2015 (the second 

year of filings) and 2014 (the first year of filings) reported using OECD’s framework.

Efforts May Mitigate 

Challenges of Disclosure 

Efforts at the Processing 

Facility Level
Page 30 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

noted that all major industry certification initiatives at the processing 

facility level, including CFSI, LBMA, and RJC, among others, are 

designed to implement OECD’s framework and explicitly use it as their 

benchmark. OECD’s report also notes that, as of March 2015, nearly 100 

percent of globally identified tantalum processors, 54 percent of gold 

refiners (representing nearly 90 percent of all production), and 65 percent 

of tin processors (approximately 80 percent of all smelted tin production) 

participate to some degree in an industry audit program designed to 

implement OECD’s framework. Similarly, CFSI officials said that the 

number of facilities certified by their program has increased from 2

processors 5 years ago to 215 as of April 2015. According to OECD and 

CFSI officials, there is currently an ongoing external review of CFSI, 

LBMA, and RJC processes by OECD to ensure alignment with OECD 

guidelines, which OECD officials said is likely to be completed by early 

2017.

Industry participants are also improving the completeness of information 

available for the audit process by working with CFSI to identify and 

develop improvements to tools and database systems and by taking 

steps to educate companies directly, which, according to industry 

participants, are facilitating disclosure efforts. For example, CFSI officials 

said that, in 2016, their public processing-facility list has been linked to a 

database of live information, which may help companies conducting due 

diligence. These officials also said that the tool is being revised to align 

with global trade association standards on data exchange. According to 

these officials, CFSI is also working on its processing-facility database 

with industry participants to actively identify and investigate new 

processing facilities, which has helped to provide information for 

disclosure efforts. These officials said that CFSI has gathered information 

on 332 processors in its database as of April 2016 (of which 214, or about 

64 percent, are compliant with CFSI’s standards). Some companies are 

taking direct steps to encourage industry participants to participate in 

these industry certification programs. Several companies told us that they 

are actively reaching out to their suppliers to inform them about conflict 

minerals rules, encouraging them to participate in industry programs, and 

offering compliance training. Several companies and an industry group 

told us that some companies are threatening to switch suppliers if their 

suppliers do not join conflict-free certification programs. Information may 

also flow in the other direction. One company we spoke with said that its 

primary processing facility had reached out to educate it about conflict 

minerals regulations and had provided extensive training on U.S. 

disclosure requirements; this company is now using only conflict-free 

minerals as a result.
Page 31 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Additionally, industry participants are developing new technologies, such 

as “chemical fingerprinting,” to mitigate the risk of documentation fraud, 

which may supplement existing certification efforts. Chemical 

fingerprinting technology allows minerals to be traced to a location of 

origin based on distinct chemical signatures. At least two distinct methods 

of chemical fingerprinting are available for use with conflict minerals to 

confirm location of origin;

42 however, neither is presently in wide use. 

Both methods depend on databases in order to function, but the 

databases are not yet sufficiently developed for reliable use.43 Both have 

been characterized by experts as potential supplements to chain-ofcustody controls.

However, there are limitations to these efforts to mitigate challenges to 

due diligence efforts. OECD officials noted that industry certification 

programs sometimes engage in inefficient and redundant auditing, 

increasing compliance costs, and that downstream companies do not 

always rigorously scrutinize certification statements, which, if done, might 

boost the credibility of due diligence efforts. According to these officials 

and officials we met at processing facilities in Asia, downstream 

companies also do not shoulder much of the auditing cost burden placed 

on upstream companies, which may be reducing participation. Further, 

OECD reported in 2016 that upstream companies and certification 

initiatives have struggled with the significant cost of conflict minerals 

traceability programs and voiced their concerns about downstream 

 42According to a supplier of the technology, Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma 

Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) enables highly sensitive elemental and isotopic analysis 

to be performed directly on solid samples. According to this company, Laser Induced 

Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) uses a short laser pulse to create a microplasma on the 

sample surface that can be analyzed for chemical composition. According to an official 

from the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany (BGR), BGR is working with local 

governments to integrate LA-ICP-MS into conflict mineral supply chain management 

operations. According to an academic expert, the cost per unit for LA-ICP-MS systems is 

about $250,000, and the system requires complex training and a larger facility. For LIBS, 

according to this expert, the cost per handheld unit is $40,000, and the system requires 

minimal training and is highly portable; it can be used on-site, for example, to verify the 

location written on bagged-and-tagged minerals at exporter facilities or processing 

facilities. However, according to this expert, LIBS has much lower resolution (parts per 

million) than LA-ICP-MS (parts per billion). And, according to the BGR official, LIBS may 

detect fewer minerals.

43While acknowledging that their database is currently limited, BGR officials said that their 

database currently includes between 200 and 300 geological sites and that they have an 

ongoing sampling campaign in the DRC. An academic expert with LIBS similarly 

acknowledged that necessary databases have not yet been developed. 
Page 32 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

companies not sharing the burden sufficiently while benefiting from those 

programs. Moreover, one NGO said that CFSI is not yet fully compliant 

with OECD guidance because companies are not completing a step of 

OECD’s framework that would require them to publish a detailed 

summary of audit findings; foregoing this step reduces the transparency 

of company due diligence efforts and makes public review of the findings 

impossible.

Commerce produced annual reports in 2014 and 2015 listing known 

conflict minerals processing facilities to comply with its responsibilities 

under the Dodd-Frank Act.44 The act requires that Commerce annually 

report a listing of all known conflict mineral processing facilities 

worldwide, among other things.45 The act does not define processing 

facilities or describe who should use the list and how to use it. However, 

the SEC rule requires companies that meet certain criteria to disclose in 

their reports the processing facilities in their supply chains. Moreover, as 

we have previously reported, stakeholders, including government and 

industry officials and representatives of the UN Group of Experts and an 

 44In 2014, we reported that Commerce had not yet compiled a list of all conflict minerals 

processing facilities—smelters and refiners—known worldwide, required by January 2013 

by the Dodd-Frank Act and we recommended that Commerce develop a plan to do so. 

Commerce concurred with this recommendation and has published lists of conflict 

minerals processing facilities in 2014 and 2015.

45Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1502(d)(3)(C).

Commerce Has 

Produced Lists of 

Conflict Minerals 

Processing Facilities 

but Has Not 

Developed Plans to 

Assess or Advise 

Audits of Conflict 

Minerals Filings

Commerce Produced Lists 

of Conflict Minerals 

Processing Facilities in 

2014 and 2015
Page 33 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

NGO, indicated that a comprehensive list of conflict minerals smelters 

and refiners (processing facilities) would be very useful in the effort to 

ensure responsible sourcing of minerals in the DRC and adjoining 

countries. An industry group told us that the Commerce list is helpful 

because it is difficult to identify which facilities in a supply chain are truly 

processing facilities. We found that several companies cited Commerce’s 

list as an information source in completing their 2015 SEC filings.

Some stakeholders told us that Commerce’s lists of processing facilities 

are generally useful as references, but one stakeholder also said that he

has found the lists confusing, in part because it is unclear whether they

contain all known processing facilities worldwide and whether everything 

listed is in fact a processing facility. In 2014, Commerce reported 434

processing facilities worldwide, noting that it relied on five sources.46 For 

its 2015 list, Commerce reported 312 processing facilities, based primarily

on USGS data. Commerce reported that the agency used USGS as its 

primary information source because it believed that USGS was the best 

U.S. government source for this information; officials added that they also 

took steps to incorporate comments received in response to the 2014 list. 

USGS’s definition of a conflict minerals processing facility differs from the

definition used by CFSI, SEC, and OECD. USGS focuses exclusively on 

“primary processing facilities,” which turn raw ore or concentrate into 

downstream products.47

 46These five sources are USGS, GAO, LBMA, the Electronic Industry Citizenship 

Coalition/Global e-Sustainability Initiative, and the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre / 

World Gold Council. For this 2014 list, as well as the 2015 list, we did not determine 

whether identically-named processors with different roles or locations specified are distinct 

businesses, and so some processors may have been counted more than once.

47USGS National Minerals Information Center specialists (commodity and country) said 

that they sought to identify facilities engaged in the critical processing step(s) or the point 

at which ores and/or concentrates are transformed to a downstream product. These 

officials excluded from the list facilities that exclusively use secondary materials (scrap) or 

downstream intermediate or finished products as their feed material. USGS officials 

identified these facilities as the point at which products lose their direct link to the mine or 

country of origin and are marketable as distinct intermediate or final products.
Page 34 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

As of July 2016, Commerce had not submitted to Congress a report that 

includes an assessment of the accuracy of IPSAs and other due diligence 

efforts described by the Dodd-Frank Act conflict minerals provisions as 

well as recommendations for improving the accuracy of the IPSAs, as 

required by the Dodd-Frank Act48—nor had it developed a plan for doing 

so. Generally, as detailed by the SEC’s final rule, the IPSA’s objective is 

to express an opinion or conclusion as to whether the design of the 

issuer’s due diligence measures conforms with, in all material aspects, 

the criteria set forth in the due diligence framework used by the issuer

and whether the issuer’s description of the due diligence measures it 

performed is consistent with the due diligence process that the issuer 

undertook.49 The Dodd-Frank Act required Commerce to submit an 

annual report starting in January 2013 that includes, among other things, 

its assessment of the accuracy of the IPSAs and other due diligence 

processes described by the conflict minerals provisions of the act that are 

conducted by SEC reporting companies. Additionally, the act requires 

Commerce’s report to include recommendations for the processes used 

to carry out such audits, including ways to improve the accuracy of the 

audits and establish standards of best practices.50

Six companies filed IPSAs as part of their 2015 reports to SEC, while four 

did so in their 2014 filings.51 However, as of July 2016, Commerce 

officials said that they had not yet assessed these IPSAs for accuracy. 

After several months of GAO requests for a meeting on this topic, 

Commerce officials stated in March 2016 that they had established a 

 48Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1502(d)(3). Specifically, Commerce is to assess the accuracy of

the IPSA and other due diligence processes described under section 13(p) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and develop recommendations for the process used to 

carry out such audits, including ways to improve the accuracy of such audits, and 

establish standards of best practices for such audits.

4977 Fed. Reg. 56,274, 56,281.

50In 2014, we reported that Commerce had not fulfilled these obligations. At that time, 

officials stated that Commerce was unable to implement these aspects of the act’s 

requirement because the SEC disclosure reports, which are needed for the assessment, 

would not be submitted to the SEC until June 2014.

51Commerce officials said that an additional 19 companies filed IPSAs in 2016. As 

discussed earlier, IPSAs are required for SEC-filing companies that choose to label their 

products as “DRC Conflict Free” in their disclosure. In our sample of 100 reports from 

2015, we found that two companies were required to complete an IPSA and that only one 

of these companies did so.

Commerce Has Not 

Developed Plans to 

Assess or Advise Audits of 

Conflict Minerals Filings
Page 35 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

team to manage Commerce’s responsibilities related to IPSAs earlier that 

month. They further stated that Commerce did not yet have the internal 

knowledge or skills to conduct reviews of IPSAs or to establish best 

practices. Commerce officials said that, as of July 2016, they had

conducted an outreach effort to identify best practices in the audit 

community relevant to their conflict minerals requirements and to enlist 

the collaboration of agencies with knowledge and expertise in this area.

Federal internal control standards state that management should 

complete and document corrective actions to remediate internal control 

deficiencies on a timely basis and communicate the corrective actions to 

the appropriate level. These standards also state that management 

should recruit, develop, and retain personnel with the knowledge, skills, 

and abilities necessary to achieve the entity’s objectives. Commerce 

officials said that they had not yet developed a plan with specific steps 

and timelines to meet their statutory obligations, but planned to do so 

following their outreach effort to the audit community. These officials 

added that they would conduct a review based on the 19 IPSAs filed in

2016. Commerce has not yet begun to assess other due diligence 

processes as required by the disclosure rule; officials noted that the 

scope of non-IPSA due diligence processes is much larger and that, while 

it is working on a plan, Commerce currently lacks the necessary staff and 

expertise. These officials said that, as of July 2016, Commerce was

exploring the option of working with the private sector to help fulfill these 

requirements. Until Commerce fulfills these requirements, SEC-filing 

companies may face additional challenges. For example, according to 

one independent private sector auditor we spoke with, because of the 

uncertainty about IPSA requirements and best practices, some consulting 

firms were misrepresenting the scope of IPSA services that are needed

for compliance in order to justify excessive fees for SEC-filing companies.

The U.S. government, the international community, and industry 

stakeholders continue to address the long-running humanitarian crisis, 

including sexual violence, perpetrated in part by armed groups who profit 

from the exploitation and trading of conflict minerals in eastern DRC. As 

we have previously reported, section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the 

actions it requires of U.S. agencies are part of the U.S. policy response to 

the crisis. Although our reviews of the first two annual filings by 

companies in response to the SEC disclosure rule indicate some 

progress in companies’ efforts to comply with some key provisions of the 

rule, they also indicate that companies continue to face some challenges 

in their supply chain due diligence efforts. Actions undertaken by U.S. 

Conclusions
Page 36 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

agencies to address their requirements under the act could facilitate the 

reporting companies’ ability to comply with the SEC rule. As noted in this 

report, Commerce is required under the act to submit, starting in January 

2013, an annual report that includes, among other things, an assessment 

of the accuracy and recommendations for improvement of the IPSA 

described by the act that are filed by relevant companies with their conflict 

minerals report. The agency has, so far, not assessed or submitted a 

report on any IPSAs, despite acknowledging that 29 companies have filed 

IPSAs with their disclosures between 2014 and 2016. Following repeated 

GAO inquiries about the status of the IPSA assessments, Commerce 

officials have yet to estimate when they will assess the IPSAs because, 

as they stated, Commerce does not yet have the knowledge or skills to 

conduct IPSA reviews or establish best practices. Without these 

assessments, Congress lacks needed information on the accuracy of the 

IPSAs and other due diligence processes used by filing companies. 

Additionally, these filing companies lack information about best practices 

for responding to the conflict minerals rule that, according to SEC, was 

intended by Congress to reduce violence in the region.

To improve the effectiveness of the SEC’s conflict minerals disclosure 

rule, the Secretary of Commerce should take the following action: 

Submit to the appropriate congressional committees a plan outlining 

steps that Commerce will take, with associated time frames, to 

• assess the accuracy of the independent private sector audits 

(IPSA) and other due diligence processes described under section 

13(p) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 

• develop recommendations for the process used to carry out such 

audits, including ways to improve the accuracy of the audits and 

establish standards of best practices for such audits; and 

• acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry out 

these responsibilities.

We provided a draft of this report to SEC, State, and Commerce for their 

review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix III, 

Commerce concurred with our recommendation and stated that it was 

working on completing a plan as described. SEC also provided technical 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 37 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

comments that were incorporated, as appropriate. State provided no 

comments. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, the 

Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Administrator, U.S. 

Agency for International Development. The report is also available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV.

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 38 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

List of Addressees

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman 

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate

The Honorable Richard Shelby 

Chairman 

The Honorable Sherrod Brown 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

United States Senate

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Finance 

United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Corker 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ben Cardin 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

United States Senate

The Honorable Hal Rogers 

Chairman 

The Honorable Nita Lowey 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives
Page 39 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

The Honorable Jeb Hensarling 

Chairman 

The Honorable Maxine Waters 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Financial Services 

House of Representatives

The Honorable Edward Royce 

Chairman 

The Honorable Eliot Engel 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

House of Representatives

The Honorable Kevin Brady 

Chairman 

The Honorable Sander Levin 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Additional Information Available 

on Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern 

Democratic Republic of the Congo and 

Adjoining Countries since GAO’s August 2015 

Report

Page 40 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Since we reported in August 2015,1 we have not identified any new,

completed population-based surveys related to sexual violence in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), but we did identify a recently 

issued population-based health survey containing information on sexual 

violence in Rwanda. We also identified population-based surveys related 

to sexual violence that are underway or planned in other adjoining 

countries and some new, additional case file data on sexual violence in 

the DRC. However, as we reported previously, case file data on sexual 

violence are not suitable for estimating an overall rate of sexual violence.2

Although we found no new, population-based surveys on the rate of 

sexual violence in the DRC since last year’s report, we found that ICF 

International has recently issued results from a survey for Rwanda and 

that surveys for Uganda and Burundi are underway. We previously 

reported that population-based surveys are more appropriate for 

estimating the rate of sexual violence than case file data because 

population-based surveys are conducted using the techniques of random 

sampling, and their results are generalizable.3 However, there are 

limitations and challenges to using such surveys to gather data on sexual 

violence and estimate the rate of such violence. Limitations include 

undercoverage caused by poor infrastructure and insecurity, which can 

limit access to some areas, and underreporting, as survey response rates 

partly depend on whether or not sexual violence victims are willing to 

discuss such difficult experiences. In addition, if large sample sizes are 

required, the result can be higher survey costs.

Results from a Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) of Rwanda were 

published in May 2016, covering data collected from November 2014 to 

April 2015. 4 An ICF International analysis of the 2014-2015 survey data 

 1

GAO, SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: Initial Disclosures Indicate Most Companies Were 

Unable to Determine the Source of Their Conflict Minerals, GAO-15-561 (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 18, 2015). 

2

GAO, The Democratic Republic of Congo: Information on the Rate of Sexual Violence in 

War-Torn Eastern DRC and Adjoining Countries, GAO-11-702 (Washington, D.C.: July 13, 

2011). 

3

GAO-11-702. 

4

National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, Ministry of Health, and ICF International. 

Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2014-15: Key Indicators (Rockville, Maryland: 

2016).

Appendix I: Additional Information Available on 

Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern Democratic 

Republic of the Congo and Adjoining Countries 

since GAO’s August 2015 Report 

No New, PopulationBased Studies Provide 

Additional Data on Sexual 

Violence in the DRC; 

Study with Sexual 

Violence Data for Rwanda 

Was Recently Issued, and 

Studies for Other Adjoining 

Countries Are Underway 

or Planned

2016 Demographic and Health 

Survey of Rwanda
Appendix I: Additional Information Available 

on Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern 

Democratic Republic of the Congo and 

Adjoining Countries since GAO’s August 2015 

Report

Page 41 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

found that, in Rwanda, 7.6 percent of women and 1.2 percent of men, 

ages 15-49, reported that they had experienced sexual violence in the 12-

month period preceding the survey, while 22.4 percent of women and 5.1

percent of men reported that they had experienced sexual violence at

some point in their lifetime. The DHS was designed to provide data 

across Rwanda’s health programs and policies, using indicators such as 

fertility, sexual activity, and family planning. The DHS final report stated 

that both women and men in the study were asked questions about both 

spousal violence and violence by other family members or unrelated 

individuals, including sexual violence. The DHS data collection was 

conducted by the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, with ICF 

International providing technical assistance and with the support of the 

Rwandan Ministry of Health as well as foreign governments and 

international and nongovernmental organizations (NGO).

5

The 2014-2015 DHS survey of Rwanda is the third such survey 

conducted by Rwanda’s National Institute of Statistics that has yielded 

nationwide information on sexual violence rates in Rwanda, but it 

provides only a limited basis for comparison over time.6 The more recent 

of the prior DHS surveys was published in February 2012, and data

collection was conducted from September 2010 to March 2011.7

According to the 2010-2011 survey data, 22.3 percent of women 

nationwide, ages 15-49, reported having experienced sexual violence at 

some point in their lifetime. That is similar to the 22.4 percent of women 

from the 2014-2015 survey. The 2010 DHS did not report on the 

percentage of men who reported ever having experienced sexual 

violence or on the percentage of women or men who reported having 

 5

The funding for the Rwanda DHS was provided by the Government of Rwanda, the U.S.

Agency for International Development (USAID), the One United Nations, the Global Fund 

to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, World Vison International, the Partners in Health, 

and the Suisse Development Cooperation. ICF International provided technical assistance 

through The DHS Program, a USAID-funded project providing support and technical 

assistance in the implementation of population and health surveys in countries worldwide.

6

Rwanda DHS or interim surveys were also conducted in 1992, 2000, 2005, and 2007-08.

7

National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, Ministry of Health, and ICF International.

Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2010 (Calverton, Maryland: 2012).
Appendix I: Additional Information Available 

on Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern 

Democratic Republic of the Congo and 

Adjoining Countries since GAO’s August 2015 

Report

Page 42 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

experienced sexual violence in the 12-month period preceding the survey 

and therefore no comparison is possible for those indicators.

8

Population-based surveys are also underway or planned by ICF 

International in Uganda and Burundi. According to ICF International,

fieldwork for the 2016 Uganda DHS is planned for fall 2016, with 

completion estimated in December 2016 and the final report expected in 

October 2017. According to ICF consulting officials, the Burundi DHS was

on hold because of the political situation and instability. They decided in 

April 2016 to resume the survey and have planned a pretest for June

2016 and data collection from September to December 2016. They 

estimate completion by December 2017.

Figure 9 shows the anticipated timeline of population-based surveys on

sexual violence that are currently underway or planned in the DRC,

Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi. It also shows the publication dates for

population-based surveys that provided data on the rate of sexual

violence in eastern DRC, Rwanda, and Burundi that have been published 

since we started reporting on sexual violence in the region in 2011.

8

The 2005 DHS provided sexual violence data only for women who had experienced 

sexual violence perpetrated by their (last) husband/partner.

Additional Population Surveys 

of Uganda and Burundi Are 

Underway or Planned
Appendix I: Additional Information Available 

on Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern 

Democratic Republic of the Congo and 

Adjoining Countries since GAO’s August 2015 

Report

Page 43 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Figure 9: Timeline of Population-Based Surveys Estimating the Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern Democratic Republic of the 

Congo (DRC), Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi

Since GAO’s 2015 report, the Department of State (State) and one United 

Nations (UN) agency have provided additional case file data on instances 

of sexual violence in the DRC and adjoining countries. State’s annual 

country reports on human rights practices9 provided information 

pertaining to sexual violence in the following countries:

• DRC. State’s report found that the DRC state security force, rebel and 

militia groups, and civilians perpetrated widespread sexual violence. 

The UN registered 427 victims of sexual violence during attacks on 

villages from January to December 2015. These crimes were 

sometimes committed as a tactic of war to punish civilians for 

perceived allegiances with rival parties or groups. The crimes 

 9

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Country 

Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, accessed May 31, 2016, 

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper.

Some Additional Case File 

Data on Sexual Violence 

Have Become Available 

since GAO’s 2015 Report
Appendix I: Additional Information Available 

on Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern 

Democratic Republic of the Congo and 

Adjoining Countries since GAO’s August 2015 

Report

Page 44 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

occurred largely in the conflict zones in Nord-Kivu Province but also in 

provinces throughout the country.

• Burundi. Centre Seruka, a clinic for rape victims, reported receiving an 

average of 120 new rape cases per month until April 2015, after which 

insecurity made obtaining case numbers impossible. The clinic treated 

545 new cases of sexual assault, of which, reporting indicated men in 

uniform committed 14 and armed men committed 24. In addition, the 

government-operated Center Humura in Gitega received 545 cases of 

sexual and gender-based violence between January and September 

2015.

• Uganda. Rape remained a serious problem throughout the country, 

and the government did not consistently enforce the law, according to 

State’s report. Furthermore, although the government arrested, 

prosecuted, and convicted persons for rape, State’s report found that 

the crime was seriously underreported, and that authorities did not 

investigate most cases. Additionally, the report stated that police 

lacked the criminal forensic capacity to collect evidence, which 

hampered prosecution and conviction and that the 2015 police crime 

report through June registered 10,163 reported sexual offenses, of 

which 787 were rapes.

In addition, one UN entity reported case file information on sexual 

violence in the DRC, as described below:

• The UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic 

of the Congo (MONUSCO) recorded 65 victims of sexual violence in 

conflict in eastern DRC between March 10, 2015 and June 26, 2015. 

Fifty victims were allegedly raped by elements of armed groups, with 

the Patriotic Force of Resistance in Ituri responsible for sexual 

violence against 33 victims, most of them gang-raped in several 

incidents in the DRC’s Irumu territory

• In January 2015, MONUSCO recorded 15 cases of sexual violence in 

conflict in eastern DRC, including 8 cases in Nord-Kivu alone. The 

main perpetrators were elements of armed groups, who were 

reportedly responsible for sexual violence against 10 of the 15 women 

victims.
Appendix I: Additional Information Available 

on Rate of Sexual Violence in Eastern 

Democratic Republic of the Congo and 

Adjoining Countries since GAO’s August 2015 

Report

Page 45 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

As we previously reported, several factors make case file data unsuitable 

for estimating rates of sexual violence.10 First, because case file data are 

not aggregated across various sources, and because the extent to which 

various reports overlap is unclear, it is difficult to obtain complete data or 

a sense of magnitude. Second, in case file data as well as in surveys, 

time frames, locales, and definitions of sexual violence may be 

inconsistent across data collection operations. Third, case file data are 

not based on a random sample, and the results of analyzing these data 

are not generalizable.

 10 GAO, Conflict Minerals: Stakeholder Options for Responsible Sourcing Are Expanding, 

but More Information on Smelters Is Needed. GAO-14-575 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 

2014).
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

To examine the second annual company disclosures filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2015 in response to the 

SEC conflict minerals disclosure rule, we downloaded the Specialized 

Disclosure reports (Form SD) and Conflict Minerals Reports (CMR) from 

SEC’s publically available Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and 

Retrieval (EDGAR) database on September 15, 2015. We downloaded 

1,281 filings identified as Form SDs in EDGAR.1 To review the 

completeness and accuracy of the EDGAR database, we reviewed 

relevant documentation, interviewed knowledgeable SEC officials, and 

reviewed prior GAO reports on internal controls related to SEC’s financial 

systems. We determined that the EDGAR database was sufficiently 

reliable for identifying the universe of SD filings on September 15, 2015. 

We reviewed the conflict minerals section of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act2 (Dodd-Frank Act) and the 

requirements of the SEC conflict minerals disclosure rule3 to develop a 

questionnaire that guided our data collection and analysis of Form SDs 

and CMRs that contain the information disclosed by the filing companies.

Our questionnaire was not a compliance review of the Form SDs and 

CMRs. The questions were written in both yes/no and multiple choice 

formats.4 An analyst reviewed the Form SDs and CMRs and recorded 

responses to the questionnaire for all of the companies in the sample. A 

second analyst also reviewed the Form SDs and CMRs and verified the 

questionnaire responses recorded by the first analyst. Analysts met to 

discuss and resolve any discrepancies.

We randomly sampled 100 reports from a population of 1,281 to create 

estimates generalizable to the population of all companies that filed. All 

estimates based on our sample have a margin of error of plus or minus 

10 percentage points or less at the 95-percent confidence level. Because 

 1

The number of SD filings we downloaded from the public EDGAR site on September 15, 

2015 varies slightly from SEC’s reported number of 1,283 filings. Because companies can 

file amendments or request corrections to filings, any updates to SD filings made after 

September 15, 2015 are not reflected in our analysis.

2

Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1502.

3

17 C.F.R. § 240.13p-1.

4

For the purposes of this review, we collected data on company disclosures of their due 

diligence efforts, when available, even if the company did not report that it knew whether 

its conflict minerals originated from a Covered Country or from recycled or scrap sources 

after performing an RCOI. 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our 

sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have 

drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we 

express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results 

as a 95-percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain 

the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have 

drawn. We also attended an industry conference on conflict minerals and 

spoke with company representatives to provide additional perspective.

To examine the challenges that exist at the processing-facility level for 

companies performing due diligence as part of their conflict minerals 

disclosure process and the steps taken to mitigate these challenges, we 

reviewed academic and industry studies and conducted interviews with 

relevant companies and experts by interviewing a judgmental sample at 

industry events based on their availability and willingness to meet with us 

and by reaching out to companies and experts referred to us by subject 

matter experts. We also examined information about processing facilities, 

including due diligence problems associated with processing facilities, 

contained in SEC filings that we reviewed as described above. In 

addition, based on a number of considerations such as preliminary 

research indicating a high concentration of processing facilities and other 

mid-supply-chain companies, as well as geographic proximity and 

recommendations from Department of State (State) officials, we traveled 

to China, Malaysia, and Singapore and interviewed representatives of 

numerous processing facilities, commodities exchanges, and industry 

groups to ask them about these risks. We assessed information from the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) and other sources to develop a 

general framework for processing tin, tantalum, and tungsten to inform 

our questions to these industry groups.

To examine actions that Commerce has taken regarding its conflict 

minerals-related requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, we interviewed 

Commerce officials and reviewed relevant documentation and reports. 

We discussed these Commerce reports where appropriate in our 

interviews with companies and other industry stakeholders.

In response to a mandate in the Dodd-Frank Act that GAO submit an 

annual report that assesses the rate of sexual violence in war-torn areas 

of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and adjoining countries, 

we identified and assessed any additional published information available 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

on sexual violence in eastern DRC, as well as three adjoining countries 

that border eastern DRC—Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi—since our 

August 2015 report on sexual violence in these areas.5 During the course 

of our review, we contacted researchers we interviewed from our prior 

review on sexual violence rates in eastern DRC and adjoining countries. 

We also requested information from the United Nations Fund for 

Population Activities, the United Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees, the United Nations Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral on Sexual Violence in Conflict, and the United Nations Children’s 

Fund on sexual violence data from the region that became available since 

our prior review. In addition, we reviewed relevant reports from the United 

Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of 

the Congo. To determine the status of Demographic Health Survey (DHS) 

reports for the countries, we reviewed completed reports and 

corresponded with officials at ICF International, a firm providing technical 

assistance for survey design and implementation.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to August 

2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 5

GAO, SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: Initial Disclosures Indicate Most Companies Were 

Unable to Determine the Source of Their Conflict Minerals, GAO-15-561 (Washington, 

D.C.: August 18, 2015).
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 49 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 50 GAO-16-805 SEC Conflict Minerals Rule

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos, (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant 

Director), Jeffrey Baldwin-Bott (Analyst-in-Charge), Debbie Chung, Karen 

Deans, Neil Doherty, Justin Fisher, Andrew Kurtzman, Jill Lacey, Grace 

Lui, and Jasmine Senior made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100306)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.