[leoc]

> I think the point is that these lawsuits are intended to raise public awareness of the issue which will ideally put pressure the companies being sued to institute voluntary policing of their supply chain.

Beyond the legal merits, tech companies have been talking about "conflict minerals" for a while. You could certainly doubt how seriously committed they are to resolving the minerals-sourcing issues, or even what their motivations are: my unconfirmed assumptions are that "conflict minerals" https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/policy/policy-confli... was conceived by Intel as an adaptation of the "conflict diamonds" campaign, and that the "conflict diamonds" campaign was in turn something contrived by De Beers as a marketing effort. But what's remarkable is how little consumers seem to have cared or responded even when manufacturers made the running on the issue. It seems it's much easier to get consumers on an ethical-sourcing bandwagon when the product is a luxury good bought for social-signaling purposes (like fur coats or diamonds) than when it's something they look on as a quotidian expense or something to get the most bang for the buck in. Which is unfortunate, I think: consumers probably should get off their arses and on the likely-somewhat-sleazy "conflict minerals" bandwagon, because it's likely the best chance to meet our responsibilities and effect real change in the sourcing of minerals for electronic devices.

[shkkmo]

Are you aware of any organizations that rate electronic companies or battery manufacturers supply chains based on the use of child labor and or other morally questionable behavior? I would like to direct my purchasing power to companies that act ethically to source their materials. It doesn't seem like we can trust companies' own assertions in these areas.

[Vinnl]

Fairphone [1] has been doing some good work in this area, so you could take a look at which organisations rated them.

[1] https://www.fairphone.com/