Responsible sourcing & due diligence schemes

The OECD Five-Step Framework — One Template, Four Overlapping Legal Regimes

1. The OECD Due Diligence Guidance: five steps, two mineral supplements

The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, now in its third edition (2016) with a Council Recommendation updated in 2022, sets out a five-step framework that virtually every downstream regulation and industry scheme — the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation, LBMA guidance, RJC, and iTSCi — explicitly incorporates by reference (OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises — Minerals Sector). The five steps are: (1) establish strong company management systems; (2) identify and assess risk in the supply chain; (3) design and implement a strategy to respond to identified risks; (4) carry out independent third-party audits of supply-chain due diligence at identified points; and (5) publicly report on supply-chain due diligence (OECD, Council Recommendation on Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Mineral Supply Chains, C(2022)98). The Guidance is accompanied by a 3Ts Supplement (tin, tantalum, tungsten) and a Gold Supplement, both of which define “red flag” locations and upstream/downstream due-diligence expectations by mineral type (OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises — Minerals Sector). As of the current Council Recommendation, 37 OECD members plus nine adherent non-members — including Brazil, Kazakhstan, Peru, and Ukraine — formally endorse the Guidance, making it the broadest point of legal-cultural consensus in the responsible-sourcing space (OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises — Minerals Sector).

2. The EU Conflict Minerals Regulation and its expanding CAHRA list

Regulation (EU) 2017/821 makes OECD-aligned due diligence mandatory (not voluntary) for EU importers of tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold above defined volume thresholds, applying since 1 January 2021 (European Commission, Conflict Minerals Regulation). The Commission is legally required to maintain and periodically update an indicative, non-exhaustive list of Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (CAHRAs); the list reached its 21st update on 31 March 2026, reflecting continued expansion of geographies flagged for elevated due-diligence scrutiny beyond the DRC and Great Lakes core (Italian Ministry of Enterprises, CAHRA List — 21st Update). Recognition of private due-diligence schemes as equivalent to the Regulation's requirements runs through Article 8 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/429, using an OECD-derived assessment methodology; the first scheme was formally recognised on 17 October 2025, giving importers a Commission-endorsed shortcut to compliance (European Commission, First Supply Chain Due Diligence Scheme Recognised).

3. Dodd-Frank Section 1502: the original mandate, now under deregulatory pressure

Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act (2010) was the first binding law to operationalise conflict-mineral due diligence, requiring SEC-reporting issuers with 3TG “necessary to the functionality or production” of a manufactured product to file a Form SD and, where sourcing cannot be ruled out from the DRC or an adjoining country, a Conflict Minerals Report with independent audit (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Conflict Minerals Rule). A D.C. Circuit ruling already struck the requirement that issuers describe products as “not found to be DRC conflict free” on First Amendment grounds, narrowing the rule's compelled-speech scope (Congressional Research Service, Conflict Minerals and Resource Extraction). The deregulatory climate intensified through 2025: the White House's January 2025 “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” executive order requires agencies to repeal ten existing rules for every new one, and by mid-2025 opinion pieces were explicitly urging the administration to end Section 1502 as a “backdoor tariff” that complicates critical-minerals supply chains, including cobalt and copper byproducts from Congo (The White House, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation; Forbes, Trump Must End Dodd-Frank's Backdoor Tariffs Blocking Critical Minerals). No repeal has been enacted as of mid-2026; issuers continue to file under the existing rule, but the direction of U.S. regulatory travel is now toward relaxation rather than the tightening seen in the EU.

LBMA and RJC — Bullion and Jewellery Build Their Own Enforcement Layers on Top of OECD

1. LBMA Responsible Gold and Silver Guidance: version 9 in force, version 10 in consultation

LBMA's Good Delivery List refiners are currently audited against Responsible Gold Guidance Version 9 and Responsible Silver Guidance Version 2, both built directly on the OECD five-step framework and both feeding into EU Conflict Minerals Regulation compliance for accredited refiners (Boliden Rönnskär, 2025 LBMA Compliance Report). In May 2025 LBMA accelerated its Refiner Transparency Roadmap: disclosure obligations originally scheduled for 2027 were pulled forward so that, from 2026, refiners must publicly disclose the identity of refiners and local exporters in OECD-defined “red flag” locations, all World Gold Council member miners and mines supplying material, and all countries of origin for mined material (LBMA, LBMA Fast Tracks Refiner Transparency). By January 2026, new disclosure rules under this roadmap were formally established, and LBMA opened a public consultation on Responsible Gold Guidance Version 10, which for the first time would require disclosure irrespective of a supplier's OECD risk rating — a submission from Human Rights Watch on 8 July 2026 specifically welcomed the expanded transparency while pressing for further detail (Human Rights Watch, Submission to the LBMA Re Responsible Gold Guidance).

2. RJC's 2024 Code of Practices and Chain of Custody: the 2026 recertification wall

The Responsible Jewellery Council approved a fully revised 2024 Code of Practices (COP) and Chain of Custody Standard (COC) on 19 November 2024, effective from 1 January 2025 and superseding the 2019 COP and 2017 COC outright, with a transition period preserving existing certifications until their expiry (Responsible Jewellery Council, 2024 Code of Practices; Responsible Jewellery Council, 2024 Chain of Custody Standard). The COC requires due diligence to ensure materials do not originate from CAHRAs, mirroring OECD/EU terminology directly (SGS, RJC 2024 Code of Practices — New Standards for the Global Jewellery and Watch Industry). Two hard deadlines now govern the transition: members last certified to COP 2019 before 1 January 2024 and dealing in Loose Gemstones and Melee Stones (LGMS) must complete a combined COP 2024/LGMS audit by 1 May 2026; those certified after 1 January 2024 have until 31 December 2026 — effectively forcing the entire RJC membership base through recertification within an 18-month window (Responsible Jewellery Council, RJC Member Certification).

iTSCi — The Only Widely Implemented 3T Traceability Scheme, and Its Persistent Credibility Fight

1. What iTSCi does and why Dodd-Frank made it indispensable

Launched in December 2010 by Rwanda's mining authority together with ITRI (the International Tin Association), iTSCi is a bag-and-tag traceability and due-diligence programme covering tin, tantalum, and tungsten (3T) production in the Great Lakes region, designed explicitly to help companies meet Dodd-Frank Section 1502 and OECD due-diligence obligations (Rwanda Mines, Petroleum and Gas Board, Mineral Traceability). By its own account, the scheme now operates at more than 800 active mine sites, supporting the livelihoods of over 80,000 artisanal miners who would otherwise have little formal route to international 3T markets (Pact, Pact and Partners Reach Critical Milestone in Mineral Traceability in Africa). iTSCi is explicit that its RMAP audits do not certify minerals as “conflict-free” — a term it considers an oversimplification no longer used by due-diligence experts — and that SEC rules require due-diligence reporting, not an absolute conflict-free guarantee (ITSCI, Response to Global Witness Report on Rwanda's Coltan).

2. The RMI delisting, fraud suspensions, and OFAC sanctions

The Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) removed iTSCi from its list of approved traceability schemes effective 1 January 2023, meaning downstream smelters sourcing through iTSCi must independently demonstrate mine-site assessments, supply-chain risk assessment, and know-your-customer procedures rather than relying on iTSCi certification alone (Reuters, Responsible Minerals Initiative Cuts iTSCi from Approved Traceability List). Fraud-control actions have continued through 2025: iTSCi suspended a mineral-traceability operation in DRC's Walikale territory in March 2025, later lifted in July 2025, and separately suspended four Rwandan exporters during 2025 after evidence of inadequate due diligence (Ecofin Agency, Mineral Traceability Resumes in DRC's Walikale, But Risks Persist; ITSCI, Statement — Shifts in Tantalum Mineral Flows from the Great Lakes Region). On 12 August 2025, the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned three ITSCI member entities, a direct enforcement action against participants inside a scheme built to satisfy U.S. conflict-minerals law (ITSCI, News — Tantalum Trade Flow Update). iTSCi's own 2025 annual report frames the scheme's fifteen-year history as running in parallel with, not replacing, the OECD Guidance and Dodd-Frank 1502 obligations it was built to serve (ITSCI, 15 Years of Building Responsible Supply Chains — 2025 Annual Report).

3. Trade-flow volatility as an early-warning indicator

iTSCi has begun publishing preliminary trade-flow statements as a transparency and self-defense measure: a February 2025 statement revised an initial USGS estimate of a 50% year-on-year tantalum increase down to essentially flat (347 tonnes in 2022 versus 350 tonnes in 2023), while a November 2025 statement showed recorded Rwandan tantalite exports of 1,078 tonnes for January–June 2025 against 1,225 tonnes for the same period in 2024, a roughly 12% decline attributed to shifting regional mineral flows rather than scheme failure (ITSCI, Clarifies the Role of Its 3T Traceability and Due Diligence Programme; ITSCI, Statement — Shifts in Tantalum Mineral Flows from the Great Lakes Region).