Nintendo's Record On Conflict Minerals Is Praised, But With An Important Catch

Good on old Ninty for avoiding dodgy sources for raw materials. In an ideal world they would still buy materials from the same countries legitimately to help aid quality of life, but their efforts, while not perfect, should still be lauded.

Nintendo avoids problematic ares, and people are still annoyed for some reason? I'm sick of these goalposts.
It is perfectly reasonable to just not contribute to a problem.

Ought suppliers from non-conflict-afflicted countries be shunned because their countries lack fundable militias? Should workers in their quarries lose their jobs merely because there are no blatant human rights abuses in their respective countries?
Sorry - but if that's an "important catch" it's one I can live with.

@nukatha Honestly. They’ve got nothing to feel guilty about in regards to this article, in my mind.

I applaud this approach to be honest. There’s no risk involved.

There are other ways in which Nintendo can improve too. Less plastic for instance. Then again, their machine uses the least amount of power to run compared to their competitors.

Difficult to judge I’d say.

"Avoids rather than confronts problem areas"...Jesus christ, who honestly gives a *****. Its a video games console, why would they care about other *****. Its not like its their responsibility to do anything.

Nintendo avoiding certain regions is no different than some of us choosing to avoid discussing sociopolitical topics. It's nothing new and nothing that we should be complaining about.

It is the reason why Nintendo products have increased in price over the last decade, but would you rather Nintendo make cheaper products unethically, or make more expensive products at the cost of avoiding some unethical practices?

well nintendo sells their consoles world wide. some countries ban goods made or connected with these places so what do you expect them to do.

So. Avoiding conflict minerals by avoiding conflict areas is wrong? Is it acceptable to use some conflict minerals due to using conflict areas?

(Eek! I confuse easily and this hurts my brain. I'm going back to the Monkey Ball thread.)

I think "important catch" is ridiculous. Nintendo is taking the most efficient approach to avoid contributing to a horrible problem. Nintendo has no responsibility to improve this issue in other countries. Not sure how buying from others in the same country would help anyway; a lack of sale is a lack of a sale, whether they bought from the competitor down the street or from one across the world. The "ideal" approach would be for a country's own people and government to crack down on such activities.

It's a shame but I get it, its the easier way to do it.

I reckon we should just send these journalists and analysts over to the conflict areas to sort the problem out as they seem to know what to do about everything.

So what's the problems exactly? I don't see any problem with what Nintendo is doing.

Hey, I have a great example of bad behavior!
Remember how journalists and news outlets continually report on bad behavior by industry leaders like Activision, EA, and Naughty Dog enforcing crunch culture but then praising the products of crunch and showering them with trophies come award season? Yeah, Nintendo is the real bad guy in this industry...

Nintendo is a video game company, not a government entity. It isn't Nintendo's responsibility to save the world.

Does Thomas knows what He writs ? Please , explain to me what is controversial in this Nintendo behavior ?

I do also disagree with the according to this article sub-optimal approach by Nintendo. With this decision/behaviour Nintendo puts pressure on to the LOCAL AUTHORITIES to straighten up their country and regulations. That is where the pressure should be. In fact, it might be the only correct way to do it.
Remember policing the globe - from us oh so smart-know-better-westerners - is not what those countries need. The development is best achieved from within. That is why I agree. Bravo Nintendo.

How much cheaper would conflict minerals cut costs?

I don’t see why Nintendo are being criticised here? Maybe it sucks for legitimate suppliers in those countries but Nintendo are not obliged to take on that risk factor when there are desirable alternatives available.

Intertresting contrast regarding the comments between this article and the article about Nintendo creating a safe working environment for people of all backgrounds, ethnicity, orientation etc.

That was seen as virtue signalling but no such negativity here (the negativity here is they'renot doing enough). Interesting how people of certain opinions pick and choose their arguments (methods of discrimination).

Btw i support both of the topics covered in these articles.

The tone in some these articles.. What other website you guys use for Nintendo news?

I think the article is fair, some companies are chaotic evil- using conflict minerals, some are lawful good- sourcing ethical minerals from affected areas. Nintendo is lawful neutral, could be better but not evil.

Great to see so many intelligent, well considered and realistic responses calling out this article.

@Kid_Sickarus I can see why you would think that the article is fair, but I am just not sure what the point of the article is. Every company could do more, just like every person could do more. Is Nintendo running around saying they are a perfect company? If they are, then sure, they are opening themselves to criticism. To me, the article feels like an unnecessary attack on Nintendo, which is kind of weird on a Nintendo website. Now if it was discovered that Nintendo was using underage labor and sweatshops, then that should be reported here and elsewhere. What motivated this article?

What should they do, send their army of Goombas in those areas? You guys are hilarious sometimes...

I'd rather they avoid the problem areas as well. Once those countries iron out their own problems, then they could do business with them, if Nintendo wants to of course. It's not any company's job to iron out a country's problems. 🤷🏾‍♂️

@ModdedInkling I thought that their products have been getting cheaper (not necessarily in quality, except for the joy-cons, but rather in price). Especially when you take into account inflation I believe their stuff is cheaper than it previously was.

It's a perfectly fine way of doing it

@Nuageux IGN.........

Hey I go there for the comments. The people there are hilarious. People get so mad over the stupidest of crap (also I love seeing the reviews that are put out).

@Abeedo in an Ideal world there wouldn't be so many wars in the world to begin with...

You've got to be kidding me. Why should Nintendo be expected to go through suppliers with a fine tooth and nail and deliberate choose suppliers in dangerous locations so long as they meet standards? That's ridiculous.

They're meeting the standards. Why shouldn't they avoid countries in conflict? I would if I ran a company. Relying on supplies from such locations would bring unnecessary risk, not just to their supply chain, but to their employees. What happens if them buying from one of those suppliers angers some political or militant faction on one of those regions? They could make themselves a target for retaliation.

No, it's much better to avoid those regions entirely.

And before you say "well that's just gonna keep those regions in civil war because they're stuck in poverty" or whatever - I say that it's not the responsibility of foreign companies to fix that sort of thing. That kind of thing should be accomplished by the involved parties on the ground, and a neutral 3rd party like the United Nations or another nation with as little involvement in the target region as possible.

Man this site is really circling the drain with all of this nonsense

@bobzbulder
Joy Cons seem to be a different case and I suspect it's similar to amiibo in terms of where they come up with the ludicrous prices. They may be manufactured cheaper, but it's worth noting that the technology behind them, especially the control sticks, aren't widely manufactured by other companies like Sony and Microsoft, which means Nintendo is pretty much monopolizing off of it.

There aren't that many major manufacturers that create controllers similar to Joy Cons, and even if there are, it isn't as widely "successful" as Joy Cons in terms of sales. amiibo are probably very cheap to manufacture, but the prices are so high because almost every video game company so far has moved out of the Toys-to-Life industry. For that reason, Nintendo's basically monopolizing on it.

I must have missed the part where it became Nintendo's responsibility to go out of their way and revitalize the mineral industries of other countries.

Companies are disgusting and the bar is set very low - seems good enough to me that they're not actively contributing or benefitting off abuse.

I wonder if they get their chips from Taiwan. With the eminent conquest of said country.

As for minerals, that's why billionaires are doing space flights so one day ore can be extracted from asteroids and not earth.

@LinktotheFuture I have some bad news for you, as reported on this very website. https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2012/10/under_age_workers_allegedly_worked_on_wii_u_manufacturing

And no, they haven't stopped working with Foxconn.

In their defense, everybody uses Foxconn for electronics manufacturing. Best not to dwell on it too much, because every last one of us uses the products made by Foxconn.

Did no one in the comments section read the full gameindustry.biz article? @thomasBW84 your summary could have used more emphasis on this quote:

“ Part of that dissatisfaction is due to Dodd-Frank itself. While Maréchal says the OECD's guidance was designed to be applicable to all mineral supply chains anywhere around the world, the US law only requires publicly traded companies to file disclosures if they use 3TGs, and if those 3TGs are sourced from the DRC or neighboring countries.

As a result, some companies have decided to avoid sourcing minerals from those countries entirely, which Maréchal said misses the point of the OECD's efforts.

"Our standard is about promoting responsible investment in Conflict-Affected High Risk Areas (CAHRAs), as we call it," Maréchal says. "Because clearly in many of those areas, the extractive sector is probably the only one that has the significant potential to contribute to the local development of the economies, and as such to represent an important pillar of peace building.

"We're here to promote responsible investment in those areas. As a matter of consequence, any so-called de-risking strategy to opt out of what may be perceived to be a risky supply chain is really not in the philosophy of the guidance."

Does it really matter?

What's wrong with what Nintendo is doing?

@JasmineDragon Not really bad news for me, but it is what I was talking about. After rereading the article, I vaguely remember it, but I had forgotten.

If I was a better person, I would have written Nintendo and told them that I was unhappy about their relationship with Foxconn, but I didn't. I also bought a Wii U at launch, so I have 2 strikes against me right there.

@Some_Donkus Thank you for bringing the additional context into the discussion here; I had assumed the original article would go into greater explanation of the issue.

So it seems that Nintendo's decision to avoid CAHRAs altogether is a catch primarily in light of the context of the reason for tracking CAHRAs in the first place: identify conflict areas and then identify ethical sourcers in those areas so that the afflicted areas can have their economies invested in without directly contributing to furthering their conflicts. Yes, that's a genuinely laudable goal. Companies who do make those targeted investments in the hope of ethically supporting a struggling economic body are doing a positive thing and deserve some kudos.

That said, I think that avoiding investment in some CAHRAs altogether is also a valid choice. Similarly to the social/employment complications that @Heavyarms55 points out, the nature of internal flow of capital in an economic body can't rule out investment in one sourcer from contributing to the wider economic situation of the body. Those funds may find their way into the conflict at some point in the fiscal stream. It would be a nigh-impossible task to accurately ensure no penny invested in a country contributes to some facet or another of that country's political foibles - like trying to prevent the water flushed down your toilet from ending up in some particular part of the ocean.

So yeah. There is a fair distinction to make between "do no harm" and "actively do good," but those stances are messier in action than in ideology. I would argue that both methods - targeted CAHRA investing and wholly non-CAHRA investing - are acceptable choices to make.

Good on Nintendo for this good score but ultimately, I am of the opinion that it is world governments role to stop human rights abuses and not companies like Nintendo or Sony. Nintendo simply needs to do what is legal, and rules should be in place to ensure that things such as the products of modern slavery are illegal.

@Paej13 I’m just a cut & paste guy. You have a much better handle on the situation. Just way too many people jumping to the conclusion that GI/NL wrote a hit piece about Nintendo for not actively investing in CAHRAs (and subsequently overreacting).

The takeaway from GI’s analysis is that Nintendo is following the letter of OECD guidance but not the spirit. No more. No less. They’re also not the only company doing so. But that’s a whole other conversation. I’m just here for the Mario.

@Paej13 Separately, and this isn’t my area of expertise, it seems that OECD’s stance is that CAHRAs don’t exist in a vacuum. In the absence of legitimate companies sourcing materials from these regions then that void is filled by organizations that do nothing to stop human rights violations. Only through actively pushing back the creep and engaging with upstream suppliers, especially small scale operations, and OECD standards adopted by the supply chain can these abuses be abated. How strongly one believes in that likely correlates to how nihilistic you are. 😜

Seriously though, where that Mario and his brother Luigi at?

Why do you think Nintendo (a commercial company) has any obligation to intervene in humanitarian issues?

Like the majority of others in this comments section, I think Mr. Whitehead is off-base in his keyboard warrioring, and could go to those problematic countries to directly help in the effort if it so suits him. Why should Nintendo be responsible for getting involved in a sketchy country's politics? They avoid the bad suppliers, and good for them.

Why don't journalists criticize the truly problematic actors, like Democratic leaders of urban areas with skyrocketing crime like San Francisco and Seattle? Video game news is not the place for your misguided idealistic nonsense.

It's no thanks to guys like this that the new Zelda character designs are all so ugly (poor Impa in Age of Calamity!) and Joel from The Last of Us gets killed of in place of a "female" protagonist. Sick of this garbage! Go off to a communist country like Cuba or China where you fools belong.

This is a bad take.

Just because one country has human rights issues doesn't mean it's now the responsibility of every single company in the world to specifically target those areas over others in hopes of "supporting the good ones". Other suppliers in other countries need business too. One is not more important than the other.