Cobalt and Consequences: Unmasking Corporate Complicity in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Human Rights Crisis

Introduction

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is home to over 60% of the world’s cobalt reserves and is projected to supply 225,000 metric tons of this vital mineral in 2024. Cobalt is essential for lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles, smartphones, and numerous other electronic devices. However, the DRC’s resource wealth contrasts sharply with the pervasive poverty and suffering of its population, as the country's reliance on cobalt remains linked to severe human rights abuses, including child labour, hazardous working conditions, and environmental degradation. Corporations such as Apple, Tesla, and UK-based Glencore continue to exploit Congolese miners, disregarding human rights violations tied to their supply chains. This systemic exploitation leaves workers with lifelong scars—severe injuries from unsafe working conditions, psychological trauma from sexual violence and rape, and intimidation by armed groups—while contributing to the social and economic destabilisation of the country.

This article explores the human rights crisis in the DRC, detailing its historical context and the lasting effects that continue to shape the current landscape. It examines the role of multinational corporations (MNCs) in perpetuating these abuses, focusing on their obligations under international law and domestic corporate liability frameworks. Case studies will illustrate corporate complicity, highlighting how companies’ operations exacerbate human rights violations in the DRC. The article also emphasises the role of corruption in enabling corporate impunity and how governance failures allow multinational companies to evade responsibility. Given the gap in public international law for protection against human rights abuses committed by MNCs, this article argues that stronger regulations and transnational litigation frameworks are necessary to better combat corporate impunity. 

Historical Context and Current Impact

The human rights crisis in the DRC is deeply rooted in its colonial past and subsequent political turmoil. After gaining independence from Belgium in 1960, the country was plagued by dictatorship, civil war, and foreign interventions, leaving it with weak institutions and rampant corruption. The legacy of colonial exploitation prioritised resource extraction over the development of local infrastructure or social systems, a pattern that continues today. Under Belgian rule, the country’s vast mineral wealth was systematically extracted to fuel European industries, with little regard for the welfare of Congolese people. The legacy of foreign mining companies, like l’Union Minière du Haut Katanga, further entrenched this exploitation by continuing to profit from the DRC’s resources even after the country gained independence. The Rwandan Genocide in the 1990s further destabilised the region, creating a power vacuum where armed groups fought for control over resource-rich territories. This tumultuous history has had lasting effects, with the DRC’s abundant mineral wealth continuing to be a source of conflict and exploitation.

The ongoing human rights abuses in the cobalt sector reflect these historical injustices, as impoverished communities are marginalised by external interests seeking to profit from their resources. Cobalt mining in the DRC is synonymous with egregious human rights abuses. Artisanal miners, including children, often work in perilous conditions characterised by a lack of safety protocols, inadequate equipment, and exposure to toxic materials. Forbes reports that children as young as six years old are engaged in mining activities, enduring gruelling labour for minimal pay—averaging $0.81 per day for children, $1.02 for adult women, and $2.04 for adult men. Many work in unregulated pits prone to collapses, resulting in injuries and fatalities. The lack of medical facilities and emergency services in these remote areas exacerbates the situation, as injured workers often struggle to access necessary treatment.

Additionally, the DRC's mining regions are plagued by armed conflict, corruption, and a lack of governmental oversight. Local communities face extortion from both armed groups and mining companies, rendering them vulnerable not only to physical hazards but also to exploitation and violence. Human Rights Watch has documented instances of sexual violence against women working in the mines, underscoring how deeply entrenched gender-based violence is within this sector. The social and economic fabric of the DRC is further strained by the business practices of MNCs. In many cases, entire communities are displaced from mining sites to make way for corporate interests, with little to no compensation. This dislocation, combined with the absence of meaningful investment in local infrastructure or healthcare, exacerbates the cycle of poverty. Communities that were once dependent on agriculture are left with no viable means of survival, further deepening the country’s humanitarian crisis.

Case Studies of Human Rights Abuses

In 2019, a devastating mine collapsed in Kolwezi, one of the DRC’s key mining towns. “Industry Fails to Tackle Child Labour Allegations,” published by Human Rights Watch, detailed how this tragic event resulted in the deaths of several miners, including children. The collapse was attributed to the absence of basic safety protocols and proper mining equipment, routinely ignored in unregulated artisanal mining operations. Survivors recounted their experiences working in treacherous environments where the risk of accidents was ever-present. This incident is emblematic of a broader pattern of negligence within the cobalt mining industry, where the pursuit of profit overshadows the imperative of worker safety. 

The DRC’s cobalt mining sector is also fraught with rampant violence, especially against women. Reports indicate that armed groups exploit vulnerable populations in mining communities, leading to alarming instances of sexual violence. Many women have shared harrowing accounts of being assaulted by both miners and militia members, with these acts serving as tools of intimidation and control. The pervasive culture of fear in these communities complicates the situation further, making it exceedingly difficult for survivors to seek justice or report their experiences. This violence constitutes a grave violation of human rights and perpetuates gender-based inequalities, leaving women in precarious situations with limited access to resources and support. 

In 2020, the International Labour Organization (ILO) released alarming statistics regarding child labour in the DRC, estimating that over 1 million children are currently working in artisanal mines. These children find themselves in hazardous conditions that pose severe risks to their health and safety. Many are denied access to education, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and exploitation that can last for generations. The lack of educational opportunities means these children have little chance of escaping their dire circumstances, leaving them trapped in a cycle of labour that primarily benefits corporate interests while undermining their future potential.

Corporate Complicity

Glencore, a Swiss-based MNC with significant operations in the UK, is one of the largest producers of cobalt globally, controlling multiple mines in the DRC. The company has faced substantial criticism for its failure to protect human rights within its supply chains, often prioritising profit over the welfare of workers. Glencore's subsidiary, Katanga Mining, has been embroiled in numerous controversies regarding labour practices. A 2020 report by Swedwatch revealed that the company had not adequately implemented due diligence measures to prevent child labour or unsafe working conditions. While Glencore claims commitment to responsible sourcing, the lack of concrete action and transparency raises serious questions about its accountability. This is exemplified in 2021, when the DRC government suspended Katanga Mining’s operations due to environmental violations; however, the company continued to report profits while the affected communities suffered the consequences. The absence of effective regulatory frameworks allows corporations like Glencore to evade responsibility, perpetuating a cycle of abuse and neglect.

Moreover, major tech companies reliant on Congolese cobalt face mounting criticism over their complicity in human rights abuses. In December of 2019, a landmark lawsuit was filed against Apple, Alphabet Inc., Tesla, Microsoft, and Dell—five of the world’s most influential tech companies –– in the 2019 Kolwezi mine collapse, where there were 43 fatalities amongst artisanal miners due to lack of basic safety protocols. The plaintiffs, including children employed as miners in the DRC, alleged that these companies knowingly benefited from cobalt mined under exploitative conditions. The lawsuit accused the companies of profiting from a system that disregarded the safety and well-being of miners, both children and adults. According to the plaintiffs, the companies were “knowingly benefiting from and aiding and abetting the cruel and brutal use of young children in the DRC to mine cobalt,” profiting from the exploitation of vulnerable workers. However, in 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the companies could not be held legally responsible for the abuses occurring outside the U.S. The court’s ruling highlighted the challenges in holding MNCs accountable for human rights violations abroad, particularly when jurisdiction is in question. Despite this legal setback, the case garnered significant media attention, sparking renewed calls for greater supply chain transparency and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The question of whether CSR can effectively supplement legal instruments in addressing human rights abuses by MNCs is a critical issue in today’s global economy. From a business perspective, CSR has the potential to drive positive change, especially when companies recognise the importance of maintaining a competitive edge while meeting social and ethical standards. In an increasingly ethically-aware world, businesses that prioritise CSR can enhance their reputation, attract consumers who value ethical practices, and foster long-term sustainability. For many companies, striving towards CSR goals, such as improving supply chain transparency or reducing environmental harm, is not just a legal obligation but a strategic move that aligns with consumer demand for ethical business practices.

However, CSR alone cannot replace the role of the law in holding companies accountable. Legal frameworks are essential for ensuring that there are clear, enforceable standards for human rights protections across borders. While CSR initiatives can lead to voluntary improvements, they lack the binding force needed to compel companies to act consistently, especially when there are no immediate financial incentives or when it conflicts with business interests in certain markets. Laws and regulations create a minimum threshold for acceptable behaviour, and without them, there is a risk that some companies may treat CSR as a marketing tool rather than a genuine commitment to human rights. 

CSR and legal accountability should not be viewed as mutually exclusive but rather as complementary forces. While CSR initiatives can encourage companies to go beyond legal requirements, legal instruments are necessary to ensure that all companies are held to consistent standards to ensure human rights abuses are addressed. It is only by combining legal frameworks with proactive CSR can we begin to create a global business environment that prioritises both profit and human rights.

Another critical aspect of corporate accountability involves the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (UK), which holds companies liable for gross negligence that leads to fatalities. While this law primarily applies within the UK, it could be argued that similar frameworks should be applied internationally, especially in high-risk industries like mining, where corporate negligence leads to worker deaths. The challenge of extending frameworks like the Corporate Manslaughter Act beyond the UK to an international context is challenging. but not impossible. One approach could involve creating international treaties or agreements, similar to those governing human rights or environmental protection, that impose corporate accountability for fatalities resulting from negligence in high-risk industries. These agreements could establish a global standard for corporate responsibility, with clear guidelines on safety protocols, transparency, and liability for workers' deaths. 

Another potential solution could involve incentivising MNCs to voluntarily adopt safety standards aligned with international best practices, possibly through trade agreements or supply chain regulations. In countries where local legal frameworks are weak or non-existent, like the DRC, international pressure from regulatory bodies or a non-governmental organisation (NGOs) could ensure that companies are held accountable for their actions abroad. Ultimately, the enforcement of international corporate liability would likely require cooperation between governments, global regulatory bodies, and corporations themselves to create a cohesive and actionable framework that crosses borders. In the DRC's cobalt sector, where fatal accidents are frequent, corporations like Glencore and other MNCs benefiting from Congolese cobalt should be held accountable under similar laws. Although the Corporate Manslaughter Act is limited to manslaughter in the UK, the principle of corporate responsibility for fatalities could be a unique angle for addressing deaths resulting from neglect in global supply chains.

Legal Accountability

The UNGPs are divided into three pillars: (I) Protect, which outlines the state's duty to protect human rights; (II) Respect, which establishes the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and (III) Remedy, which ensures access to remedy for victims of business-related abuses. However, these principles are non-binding, which limits their effectiveness in enforcing corporate responsibility. While non-binding instruments are often seen as weaker due to the lack of legal obligations, their effectiveness can still be enhanced through voluntary compliance and public pressure. Although, a deeper exploration reveals that the non-binding nature of the UNGPs is not the only factor restricting their impact. Critics from civil society groups have highlighted several other shortcomings, which have raised questions about the UNGPs overall effectiveness.

One of the most significant critiques is the lack of a clear and public work plan, which hinders transparency in how the UNGPs are implemented and monitored. The Business and Human Rights Working Group has been criticised for their restrictiveness, limiting their ability to address the full scope of human rights issues within corporate operations. According to some reports, this narrow interpretation prevents the UNGPs from addressing all relevant concerns, especially in industries with severe human rights violations like mining. Additionally, business and human rights expert John Sherman III from Harvard Kennedy School, argues that UNGPs fail to adequately address alleged violations of human rights, as they lack specific enforcement mechanisms or meaningful consequences for companies that violate them. This issue is made worse by the inconsistent application of international human rights law, where the principles are not always applied the same way, therefore reducing their ability to create lasting change.

Moreover, there is a significant concern that the voices of victims are largely excluded from the discussions and dialogues surrounding the implementation of the UNGPs. This has led to calls for greater victim participation in both the formulation and execution of business and human rights policies. These omissions limit the practical relevance of the principles and undermine their legitimacy among communities most affected by corporate operations.

While the non-binding status of the UNGPs is a clear limitation, research into these additional factors could help clarify how the framework can be strengthened. Studies like John Ruggie’s Research on Business and Human Rights suggest that combining non-binding frameworks with other forms of regulation, such as national laws or trade-related instruments, could provide a more robust means of ensuring corporate accountability. By addressing these critiques, the UNGPs could evolve into a more effective tool for promoting human rights within the global business community. 

The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, which mandates businesses with a turnover of over £36 million to produce an annual statement on the steps taken to combat modern slavery in their supply chains and operations, is aligned with UNGPs. While the Act doesn’t explicitly reference the UNGPs, its emphasis on transparency and addressing human rights risks is in line with the UNGPs second pillar. While this law is significant, its impact is often limited due to companies offering vague disclosures rather than taking substantive actions. 

Aligning with the UNGPs second pillar once more is France’s Duty of Vigilance Law (2017), which obliges large companies with a minimum of 10,000 employees to establish and implement vigilance plans to identify and mitigate human rights and environmental risks in their supply chains, including the cobalt mining industry. However, enforcement of this law is often weak, and many companies find ways to evade its more stringent requirements. A similar approach exists in the U.S.A., where the Dodd-Frank Act’s Section 1502 mandates that companies disclose their sourcing of conflict minerals, including cobalt. While this regulation aims to limit the financing of armed groups in the DRC, its enforcement is inconsistent, and many companies engage in minimal compliance, failing to address the underlying human rights abuses.

In addition, emerging regulations such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, propose a more rigorous approach to due diligence, with mandatory requirements for corporations to ensure their supply chains are free of human rights abuses. These regulations, if enforced correctly, would significantly increase corporate accountability and help prevent the exploitation of vulnerable populations in resource-rich regions like the DRC.

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), adopted in 2003, aims to combat corruption globally, focusing on transparency, asset recovery, and criminalisation of corrupt practices. However, its scope is limited when it comes to corporate accountability for human rights abuses, as it primarily addresses corruption, not broader corporate impacts on people or the environment. While UNCAC is a binding international treaty, its enforcement depends on state parties to implement provisions, leading to inconsistent application across jurisdictions. MNCs can also exploit legal gaps to avoid accountability. Similarly, the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention complements UNCAC but falls short of addressing corporate responsibilities for human rights or environmental issues. The UNGPs provide more direct guidelines on corporate conduct, but since they are non-binding, enforcement remains a challenge. In sum, while UNCAC is useful for addressing corruption, it does not adequately cover corporate responsibility in terms of human rights or environmental protection.

There are also more practical legal limitations of addressing corporate complicity in human rights abuses. State immunity and the doctrine of "non-justiciable political questions" pose significant barriers to holding MNCs accountable for human rights abuses, particularly when state actors are complicit. These doctrines complicate legal recourse for victims, presenting substantial challenges in cases of corporate involvement in human rights violations. State immunity is a principle that protects sovereign states from being sued in foreign courts for governmental actions. This becomes problematic in cases where state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are involved in abuses alongside private corporations. For example, in Doe v. Unocal, U.S. courts granted immunity to Myanmar’s military and its state-owned oil company under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), despite Unocal's involvement in forced labour and violence. This principle allows corporations to avoid accountability by partnering with sovereign states or state-owned entities, particularly in resource-rich countries like the DRC, where legal systems are weak. Some scholars and legal theorists Thomas Buergentha, Antonio Cassese, and Alfred P. Rubin, to name a few, argue that state immunity should be limited in cases where the state's actions are commercial rather than governmental, allowing corporations to be held accountable. However, consensus on this issue remains elusive, and state immunity continues to protect corporations from liability in many cases.

The "non-justiciable political questions" doctrine asserts that courts should not intervene in issues that are primarily political or diplomatic in nature. This can prevent legal action against corporations involved in human rights abuses where foreign policy is implicated. For instance, in the SNCF case, the French courts dismissed claims against a state-owned railway company for its role in transporting Jewish peoples during WWII, citing the political question doctrine. In countries like the DRC, where MNCs often work with oppressive regimes, this doctrine can shield corporations from legal challenges. Courts may hesitate to intervene in such cases to avoid upsetting diplomatic relations or economic interests, further protecting corporations from accountability.

To address these challenges, creating a binding international treaty on corporate human rights accountability could ensure MNCs comply with due diligence standards, even in politically sensitive contexts. Another potential solution is expanding universal jurisdiction, which allows any state to prosecute human rights violations regardless of where they occur.This could prevent corporations from evading liability simply by operating in jurisdictions with weak legal frameworks. While state immunity and the political question doctrine present serious challenges to prosecuting corporate human rights abuses, legal reforms—such as an international treaty on business and human rights and broader use of universal jurisdiction—could help dismantle these barriers. These reforms, combined with greater international cooperation, could create a more effective legal framework to hold corporations accountable for human rights violations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the cobalt mining sector in the DRC starkly exemplifies corporate complicity and systemic human rights abuses. Companies like Glencore, Apple, and Tesla profit from cobalt sourced under conditions rife with exploitation, child labour, and violence, prioritising profit over the dignity and rights of vulnerable populations. Local officials, often colluding with these corporations, facilitate a culture of impunity through bribery and corruption, as highlighted in the documentary, Hidden Costs of Cobalt Mining in DR Congo, by Science. This toxic partnership undermines the rights of local communities and tarnishes the ethical integrity of global supply chains. The urgent need for comprehensive reform in both corporate practices and regulatory frameworks is clear, especially as consumers increasingly demand transparency and accountability from the brands they support. This situation underscores the ethical responsibilities of corporations and emphasises the importance of a collective effort to address the systemic issues within the cobalt supply chain. It is imperative for consumers, advocacy groups, and policymakers to unite in demanding that these corporations uphold their obligations to human rights. 

We must challenge companies that prioritise profit over people, such as Tesla’s negligence in its sourcing practices and Glencore’s vague corporate social responsibility statements that fail to address ongoing abuses. By exposing corporate complicity, we can pave the way for a future where human rights are not sacrificed for profit, but are upheld as a fundamental principle guiding the actions of all businesses. The time for change is now; the consequences of inaction are too grave to ignore.

Kaila Nkufo

Bibliography

Domestic Legislation:

Bribery Act 2010 (c. 23).

Modern Slavery Act 2015 (c. 30).

International Legislation:

Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 [2024] OJ L200/1.  

International Cases:

Doe v Unocal Corp 395 F 3d 932 (9th Cir 2002)

SNCF Case, French Court Decision (1995), cited in 'The Political Question Doctrine' (1996) Harvard Law Review.

Books & Reports:

International Law Association, Final Report on the Impact of State Immunity on Human Rights (2016, ILA). 

Ruggie J, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (UN Human Rights Council, 21 March 2011) UN Doc A/HRC/17/31.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Schedule 14A Information: Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Journal Articles:

D'Argent P, 'The Political Question Doctrine and Corporate Human Rights' (2016) 16 Human Rights Law Review 395.

Muchlinski P, ‘The Impact of the UN Guiding Principles on Business Attitudes to Observing Human Rights’ (2021) 6 Business and Human Rights Journal 212

Ruggie J, ‘Business and Human Rights: The Next Chapter’ (2013) 1 The Dovenschmidt Quarterly 4, 168-170

Websites:

Amnesty International, ‘This is what we die for: Human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo power the global trade in cobalt - Amnesty International’ (Amnesty International) <www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr62/3183/2016/en/> accessed 3 November 2024.

Amnesty International UK, ‘DR Congo: Huge Expansion in Cobalt and Copper Mining Is Wrecking Lives’ (Amnesty International, September 12, 2023) <https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/dr-congo-huge-expansion-cobalt-and-copper-mining-wrecking-lives-new-report> accessed 17 October 2024.

Blijweert D, ‘Hidden costs of cobalt mining in DR Congo’ (ScienceDaily, 20 September 2018) <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180920102107.htm> accessed 3 November 2024. 

Dummet M, ‘Child Labour behind Smart Phone and Electric Car Batteries’ (Amnesty International, 19 January 2016 <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/01/child-labour-behind-smart-phone-and-electric-car-batteries/> accessed 11 October 2024. 

EcoVadis, ‘Dodd Frank Act: Section 1502’ (EcoVadis) <https://ecovadis.com/glossary/dodd-frank-act-section-1502/> accessed 3 November 2024.

European Coalition of Corporate Justice, ‘France's Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law’ (Respect International, 2016) <https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ngo-translation-french-corporate-duty-of-vigilance-law.pdf> accessed 4 November 2024. 

European Commission, “Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence” (European Commission) <https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/sustainability-due-diligence-responsible-business/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence_en> accessed 16 October 2024

European Commission, ‘Universal Jurisdiction in International Law’ (European Commission, 2019) <https://europa.eu/justice> accessed 22 November 2024. 

European Parliament, “Texts Adopted - The Storming of the Brazilian Democratic Institutions” (European Parliament, January 19, 2023) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0013_EN.html> accessed 14 October 2024. 

Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, ‘Historical Background: Democratic Republic of the Congo’ (BMZ) <https://www.bmz.de/en/countries/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/historical-background-56> accessed 3 November 2024.     

Global Witness, ‘Rigged: Where Has Republic of Congo’s Oil Money Gone?’ (Global Witness, 17 January 2020) <https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/oil-gas-and-mining/rigged-republic-of-congo-oil/> accessed 17 October 2024. 

Harvard Business School, 'Types of Corporate Social Responsibility' (Harvard Business School Online, 18 March 2021) <https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/types-of-corporate-social-responsibility> accessed 22 November 2024.

Hassan T, ‘World Report 2024: Rights Trends in Democratic Republic of Congo’ (Human Rights Watch, 15 December 2023) <https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/democratic-republic-congo> accessed 17 October 2024.

Honorato F A, ‘Cobalt Exploration is Vital for the Democratic Republic of Congo and The World’ (LSE Blogs, 4 April 2024)  <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2024/04/04/cobalt-exploration-is-vital-for-the-democratic-republic-of-congo-and-the-world/> accessed 21 November 2024. 

International Labour Organisation, ‘Child Labour’ (International Labour Organisation, 28 January 2024) <https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/child-labour/lang--en/index.htm> accessed 17 October 2024. 

International Labour Organisation, ‘Cobalt: The Dark Side of the Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain’ (International Labour Organisation, 2017) <https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_575499.pdf> accessed 21 November 2024.

Investopedia, 'What is a Non-Governmental Organization?' (Investopedia, 11 March 2020) <https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/13/what-is-non-government-organization.asp> accessed 22 November 2024.

Marquis C and Qiao K, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and the Role of Business in Society’ (Harvard Kennedy School 2015) <https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/programs/cri/files/CRI_71.pdf> accessed 22 November 2024.

Ochab DEU, ‘Are These Tech Companies Complicit In Human Rights Abuses Of Child Cobalt Miners In Congo?’ (Forbes, 13 January 2020) <www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2020/01/13/are-these-tech-companies-complicit-in-human-rights-abuses-of-child-cobalt-miners-in-congo/> accessed 3 November 2024. 

Ochab E, ‘Are These Tech Companies Complicit in Human Rights Abuses of Child Cobalt Miners in Congo?’ (Forbes, 13 January 2020) <https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2020/01/13/are-these-tech-companies-complicit-in-human-rights-abuses-of-child-cobalt-miners-in-congo/> accessed 21 November 2024.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations 'Protect, Respect and Remedy' Framework (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2011) <https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf> accessed 22 November 2024.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Study on Domestic Law Remedies for Human Rights Violations Committed by Business Enterprises’ (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2020), <https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Business/DomesticLawRemedies/StudyDomesticeLawRemedies.pdf> accessed 22 November 2024. 

Ogao E, ‘US Court Absolves Top Tech Companies in Congo’s Child Labor Case’ (ABC News, 6 March 2024) <https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-court-absolves-top-tech-companies-congos-child/story?id=107839639> accessed 12 October 2024. 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ‘OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct’ (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 8 June 2023) <https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-on-responsible-business-conduct_81f92357-en.html> accessed 14 October 2024. 

Respect International, ‘The Responsible and Ethical Private Sector Coalition against Trafficking’ (Respect International, 2017) <https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ngo-translation-french-corporate-duty-of-vigilance-law.pdf> accessed 3 November 2024. 

Ruggie J, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2011) <https://www.ohchr.org/documents> accessed 22 November 2024.

Slater E, 'Digging the Dirt: Glencore Linked to Alleged Child Labour' (The Bureau Investigates, 16 April 2012) <https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-04-16/digging-the-dirt-glencore-linked-to-alleged-child-labour/> accessed 26 November 2024.

Spotlight on Corruption, ‘The Harms of Glencore’s Corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nigeria’ (Spotlight on Corruption, 12 December 2023) <https://www.spotlightcorruption.org/glencores-corruption-drc-and-nigeria/> accessed 17 October 2024. 

Stempel J, ‘US Appeals Court Dismisses Child Labor Case Against Tech Companies’ (Reuters, 5 March 2024) <https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-dismisses-child-labor-case-against-tech-companies-2024-03-05/> accessed 21 November 2024.

Statista, 'Mine Production of Cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo' (Statista, 2024) <https://www.statista.com/statistics/339834/mine-production-of-cobalt-in-dr-congo/> accessed 26 November 2024.

Transparency International, ‘DRC: No Accountability for Glencore Crimes until Justice Is Delivered to All Victims - Press’ (Transparency International, 17 June 2024) <https://www.transparency.org/en/press/drc-accountability-glencore> accessed 10 October 2024. 

United Nations Department of Public Information, ‘Democratic Republic of Congo Battling Worsening Humanitarian Crisis, Armed Conflict, Despite Recent Peaceful Elections, Special Representative Tells Security Council’ (Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, 27 March 2024) <https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15646.doc.htm> accessed 17 October 2024. 

United Nations Development Programme, ‘UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the UN Framework’ (United Nations Development Programme, 2011) <https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/in/UNGP-Brochure.pdf> accessed 22 November 2024.

UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Corporate Liability for Gross Human Rights Abuses’ (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2013) <https://www.ohchr.org/documents> accessed 22 November 2024.

Van Bogaert O, ‘DRC: Business Involved in Human Rights Abuses’ (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 24 May 2012) <https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/drc-business-involved-in-human-rights-abuses-2/> accessed 13 October 2024. 

Vidal J, ‘Apple and Google Named in US Lawsuit over Congolese Child Cobalt Mining Deaths’ (The Guardian, 16 December 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/16/apple-and-google-named-in-us-lawsuit-over-congolese-child-cobalt-mining-deaths> accessed 21 November 2024.

Wangura B, ‘Africa’s Critical Minerals: Key to the Global Energy Transition’ (CLG Global, 5 June 2024) <https://clgglobal.com/africas-critical-minerals-key-to-the-global-energy-transition/> accessed 15 October 2024. 

Worldfavor Blog, ‘All You Need to Know About France's Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law’ (Worldfavor Blog) <https://blog.worldfavor.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-frances-corporate-duty-of-vigilance-law> accessed 3 November 2024.