5 ms·
I think the assumption is that ethical suppliers would be more expensive and that these companies have the margins to pay more.
by steve-benjamins 7y ago
I think the assumption is that ethical suppliers would be more expensive and that these companies have the margins to pay more.
- gwbas1c 7y ago> You see, two-thirds of the global supply of cobalt comes from the Congo. So already, right there, you cannot avoid Congolese cobalt.
- pnako 7y agoYou could ban/sanction Congolese cobalt; this would increase prices in the short run, while other producing countries adjust supply.
- soared 7y agoAdjusting the supply of cobalt in a country isn't something thats easily adjusted.
- pnako 7y agoWhy not? If half of the supply disappears overnight, prices will go through the roof, providing an incentive for current producers to increase output, by increasing effort in their existing mining operations, and more than likely by opening new operations.
- hanniabu 7y agoIf there are sanctions, wouldn't it be the demand being changed and not the supply?
- pnako 7y agoThe sanctions would presumably be about cobalt from the problematic regions, so it would not change demand. But the supply would have to adjust away from the sanctioned region(s) to meet the existing demand.
- Vinnl 7y agoI'm not sure how much that would help the people of Congo...
- saiya-jin 7y agoYes but more expensive suppliers might not be automatically more ethical. Just throwing money at the problem won't magically fix it on its own without some additional effort, probably just ends up as more fat bonuses at Glencore HQ
- lallysingh 7y agoIf you have a higher budget, you can shop around more. Nobody's assuming that they'd just tip their vendor.