Congo has been ravaged by violence since the 1990s, particularly in the restive east, where a myriad of armed groups, some of them backed by neighbouring Rwanda, fight over national identity, ethnicity, and resources. Congo's lawyers notified Apple CEO Tim Cook on April 22 of a series of concerns about its supply chain, and also wrote to Apple subsidiaries in France, demanding answers within three weeks. The Amsterdam and Partners LLP law firm has been investigating allegations that minerals mined in Congo by several companies and armed groups are being smuggled out through Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi.

Apple has said in the past that it does not directly buy, procure or source primary minerals, and it has been auditing its suppliers for several years and publishing its findings. In a report last year, it said that 100% of identified smelters and refiners in the supply chain for all applicable Apple products manufactured in 2023 had participated in an independent third-party conflict minerals audit for tin, tantalum, and tungsten, known as 3T minerals, and gold (3TG). "We found no reasonable basis for concluding that any of the smelters or refiners of 3TG determined to be in our supply chain as of December 31, 2023 directly or indirectly financed or benefited armed groups in the DRC or an adjoining country," the Apple report said. Another lawyer from Amsterdam & Partners LLP, Peter Sahlas, told Reuters that people who worked on Apple's supply chain verification in Congo had come forward to say that their contracts were terminated after they flagged concerns that "blood minerals" were in Apple's supply chain. "We are engaging with these individuals and evaluating their evidence and will have more to say once we have completed robust verifications," Sahlas said, without giving further details. Since the letter issued by Congo lawyers in April, clashes have intensified in eastern Congo where Rwandan-backed M23 rebels have seized control of Rubaya, a key mining town for coltan used in smartphones and other appliances.

While Apple has positioned itself as a leader in corporate responsibility and transparency regarding its supply chain, there are significant concerns regarding the ethical implications of its operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The situation in the DRC is complex and rooted in a long history of exploitation and violence, with armed groups leveraging the country's rich mineral resources, including coltan, for profit while perpetuating human suffering. Critics argue that Apple’s reliance on third-party audits does not adequately address the deeply embedded issues within its supply chain. The assertion that 100% of identified smelters and refiners have participated in independent audits may provide a veneer of compliance, but it does not guarantee that these audits are effective or that the conditions on the ground are changing. Many mining operations are informal and unregulated, making it challenging for even the most diligent audits to uncover the full extent of human rights abuses and environmental degradation associated with mining activities. Moreover, the testimonies of former workers who have raised concerns about “blood minerals” in Apple’s supply chain reveal a troubling pattern. If individuals are being silenced or losing their jobs for highlighting these issues, it raises questions about the genuine commitment of Apple to address the root causes of conflict in the DRC. Transparency in corporate practices is not only about audits; it also involves creating a culture where whistleblowers can speak out without fear of retaliation. The ongoing violence in eastern Congo, exacerbated by external influences and the actions of armed groups, complicates any narrative that suggests a clean supply chain for companies like Apple. The situation underscores the need for companies to take more direct responsibility for the impact of their sourcing practices on local communities. Rather than merely participating in audits, Apple could engage more directly with affected communities and invest in initiatives that support sustainable development and peacebuilding efforts in the DRC. Lastly, the focus should shift from merely tracking minerals to addressing the systemic issues that allow these abuses to persist. Apple has the resources and influence to lead by example, advocating for stronger regulations and ethical standards that extend beyond their immediate supply chain to encompass the broader economic and social context in which they operate. The reality is that as long as demand for smartphones and electronic devices continues to drive extraction in conflict zones, companies like Apple must confront their role in perpetuating cycles of violence and exploitation. In conclusion, while Apple presents itself as a responsible corporate citizen, the ongoing conflicts and allegations of complicity in human rights abuses in the DRC challenge this narrative. It is imperative for companies to go beyond surface-level compliance and engage in meaningful practices that prioritize human rights, community well-being, and environmental sustainability. The situation in the DRC demands not only accountability but also a commitment to fostering genuine change that benefits the people and the nation as a whole.