US Conflict Minerals Compliance in 2026: FAQs and Considerations for Filers

This year’s US Conflict Minerals Rule filings will soon be due, on June 1. In this post, we address some of the frequently asked questions from sustainability legal and compliance professionals, including those who are new to this filing requirement. We also discuss potential updates from last year’s filing and other considerations filers should take into account.

Who needs to file?

As a threshold matter, in simplified terms, the US Conflict Minerals Rule only applies to operating companies that are publicly traded in the United States. Unlike other sustainability reporting mandates, the Rule does not create obligations for private companies, although many private companies for commercial reasons do much of the same work to meet downstream commercial customer sourcing and data requirements.

Not all US public companies need to file under the Rule. A filing only is triggered if the company manufactures or contracts to manufacture products for which tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold – commonly referred to as "3TG" – are necessary to the functionality or production of the products. 

When are the next reports due?

Form SD filings generally are due each year on May 31. Because that date falls on a Sunday this year, the filing deadline will be June 1.

The filing covers the prior calendar year. The reporting period and due date are the same for all companies, irrespective of their fiscal year. 

Where do companies file?

The Form SD is filed electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission, via its EDGAR filing system.

A copy of the Form SD, including any Conflict Minerals Report filed as an exhibit, also must be made publicly available on the registrant’s website.

What needs to be included in a Form SD?

The Conflict Minerals Rule is specifically concerned with responsible 3TG sourcing from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its adjoining countries (covered countries). Subject registrants must conduct a good faith reasonable country of origin inquiry (RCOI) to determine whether any of the 3TG in their in-scope products originated in a covered country or are from recycled or scrap sources.

If, based on its RCOI, a registrant (1) determines that its necessary 3TG did not originate in a covered country or it came from recycled or scrap sources, (2) has no reason to believe that its necessary 3TG may have originated in a covered country or (3) reasonably believes that its necessary 3TG came from recycled or scrap sources, it must in the Form SD disclose its determination and briefly describe the RCOI it undertook in making its determination and the results of its inquiry.

Companies generally use the industry-developed Conflict Minerals Reporting Template to gather information from suppliers as part of their RCOI and due diligence (due diligence is further discussed below).

When does the Rule require a Conflict Minerals Report?

Under the Rule as adopted, if the registrant is required to conduct due diligence, it generally must file a Conflict Minerals Report as an exhibit to its Form SD and provide that report on its website. However, there is an April 2017 Statement from the SEC that scales back the Conflict Minerals Report requirement, as further discussed below. 

Under the Rule, a registrant must exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of its 3TG if, based on its RCOI, the registrant (1) knows that any of its necessary 3TG originated in a covered country and are not from recycled or scrap sources or (2) has reason to believe that its necessary 3TG may have originated in a covered country and has reason to believe that they may not be from recycled or scrap sources. Due diligence must conform to a nationally or internationally recognized due diligence framework. For these purposes, the only game in town is the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas.

What is addressed in a Conflict Minerals Report?

A Conflict Minerals Report typically includes information pertaining to the registrant’s (1) due diligence measures, (2) in-scope products, (3) known smelters and refiners in the supply chain, (4) the countries of origin of the 3TG processed by those smelters and refiners and (5) future risk mitigation efforts.

Because a Conflict Minerals Report is a mostly principles-based reporting requirement, rather than a prescriptive blank form to be filled in, the content and level of detail varies among registrants. 

Is there SEC relief from having to include a Conflict Minerals Report exhibit?

In April 2017, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued a Statement indicating that the Division will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if registrants, including those that are subject to the due diligence requirements of the Rule, only file disclosure under the provisions of the Rule applicable to registrants that do not have to submit a Conflict Minerals Report exhibit with their Form SD (i.e., generally those that can stop after the RCOI). The Statement is further discussed in this Ropes & Gray Alert.

Despite this relief, on the theory that "if it ain't broke don't fix it," and due to a perceived lack of clarity on how to apply the Statement, most companies have continued to include a Conflict Minerals Report exhibit with their Form SD filing. 

Is an independent private sector audit (IPSA) of a Conflict Minerals Report still required?

Practically speaking, no. This is another area where the Rule has been modified by a subsequent SEC Statement.

In its April 2014 decision in the Conflict Minerals Rule litigation, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the requirement to describe products as having “not been found to be DRC conflict free” is compelled speech that violates the First Amendment. As a result, registrants are not required to describe products as “DRC conflict free,” having “not been found to be DRC conflict free” or “DRC conflict undeterminable.”

In furtherance of the Court’s decision, the SEC stayed the Rule’s mandatory IPSA requirement. In the Statement, the SEC indicated that, pending further action, an IPSA will not be required unless a registrant voluntarily elects to describe a product as “DRC conflict free” in its Conflict Minerals Report. The stay is further discussed in this Ropes & Gray Alert.

Have there been any changes to the Form SD requirements since last year's filing?

The compliance requirements are the same as last year. There are periodically calls to scrap the Rule, but that has not yet occurred.

Is there anything new or different to take into account this year?

Even though there have not been changes to the Conflict Minerals Rule in the past year, registrants should consider the following:

• Do disclosures need to be updated to reflect acquisitions, dispositions or changes to product lines, segments or internal functions or departments? If there is a description of the business, is it aligned with the Form 10-K, Form 20-F and/or other relevant disclosures?
• Have there been updates to 3TG policies, procedures and/or risk mitigation measures that need to be reflected in this year’s filing?
• More generally, are disclosures and written 3TG compliance policies, procedures and risk mitigation measures in synch with actual practices? With the passage of time, changes to program personnel and changes to the business, we often find this is no longer the case.
• Does contact person or signatory information need to be updated?
• Is the forward-looking statements safe-harbor statement up-to-date?
• Is voluntary website information relating to 3TG compliance up-to-date and otherwise aligned with mandatory disclosures and current policies, procedures and risk mitigation measures?
• To the extent applicable, are US disclosures aligned with disclosures under EU and Swiss conflict minerals requirements?
• Does smelter or refiner information reported by suppliers raise potential concerns? Have suppliers listed smelters or refiners that are believed to be supporting conflict? Reported sourcing information also may be relevant to sanctions compliance, forced labor compliance under Section 307 of the US Tariff Act (including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act) and compliance with mandatory human rights due diligence legislation, as well as to human rights policies and risk assessments.
• Are there other changes in individual supplier responses or response patterns that raise potential concerns? For example, have there been meaningful changes in the quality or completeness of supplier data or supplier response rates?
• With AI advances over the past year, supplier responses relating to 3TG usage, sourcing and due diligence can more effectively and efficiently be integrated into the overall supplier compliance assessment process. AI advances also enable better use of data to help assess geographic and other sourcing risks.
• More powerful AI tools are not only benefitting registrants. This year, NGOs, other civil society organizations, social media influencers, social activists, plaintiffs’ lawyers, shareholders and others will be able to more easily identify, review, slice and dice and compare registrant-reported data. Registrants should take this into account as they prepare their disclosure.   

Ropes & Gray Compliance Resources

Ropes & Gray is widely recognized as having the leading law firm compliance practice in this area. We have been involved with the Conflict Minerals Rule since the proposal stage and our team has advised on hundreds of filings since the Rule’s adoption.

Numerous additional alerts, articles, white papers and webinars relating to conflict minerals compliance – under both the Rule and non-US requirements – are available on the Ropes & Gray website. 

About our Practice

Ropes & Gray has a leading ESG, CSR and business and human rights compliance practice. We offer clients a comprehensive approach in these subject areas through a global team with members in the United States, Europe and Asia. Senior members of the practice have advised on these matters for more than 30 years, enabling us to provide a long-term perspective and depth and breadth of experience that few firms can match. 

Subscribe to Ropes & Gray ESG, CSR and Business and Human Rights compliance thought leadership here.