As much as you might be wishing for the conflict minerals reporting requirement to go away, that hasn’t happened quite yet – and for some companies, the Form SD process continues to be an annual ambush of last-minute panic. So, I was pleased to see this Ropes & Gray memo with 26 conflict minerals FAQs for 2026 – with plenty of time before this year’s June 1st deadline. Here’s an excerpt:

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.

– Liz Dunshee