Table of Contents
Most CMRT submissions don’t fail because companies ignore conflict minerals obligations. They fail because the data looks compliant on the surface but collapses under scrutiny.
Regulators and downstream customers aren’t looking for perfect supply chains. They’re looking for credible due diligence—and CMRTs are one of the fastest ways to spot weak controls, poor validation, and unsupported claims.
When CMRT audits trigger follow-up questions, enforcement risk increases quickly. Below are the most common CMRT audit failures that consistently draw regulatory and customer attention—and why they matter.
1. Company-Level CMRTs With No Clear Scope Definition
One of the fastest ways to trigger scrutiny is submitting a company-level CMRT without clearly defining what it covers.
Auditors routinely flag CMRTs that:
- Claim company-wide coverage
- Do not specify product lines, divisions, or exclusions
- Fail to explain whether all products contain 3TG
This creates a credibility gap. If a CMRT claims full coverage but lacks traceability depth, regulators may question whether due diligence was actually performed.
This issue often surfaces during reviews of Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry (RCOI) documentation, especially when scope assumptions are undocumented.
2. Inconsistent Smelter Lists Across Reporting Years
Auditors don’t expect static supply chains—but they do expect consistency or explanation.
Red flags include:
- Entirely new smelter lists year-over-year
- Smelters appearing without supplier attribution
- Smelters removed without explanation
When CMRT data changes abruptly, regulators may question whether:
- Supplier outreach was performed
- Data was reused incorrectly
- Smelter information was copied from prior templates
This is a common failure point highlighted in broader conflict minerals reporting challenges, especially for complex manufacturing environments.
3. Declaring “Conflict-Free” Without Supporting Evidence
One of the most dangerous CMRT statements is a bare “conflict-free” claim unsupported by documentation.
Auditors routinely challenge:
- Conflict-free answers with no smelter validation
- Claims not aligned with RMI or RMAP status
- Declarations that rely solely on supplier assertions
Under U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Section 1502, companies are expected to demonstrate reasonable due diligence, not blind reliance on supplier statements.
4. Failure to Validate Smelter Conformance Status
Submitting a smelter list is not the same as validating it.
Audits often uncover:
- Smelters not recognized by the Responsible Minerals Initiative
- Smelters listed as “unknown” or “not applicable”
- Outdated RMAP conformance statuses
Regulators and customers increasingly expect companies to cross-check smelters against current RMI data, not rely on legacy CMRT versions.
This is especially relevant in EU reviews under the European Commission’s Conflict Minerals Regulation, where due diligence expectations extend beyond disclosure.
5. Weak or Generic RCOI Documentation
RCOI is not a checkbox—it is a process.
CMRT audits frequently flag:
- Generic RCOI language reused year after year
- No explanation of supplier outreach methods
- No escalation steps for non-responsive suppliers
A weak RCOI undermines the entire CMRT, even if the smelter list appears complete. Regulators want to see how conclusions were reached, not just the outcome.
6. Lack of Internal Review and Approval Controls
Another common failure: CMRTs submitted with no internal accountability.
Audit reviewers often ask:
- Who reviewed the CMRT before submission?
- Were inconsistencies challenged internally?
- Was the CMRT approved by compliance leadership?
Without internal review controls, CMRTs appear transactional rather than governed—an issue that frequently surfaces during efficiency and maturity assessments.
7. Treating CMRT as a One-Time Annual Exercise
Regulatory scrutiny increases when CMRTs are handled as:
- A once-a-year task
- A procurement-only responsibility
- A static document with no lifecycle management
Modern conflict minerals compliance expects continuous improvement, especially where supplier risks evolve. This expectation aligns closely with broader traceability and transparency principles.
Why These Failures Matter
Each of these failures signals the same underlying issue: a gap between disclosure and due diligence.
When CMRTs fail audits, consequences may include:
- Customer escalation
- Corrective action plans
- Increased regulatory attention
- Reputational risk
CMRT quality is no longer just a reporting issue—it is a risk signal.
Struggling to identify audit risks before they surface?
Modern conflict minerals compliance depends on accurate CMRT data, validated smelters, and defensible due-diligence workflows. Platforms like Acquis Compliance help manufacturers centralize CMRT collection, validate supplier data, and reduce audit exposure—without adding operational overhead.
If CMRT audits are becoming harder to defend, it’s time to move from static reporting to structured compliance management.