As the 2014 deadline for compliance draws near, it is worth examining once again the conflict-minerals sections of the Dodd-Frank Act and its success — or lack of — in goals and progress by affected industries.

What is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd-Frank?

Sections 1502-1504 of the act require disclosure of a wide variety of supply-chain details for businesses dealing in minerals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and surrounding countries including the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Zambia and Angola. Audits must be done to ensure continued conflict-free compliance. These disclosure filings are required by May 21, 2014.

Despite the looming deadline, progress has been uneven. However, since the law’s passage, it is not only the implicated industries that have been forced to adjust. There have also been developments among human rights groups and throughout international policy circles.

International human rights groups widely decried the Dodd-Frank act as an abject failure. Several groups, including Global Witness, a leading voice in international extractive industry transparency advocacy and a long-time advocate for the law, released reports detailing the disappointments of the conflict minerals sections.

Among the biggest problems detailed by the group is an increase in smuggling “…across porous borders into neighboring countries…” which then leads to export “…with false certificates of origin…”

This keeps profits in the hands of warlords and militias, the very people who were supposed to be deterred by this legislation. It keeps tax revenue from central governments and tremendously complicates the issue for companies wishing to comply with the legislation.

In addition to the increase in smuggling which had largely been anticipated by even the law’s most stringent advocates, the Global Witness report also highlights an unforeseen major issue. The dynamic and constantly changing nature of the Eastern DRC made the government-led validation scheme obsolete remarkably quickly. The process last took place in 2011 and already, smelters that were marked as conflict free have been infiltrated by armed groups. An environment where even government validation cannot be trusted is a difficult environment in which to do business.

Theses difficulties lend themselves to the biggest fear of the law’s advocates, a de facto boycott on minerals from the DRC and surrounding countries that will do extensive harm to the local populations dependent on the small revenue the minerals provide.

While there is no doubt that increased complications along with the potential for government punishment or public shaming may cause companies to stay away, the legislation has also given corporations interested in good citizenship cover for trying to improve things.

Solutions for Hope is one initiative that has been supported by a number of electronics companies including Intel, Philips and Hewlett Packard.

Solutions for Hope has been producing continually verified conflict-free tantalum in the Northern Katanga province since 2012. The Northern Katanga mine is seen as a model for the region, according to Simon Propper and Peter Knight, co-founders of CONTEXT, a sustainability strategy and communications consultancy that has worked with Hewlett Packard. There are efforts to bring the model to North Kivu, one of the DRC’s most troubling areas.

The issues with Dodd-Frank have not gone unnoticed among international policy makers. Despite the extensive problems, there is no indication that the U.S. government will change the reporting and disclosure requirements, absent a highly unlikely court decision.

While the European Union’s trade directorate was expected to release its own rule on minerals from the DRC by the end of the year, this rollout has been delayed for further impact assessments. While such impact assessments are necessary and standard practice for such important legislation, one such report has already been rejected by E.U. commissioners, leaving the future of the law in question.

At this point, it is unlikely that any law will be adopted until at least February or March. One member of European parliament pointed out several mistakes in Dodd-Frank that need to be avoided by the European law, including the aforementioned de facto embargo.

Needless to say, the mistakes of the Dodd-Frank law weigh heavily on any other international attempts to regulate conflict minerals.

There is no shortage of issues with the Dodd-Frank conflict mineral regime. There has been a drastic increase in smuggling that keeps the revenue in the pockets of violent warlords while robbing the Congolese government of vital tax revenue. There has also been a failure to keep up with changing on-the-ground circumstances for validated (and red-lighted) mines. The complications have led some companies to simply avoid the DRC, depriving vital funds from reliant local miners.

Some companies, however, have used the difficulties as an opportunity to innovate and improve the lives of the Congolese people and maintain vital supply lines for the valuable minerals underneath Congolese soil. A concerted effort by such companies will go a long way in allowing innovation to improve the regime and convince other jurisdictions that such laws are feasible and a good idea.

We are at a vital crossroads for conflict minerals. Corporate commitment to improved sourcing has the ability to do an immeasurable amount of good. Corporate resignation or anti-regulation lobbying could destroy legislation and perpetuate unspeakable horrors in the DRC and surrounding region.

Andrew Friedman is a human rights attorney and consultant who works and writes on legal reform and constitutional law with an emphasis on Africa. He can be reached via email at afriedm2@gmail.com or via twitter @AndrewBFriedman.