Johan Oosthuizen: 0:00

We'll always report the best versions of ourselves. And the reality is, the risk is not in your best version. The reality is, the risk is in your worst version. And that worst version of you is always locked up three layers deep, 12 months behind, in the eyes of someone else. So, certification schemes, where we move from self declaration to third party verification is a natural path.

Tom Raftery-1: 0:33

If the energy transition depends on critical minerals, then we need to ask ourselves, how much do we really know about the supply chains behind them? Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, where everywhere in the world. Welcome to episode 128 of resilience supply chain stories and strategies that keep business moving. I'm your host, Tom Raftery. Today I'm joined by Johan Oosthuizen, a responsible sourcing specialist working at the intersection of mining, operations, supply chain governance, and regulatory due diligence. He spends his time where boardroom expectations meet site level reality, which is exactly where a lot of supply chain resilience either proves itself or quietly falls apart. In this episode, we talk about why reporting is not enough, why governance risk can be bigger than geology risk, and how audit data can become a strategic tool rather than another compliance exercise. Interestingly, Johan points out that a large mine may employ 1000 to 2000 people directly, but needs around 10,000 people in the first tier alone to support it, and that's not a supplier base. That's an ecosystem. Let's get into it.

Tom Raftery: 1:54

Johan. Welcome to the podcast. Would you like to introduce yourself?

Johan Oosthuizen: 1:58

Hi Tom absolute pleasure being here. Big fan of the show. Look forward to contributing. Yes, I'm Johan Oosthuizen. I am a responsible sourcing specialist out of South Africa. My work sits in the intersection of mining, operations, supply chain governance, and regulatory due diligence, primarily looking at critical minerals. But I do work in agricultural supply chains as well. The best way to put it is my role sits somewhere in between site level reality and regulatory expectation, whether it be IFC, performance standards, OECD due diligence guidelines or EU legislation. So I spend most of my time looking beyond policy statements and into how management systems actually function on the ground. On a contractor level, at a supplier level, and most importantly on community interfaces. This means I see both the ends of the system and the gears of the system with investors, a regulatory mindset in place and what actually is happening operationally. What we're going to explore today is the gap where resilience fractures or becomes a living, breathing tool that can be reported on.

Tom Raftery: 3:08

Okay. And how did you get into all this Johan?

Johan Oosthuizen: 3:10

By accident. I think that's the best way to put it. There was no divine plan. I started off my professional career in socioeconomics specifically social impact assessment. I had the privilege of working overseas on my first project in a very big gas and oil and gas project in Northern Mozambique where I got a very rude awakening to what socioeconomic development can and should be. And over the years that's formed me being involved in environmental authorisations as well, EIAs SIAs, socioeconomic impact assessments. That's where my, my, my life started until I ended up in resettlement, which everybody knows is probably the toughest social science there is. I really enjoyed the complexity of resettlement, but after a couple of years, that kind of wears you down emotionally and physically. So, I had a good conversation with a gentleman at the airport the one day, and I told him what I was doing and what I was there to do. He just took one look and said, why don't you try auditing? You can sit on the other side of the table for a little bit. And then I said, yeah, well, why not? Two weeks later, I started my journey into social compliance auditing. I got my ABSCA certification, which is extremely hard to get. From there I did about two years of in depth auditing. Audited over a thousand days to date of audits, social compliance audits, ethical trade audits, the sustainability assurance of big multinational companies. And then from there, the light bulb went off in my mind, why do I not combine the two? Use real audit insights. Primary data gathering to drive socioeconomic change in communities, communicate that in a way that is practical and implementable for communities and understandable and palatable for big developmental agencies because I can talk both languages. I can talk to a community and I can talk to a board. And hopefully if I do my job well enough the two understand each other.

Tom Raftery: 5:18

Good and you talked about critical minerals at the outset. When people talk about mineral shortages, what mineral shortages are we seeing and why?

Johan Oosthuizen: 5:29

I think the big driver at this stage is twofold. Battery supply chains is absolutely booming for inclusion in EVs. So if we look at that copper and cobalt is massive we should be looking, oh, there is big regulatory pressure on copper and cobalt primarily due to where we find copper and cobalt in the world. There is not a lot of rule of law where we find these types of minerals. So, it's really important for us to try and understand what we have in those areas and see what the functional gaps are and how we can start closing those functional gaps to make sure that when we procure these critical minerals in, in big supply chains. Then it becomes palatable for the end user. I think that's the best way to put it. And then also mica a lot of interest in that as well. Rare earths they're not abundant. Hence the reason why we call them rare earths. So the areas where we do find them is places like Madagascar, for example. Is again, a place that is not extremely well regulated in the forms of legislative compliance. So, there's just that extra bit of pressure to make sure that the places where we are sourcing these minerals from we, we do keep in mind that there are real people living there. Those are real very sensitive environmental backdrops where these big, large mining operations are taking place. And then exploitation is often not too far away from opportunity.

Tom Raftery: 6:58

And just to clarify, when you, said there's an explosion in interest in these batteries for EVs it's also not just EVs, but also stationary storage for backup of renewables, which is a massive market, which is also exploding right now. I shouldn't say exploding when I'm referring to batteries, but you know what I mean.

Johan Oosthuizen: 7:17

I know exactly what you mean. And then we already had the massive, demand for these minerals anyway, because batteries have been part of our lives for many years. So the drive for cell phone batteries, for example, it's not dissipating in any way, shape or form. So, we had that enormous baseline appetite for batteries. And now we are just 10 timesing it to, a stage where, the compliance is not necessarily up to date with the demand. I think that's the best way to to put it.

Tom Raftery: 7:47

Yeah. And where does a lot of the risk or where, where are the weakest links? Is it the tier two and tier three contractors?

Johan Oosthuizen: 7:55

That is, yeah. So it's a journey. Let's start off with that. I think. When we look at these very large and complex supply chains, we often look at control nodes. Different control nodes within a supply chain. The primary control node would always be the miners. It's as it sits as the extraction point. Now, in that control node, what we should be looking at is things like where traceability of the actual mineral. Is it being sourced where we say it's being sourced? Is there any leakages into the formal supply chain? And then also what makes that mine work? And I think that is something that people often forget is that a mine is not one large company digging a hole into a ground. It is a extremely complicated web of service providers web of labour service providers that function together as a very large and complicated ecosystem. So, being a control node and having that almost patriarchal responsibility to host communities in very rural areas more often than not comes with its own very unique and distinct challenges.

Tom Raftery: 9:04

Are there examples of where policies existed but the system still failed?

Johan Oosthuizen: 9:09

Yeah there's many examples, Tom. The old adage of you have a game plan until you get hit comes to mind. There's very good policies usually in place. When we come to financing of mines and large complex developmental projects, there's usually some financier expectations on what environmental, social and governance risks need to be managed and how they should be managed. we uh very often have these beautiful ESMSs, and then year two or three when rubber hits the road and it gets tested against the real world communities and real world environmental pressures these ESMSs come under pressure, both from a financial implementational risk point of view, and then also from a community and reputational point of view where you have to make sure that your systems are adapting to these very dynamic changes and shifts within your host's community and environment.

Tom Raftery: 10:05

Okay, are downstream OEMs underestimating the governance gap between their net zero timelines and upstream reality?

Johan Oosthuizen: 10:56

I think they, they underestimate the amount of capital is needed to close that gap. The more capital you allocate, the quicker you can close that gap. In the real world, there's quite a reluctance to overspend on, on this gap. We very often see that compliance and being able to demonstrate compliance is more of a second priority tier financial spend, then it's a primary priority tier financial spend, which is a shame because you can unlock value. You can unlock immense value in supply chains when you start directly investing in your own prosperity and your own ecosystem. That's why I probably have the best job in the world is that I can see where compliance driven management systems can be leveraged to make a real socioeconomic impact. And then by extension, a good environmental impact as well to say, we have to do this we might as well do it right from the start. We might as well leverage our compliance obligations and do two ground level socioeconomic development. And I've found no better tool to do this than supply chains and specifically mine supply chains. There's always a I won't call it a bit of a stigma, but a stigma around mining and how it operates in rural communities. But I can tell you firsthand in terms of development and helping people to reach their. goals in life being able to be more than my father was, than my mother was. There's nothing better than being able to work yourself up or self-realisation, giving an opportunity when it comes to participating in a larger project that you can form part of There's no true form of socioeconomic development.

Tom Raftery: 12:43

You're, you're right. Mining does have a bit of a reputation and in a lot of cases

Johan Oosthuizen: 12:50

Rightly, so yeah.

Tom Raftery: 12:52

So, but going back to batteries for a second. You know, I have this external battery in my hand here now. It's one that I use from my phone. It's a 20,000 milliamp hour battery. It's great for, when I'm on the road, but how do I know its provenance? There's nothing on it, which tells me there wasn't little kids digging it up or that people weren't displaced, or the tailings from the mine weren't polluting rivers and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All the other horrific stories that we hear about mines.

Johan Oosthuizen: 13:25

It's a very good question and it's not a straightforward question and people like to think it's a very linear and straightforward question. It's not if you want to be responsible in the way that you purchase your items, there's many different ways to check it and there's many different ways to implement it. One of the key drivers that we are seeing is the EU Battery Passport initiative. Very good initiative. I think some work still left in that it's not the finished product in my humble opinion. But it is a big step in the right direction and I think we are going to start seeing a real traceability and a real built in governance. Demonstratable governance built into that. I think that is a very good, measuring stick to look for. And then also we look for things like external certification verification standards like IRMA is bringing real, muscle to this. I'm a big fan of certification. It's not just because I'm an auditor. I am really fond of really demonstrated compliance, third party verification and making sure people do what they say and prove that they've done so. That is for me, the basis of any system and how we should be managing, and it should be procuring our minerals. So, not a linear process. I think that's the quick and dirty answer is that we have to layer many different aspects to it from the mine that we are sourcing to how these, critical minerals are gathered, how they're smelted, how they are get introduced into the OEMs. And then how does the OEMs use that, that minerals responsibly as well? People tend to forget there's downstream users to mines as well. So it's large and it's complicated. And it's specifically designed that way not to be very easily dissected. It's a system that thrives on complexity and we should be aware of that and not treat it as a, as an enemy, but treat it as a ally that needs to be told what to do and when to do it.

Tom Raftery: 15:21

Fair. And you know, given you are an auditor and most companies, audit suppliers, few of them turn audits into strategy, why is that?

Johan Oosthuizen: 15:31

The good ones do. Because when laws did you get primary data gathered for yourself using your own lenses? If you have a, sustainability goal, if your goal is resilience you have designed outcomes. If you can start influencing your supply chain from a very granular point of view, you can start building from the ground up. And we both know if we build up from the ground up, you build to a plan, you build to a architecture. You can use the data that comes out of your suppliers to start leveraging them for things like scope three reduction, climate resilience, adaptation plans, gender empowerment, to name, but a few. Whatever your, goal is when it comes to socioeconomic development, sustainability, resilience, call it whatever you want. If you start designing your supply chain for the end outcome we are talking something completely different here. We've always had this notion of that we are passive receiver of goods and services. And I think that mindset has been entrenched for way too long. If we start moving away from that mindset of being passive receivers of goods and services to being architects of our own supply, of our own ideal outcomes, we setting ourselves up for not just a more resilient supply chain, but a powerful multiplier tool for environmental, social governance, sustainability, resilience all the things that we try and talk nicely in boardrooms, but people feeling communities. those things we can accomplish and it is. It's a switch. It's a different lens. It's a different frame. The good companies are doing it. And then I do think that will be the differentiator one day. That's how our, goods are going to be sourced in the future. And my humble opinion is that people are gonna start looking beyond pure commodity prices, which is extremely regulated anyway into what is this company doing for its communities? How is it treating the environment? What is the net positives and the net negatives that comes out of this operation? And how are they treating the communities around them?

Tom Raftery: 17:39

And, And what I mean seeing as you bring up boards and boardrooms, what kind of recurring audit findings should boards treat as early warning signals?

Johan Oosthuizen: 17:48

It depends on what level of lens we are talking about. Now, if we're talking from a mine supplier lens things like a low level of investment into socioeconomic development. When that happens we often talk about social licence to operate. But the translation is that our communities are being exploited. And then out of that exploitation breeds resentment out of resentments, breeds operational stoppages, strikes, community unrest which becomes our operational risk in its own right. Especially in Africa, those things happen overnight. So, when we talk on a supply level, that's definitely one. When we talk on a larger environmental and social and governance level is that you're going to have to sell that product. It is no use mining that product and you don't have any customer for that base. When we talk critical minerals we talk a highly sophisticated customer, at the end of the day. We are talking about very well ensumed end users, end consumers, and we are talking of very well risk averse OEMs. So if you do not manage your pixels, the picture is not gonna be a pretty one for you because you're not going to be able to sell your, critical minerals for the anticipated price. It doesn't mean you're not going to sell them, it just means you're not gonna get a premium for your product. Things like management systems is to get to your point is if your management systems do not kick out the information that it should be kicking out. If you're monitoring results are inconsistent, if your document control is weak that what we call a golden thread will just not be there, you won't be able to action on your data and you won't be able to prove that you are indeed a good corporate social citizen.

Tom Raftery: 19:35

Okay. And then of course, what changes when procurement actually integrates audit data into sourcing decisions?

Johan Oosthuizen: 19:42

Well, that's the key question, right? Again we can take two lenses on this. If we take the lens from a mining point of view, there's two aspects to this. There is security of supply and impact of supply. Now, if we take security of supply, that's usually a easy thing to manage. We take the cheapest, the closest, and the most willing to cooperate supplier. And that's a very easy conversation. However, if we take impact of supply we take a different lens to this where we often develop, we have to develop our own suppliers because that type of supplier simply just do not exist in any rural developing country. So you have the opportunity to develop a supplier to again, drive, your sustainability goals through your supply chain. I've seen projects that in. let's take South Africa as an example a town called Mokopane. Big platinum mine operating there. They took the decision to start leveraging their supplier data for socioeconomic development. A couple of really good gender based programmes developing. Monitoring over a couple of years has shown that what was once one woman SMME is now a multi-site fully functioning I I'd say successful business in all areas that you would consider as a success. And they are actively contributing to the community develop their communities now. Now, what that means is a trickle down economy. If you invest in people in the community, those people are not going to go to their nearest metropolitan zones and spend their money in there. They're going to reinvest that same money into their communities. They're going to buy their food from their local grocer. They're going to, uplift the general state of play when it comes to those communities. And then you see a wonderful thing start happening. Crime reduces, things like gender based violence reduces, and people start wondering why this happens. It's not an accident. If you take the notion of directionality when you invest. Invest for the outcome that you wanna see, then these things start happening. It's not by accident, it's by people taking a choice to start leveraging the data that they have to make the impact that they wanna see. So to answer your question of how, what happens. It is, lighting a fire, putting a wind behind it and putting dry grass in front of it. It is, a multiplier bar none. If we think of a company employs a large mining company employs 1,200 people odd. 1000 to 2000 directly employed people on a mine. I'm taking a large mine now as an example, how much people do you think it takes to support a mine like that? Just roughly?

Tom Raftery: 22:36

10,000.

Johan Oosthuizen: 22:38

10,000 in your first tier? Right. 10,000 in your first tier. Then if we go to your second tier, that almost quadruples. So the multiplier effects that we have with that, there's nothing like it. There is nothing like it. And especially developing countries where the level of labour sophistication is not as advanced as say, the European or the Americans. But that in itself is a major advantage because you can skip the landline, you can go straight to the cell phone and learn the lessons that could have been, that should have been learned. And implement a system that is more equitable and fair from the beginning. So, yes I'm a supply chain junkie. I'm a guy that, thinks that we are under utilising our, let's call it agency for development by treating indicators as business as usual instead of saying let's make this business unusual. Let's see what we have. Let's do a proper resource analysis. And when I say resource analysis, I do mean resource analysis. It's not just about what's in the ground. It's what we have in our people. It is what we have in our culture. It is what we have in terms of knowledge base and will and youth. We have so much resources, around us that we just take for granted most of the times because we think they belong to someone else. They belong to a different time, a different process. But if you sit down and really try and understand the system, all of the resource flows, some form of magic happens. And you can clearly see where you should be investing, how you should be investing and what you should be doing with your agency.

Tom Raftery: 24:20

Okay, well of course data is one thing. Trust on the other hand, is something entirely different.

Johan Oosthuizen: 24:30

Yep.

Tom Raftery: 24:30

Self declaration is structurally weak in high security mineral chains. So why isn't self-reporting enough? What needs to change?

Johan Oosthuizen: 24:41

Yeah. Did you see me being Superman last week? Um. But that's it. We'll always report the best versions of ourselves. And the reality is, the risk is not in your best version. The reality is, the risk is in your worst version. And that worst version of you is always locked up three layers deep, 12 months behind, in the eyes of someone else. So, I'd say certification schemes, like I'm gonna again use the IRMA example where we move from self declaration to third party verification is a natural path. Do not underestimate the value of a self declaration because it acts like a mirror sometimes. It does give you a good idea of what you should and should not be doing. And then you can start aligning your systems, your processes, your procedures to align to a ideal outcome. The problem when we talk about developing countries is that the lack of resources, specifically human capital now is a real thing. What we need to consider is that, certification, like IRMA is extremely technical. It is hard to, develop that body of knowledge, to understand what the monitoring requirements are, to be able to report it in a way that is auditable. Many people have files, doesn't mean that file is auditable. So, the resource constraints when it comes to moving from a self-reported system to a third party verified system should not be underestimated. It is a very difficult thing to do. Often again under, under-resourced because people don't see the immediate value in it. They often take their health and safety manager, or their environmental manager and they say, okay, you're in charge of certification, buddy. And then you're setting up that person to fail because it is all encompassing. And the parts of audits or assessments that people usually do the worst in is considered the soft indicators. Things like stakeholder engagement, community liaison, monitoring your downstream environmental impacts. It's not your direct day-to-day running that, that makes these certifications difficult to obtain. It is your. It's almost the second level of your company, how they interact with the environment and how it interacts with the communities and NGOs in those areas becomes the differentiator with, from the guys that are in the start of the journey. And the more advanced operations at the backend that we're seeing now only emerge. I think that's one thing we should be very clear on is that this is not as mature as people think it should be. Especially in developing countries the controls around critical minerals are often not in place when it comes to the primary producers. We see the necessary controls filtering in at OEM level or smelter level. But our true impact, our true risk still lies with extraction just because of the scale of that operation.

Tom Raftery: 27:55

And obviously compliance is a snapshot, whereas capability on the other hand is structural. So what would you say is the difference between a compliant supplier and a capable one?

Johan Oosthuizen: 28:09

Yeah, that's a good question. I think a compliant supplier is someone that ticks the boxes. It is someone that doesn't present itself as a risk. But the other side of the coin that we should be considering is how to get that supply that is compliant, because we want compliant suppliers do not get me wrong. Compliant suppliers is very useful in a mining system. The key question is how can we build in resilience into a compliant supplier? First of all, we want compliant suppliers because they de-risk the operation, but we want resilient suppliers as well. We want guys to be there next week when we give out a tender. We want people to be able to work with their natural resources in their receiving environment, We wanna understand what makes you work from a very granular level. So I think the difference between the two is intent. Again, if the intent is compliance, yes, you're gonna have a low risk operation. But if your intent is compliance with resilience, then we start, moving the needle to something else. And we start developing those nodes of influence, those little fires we spoke about. The more little fires you can create, the more wind you put behind it, the bigger the fire at the end of the day, right?

Tom Raftery: 29:30

Sure. And talking a little bit about Africa, seeing as that's where you're based, what would you say are the biggest misconceptions Western buyers have about African mineral supply chains, and what local strengths are under recognised?

Johan Oosthuizen: 29:46

Yeah, that's a very good question. And I think we we tend to think of geographical areas as small isolated places. When people talk about Africa they think about one place. Africa is many different places. Africa has many different faces. We can talk about a mine in Johannesburg, and that's not the same as a mine in the DRC or in Zambia. There is a lot of geographical differences between the African operations and I think I'm privileged enough to wear the glasses of risk, compliance, and finance many times. So I look at an Africa from a European or American or a Chinese perspective in terms of investment, So I'm privileged enough to get that view. But it is, it's immensely different from one place to another. And I think the, big thing that we very often miss is that inherent resilience. Africa has a way of working. They are very adaptive, very used to harsh conditions, be it heat, be it rain, be it political instability. Africa finds a way so that inherent robustness, that hard nose attitude of we're gonna get it right and we're gonna, we're gonna make it work. That's always there in African operations. And it's a beautiful thing to see sometimes that extreme will to make it happen. From a company point of view and from a people point of view. I think it's a beautiful thing to see on the ground, is that just every day resilience, every day get up and go every day, let's make it work attitude. Often that can unfortunately translate into exploitation if it's unchecked, if there is irresponsible investment or irresponsible management from development agencies that resilience, that can do attitude can very easily be turned in, into exploitation. And it has in the past. And I think that's one thing that we should be acutely aware of is that if we think gone, gone are the days of exploitation, it's not. Exploitation is a hundred percent there. And often it's the neighbour of the very clean, very well certified mining operations is right next door. There is operations that are not as clean. And we have to treat that as a risk and we have to treat that as an opportunity because there's no need for them to not be aligned. I think it's our customer expectation our will to procure responsibly that drives these types of initiatives and ultimately does filter down to very primitive mining sites that says that, this is our customer expectations. This is the certification that we need to get. It's no longer good enough for us just to dig in the ground. We need to prove how we've dug in this ground.

Tom Raftery: 32:36

Okay, if resilience in mineral supply chains is really about governance quality, what should boards be measuring next quarter that they're not measuring today?

Johan Oosthuizen: 32:51

That is a really good question. I think we, the implementation of management systems I always go back to our management system. I love my, spreadsheets. They always tell us a hidden truth.'Cause we get narrative and you get statistics and somewhere in between ' lies the truth. So I'd always go back to the spreadsheets. I'd always go back to how my data is reported, how it is consolidated, how it is interpreted, and then at the end of the day how can we start leveraging that data? A good assurance process on my data. Do not underestimate the value, of a second pair of eyes on what you consider the sensitive data. I think the value of assured data versus self-reported data it's two different things. And I think we've almost been lulled into a false sense of security when we see these, beautiful, bright and shiny reports, but you see, there's no assurance on that data. So assured data if I was a board, I'd a hundred percent look at getting my data assured and making sure that what I'm basing my decisions on is actually what is the reality in my operations.

Tom Raftery: 34:03

Okay. Interesting. And what surprised you most? Was there any one particular finding or any one particular audit where you found something that you went, whoa?

Johan Oosthuizen: 34:14

Yo, Tom Too many to think of. I was involved in a big supply chain risk assessment now at the backend of 2025 in rural Brazil. Not in the critical mineral supply chains, but in a different agricultural commodity. And the level of complexity around something that seems so simple, is just something that always gets me is that how these very basic forms of making a living of just existing with very small tweaks I'm talking very small tweaks can be a massive multiplier and leverager for development. And then seeing how, the very basic understandings of what makes a good supplier, what makes a resilient supplier translates business development. So the market I'm talking about now had a, supplier base of think 18,000 different small holder farmings farms, and there were six operators of that size in there, and they were all competing for the same supplier base. And at the end of the day, it came down to who invests the most in moving their supply chain from basic subsistence farming to being able to self determine your future and your family's future to regenerative agriculture, socioeconomic development. And I've done this a million times. The correlation between compliance and investment in the resilience, it is a hundred percent correlated. The more you invest in compliance, the more you invest in regenerative initiatives the more you lower your risk profile, but you also boost your potential for your suppliers to be nodes of development in themselves.' cause you don't want to be responsible for your suppliers, your whole let's call it professional life. You want to be able to say, I've developed a supplier base. I've developed nodes of development. Because if you develop nodes of development, that's where you see the two multiplied effects. But if you keep that power to yourself and only manage your risk, you see no development, node, tangible thing. And, And then you, you see random things like your suppliers going to other companies and negotiating different terms of them. And then they'll often move for 50 cents on the dollar between companies. So the loyalty. just isn't there and it becomes a business risk, and you end up spending way more money in recruitment. The knock on effects of not realising your agency is something that plays itself over any commodity, any supply chain, it is always there. If you don't take responsibility, if you don't invest, if you don't understand the drivers of your supply chain you will bear the negative consequences over a period of time. I think that's always been a almost one to one ratio.

Tom Raftery: 37:21

Makes sense. Okay. Quick lightning round, Johan. One word, or at most one sentence answers. Ready?

Johan Oosthuizen: 37:32

yes. How am I doing?

Tom Raftery: 37:35

That's good so far. Okay. Build fast or build resilient?

Johan Oosthuizen: 37:41

Build resilient every day.

Tom Raftery: 37:43

Nice. More audits or better supplier training?

Johan Oosthuizen: 37:47

Both audits need to inform supplier training, chicken and egg scenario,

Tom Raftery: 37:53

Okay. Local sourcing or global diversification?

Johan Oosthuizen: 37:57

Local sourcing with global intentions.

Tom Raftery: 38:01

Okay. Transparency, public or kept internal?

Johan Oosthuizen: 38:09

Depends on where you are in the journey. I know that's not a one word answer, but it depends where you are in on the journey. But I, you have to always say transparency and you need to understand what you're transparent about. But transparency always.

Tom Raftery: 38:25

Okay. Exit weak suppliers or invest to fix them?

Johan Oosthuizen: 38:33

That the million dollar question accept acceptable tolerance, risk levels understand what is your accepted tolerance. Invest in anything under that threshold. I'd say there is a couple of non-negotiables. Child labour, forced labour, bonded labour environmental exploitation that should never be present in any supply chain. If you participate that I see you as untrainable, and uninvestible. So anything else where you can be helped along the way and developed along the way given the right tools. Definitely invest.

Tom Raftery: 39:07

And governance risk bigger than geology risk?

Johan Oosthuizen: 39:11

A hundred percent. If we look at the developing market in Africa mineral deposits they're everywhere. Why aren't we mining them is because they're not socioeconomically suitable to be mined yet.

Tom Raftery: 39:25

Okay, and the left field question for you, if you could have any person or character, alive or dead, real or fictional as a champion for resilient, sustainable, critical mineral supply chains, who would it be and why?

Johan Oosthuizen: 39:43

Yeah, that is proper field. Well done on that one. I'm South African, so I, naturally tend to think it's Nelson Mandela.

Tom Raftery: 39:51

Nice.

Johan Oosthuizen: 39:52

Seeing that it's multidisciplinary, it's multifaceted. Finding a way for everybody to win finding a way for everybody to feel like they've achieved something. It was something he was a master at. And that's it. That's something we need more of is deal wins for everybody, not just one person or one company or one supplier.

Tom Raftery: 40:12

Brilliant. Okay, Johan, we're coming towards the end of the podcast now. Is there any question that I didn't ask that you wish I did or any aspect of this we haven't covered that you think it's important for people to be aware of?

Johan Oosthuizen: 40:25

I I, dunno. I think that was good. I think I, I can on honestly not even remember most of it. It was just a, it's just a good conversation. I think that's it's something we could have done with a beer in the hand, which is nice.

Tom Raftery: 40:36

Next time.

Johan Oosthuizen: 40:37

Next time.

Tom Raftery: 40:39

Brilliant. Okay. Johan, if people who would like to know more about yourself or any of the things we discussed in the podcast today, where would you have me direct them?

Johan Oosthuizen: 40:48

I think my LinkedIn page is probably my number one landing landing opportunity. I'll pop you the details and I think that's the best way to do so. I'll also include my professional email address if anybody wants to reach out directly. As you can see, I love having a chat and talking about these things. There's no such thing as a supply chain sustainability expert. It's just we integrate a lot of things and the more people we can talk to the more integration can happen, the more resilient we can build our supply chains. So love having these conversations.

Tom Raftery: 41:20

Fantastic. Johan, that's been amazing. Thanks a million for coming on the podcast today.

Johan Oosthuizen: 41:24

Thanks Tom.