CMRT: A Practical Guide to the Conflict Minerals Reporting Template

A customer asks for your latest CMRT. Procurement forwards the request to product compliance. Product compliance contacts suppliers, suppliers return files in different versions, and someone must then determine whether the information is complete, current and relevant to the products being sold.

This is where a seemingly straightforward spreadsheet becomes a supply chain data challenge.

The Conflict Minerals Reporting Template, commonly referred to as the CMRT, gives companies a standardized way to exchange information about tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold in products and supply chains. These minerals are collectively known as 3TG.

Yet filling out the template alone does not establish compliance. Companies still need to determine which suppliers are in scope, review submissions, identify smelters and refiners, resolve inconsistencies and retain evidence that can withstand customer or regulatory scrutiny.

This guide explains how the CMRT works from a product compliance perspective – and how to move from collecting files to managing reliable, actionable supplier data.

What Is the CMRT?

CMRT stands for Conflict Minerals Reporting Template. It is a free, standardized reporting template developed by the Responsible Minerals Initiative to help companies communicate information about the origin of 3TG minerals and the smelters and refiners used in their supply chains.

The four minerals covered by the CMRT are:

• Tin
• Tantalum
• Tungsten; and
• Gold.

These materials are used in electronics, automotive components, machinery, coatings, connectors, solders and many other manufactured products. As a result, the information needed for a declaration may sit several tiers upstream from the company receiving a customer request.

While the CMRT focuses on tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold, the Extended Minerals Reporting Template, or EMRT, supports reporting on cobalt, copper, natural graphite, lithium, mica and nickel. Together, these templates help product compliance teams collect more consistent upstream supplier information across a growing range of materials.

The CMRT creates a common reporting structure, but the quality of the output still depends on the quality and scope of the underlying supplier information.

CMRT vs. EMRT at a Glance

The templates should not be treated as interchangeable. Companies should first understand their product and material scope, then send the correct reporting request to relevant suppliers.

In practice, this reinforces the need for scalable product compliance. When CMRT and EMRT campaigns are run separately through spreadsheets and emails, companies can easily duplicate supplier outreach, lose track of product scope and create conflicting records. A coordinated process allows supplier and product data to be reused across both reporting streams.

What Is the Latest CMRT Version in 2026?

The latest CMRT version in 2026 is CMRT 6.6, released by the Responsible Minerals Initiative on April 17, 2026.

Companies should obtain the template from the official RMI website rather than relying on old email attachments, supplier portals or locally saved copies. IntegrityNext suppliers can also use the guidance on where to download the latest CMRT.

Version control matters because the RMI periodically updates supporting lists, instructions and template functionality. Using a current version reduces the risk that a declaration contains outdated reference information or cannot be processed correctly by a customer’s system.

Is CMRT 6.5 Still Valid?

CMRT 6.5 was released on April 25, 2025, and superseded CMRT 6.4. It may still appear throughout supply chains because declarations are often prepared on different annual cycles and remain stored in supplier databases.

However, CMRT 6.5 is no longer the latest template. Companies initiating a new reporting cycle in 2026 should use CMRT 6.6 unless a customer provides different instructions.

Rather than automatically rejecting older files, compliance teams should establish a controlled review process. That process should consider:
•    the customer’s reporting period;
•    the date of the supplier declaration;
•    the requested template version;
•    whether material or smelter data has changed; and
•    whether the file can be validated and consolidated.

What About CMRT 6.4?

CMRT 6.4 was released in 2024 and has since been replaced. Its continued presence is a useful signal: supplier data collection is not a one-time event.

When suppliers submit CMRT 6.4 files during a current reporting cycle, teams should request an updated declaration or document why the older version remains acceptable for the specific use case. Without a consistent escalation rule, outdated templates can accumulate and undermine reporting quality.

Is There a CMRT Certification?

The CMRT is not a certification.

A company does not become CMRT-certified simply by filling in the template. The CMRT is a standardized declaration format used to communicate sourcing and due diligence information.

This distinction matters because a completed spreadsheet is not proof that every upstream actor is risk-free or that every smelter has been independently assessed. Companies need to examine the declaration’s scope, completeness and internal consistency and compare relevant facilities against current reference information.

A more relevant question is therefore: Has the supplier provided a current, complete and credible CMRT that supports our due diligence process?

How Do You Complete a CMRT Reliably?

Reliable completion begins before anyone opens the spreadsheet. The reporting team first needs a defensible scope.

1. Determine which products and suppliers are relevant

Start by identifying products that may contain 3TG as a raw material, component or additive. Product bills of materials (BOMs), commodity classifications, supplier declarations and engineering knowledge can help determine the scope.

The goal is not to send the same request indiscriminately to every supplier. A risk-based approach improves response quality and reduces unnecessary supplier workload.

2. Define the declaration scope

CMRT declarations may be made at company, product or user-defined level. A broad company-level declaration may be efficient, but it can also include information unrelated to the products purchased by a specific customer.

Product-level declarations offer greater precision but are harder to maintain across large portfolios.

The right choice depends on product complexity, customer expectations, available supplier data and the company’s reporting model. Whatever scope is selected should be clearly stated and applied consistently.

3. Collect current supplier declarations

Suppliers need clear instructions covering the requested version, reporting period, deadline and declaration scope.

They should also understand what to do when information is unavailable. An “unknown” answer may be more accurate than an unsupported assumption, but it should trigger follow-up and improvement rather than become a permanent endpoint.

4. Check completeness and consistency

A returned file should not be treated as finished by default.

Review whether mandatory fields are complete, whether the declaration scope is clear, whether answers contradict one another and whether listed facilities can be identified. Files should also be checked for language, format and version issues.

Suppliers using IntegrityNext can follow the documented process to upload a completed CMRT.

5. Evaluate smelter and refiner information

Smelter data is central to the value of the CMRT. Compliance teams need to distinguish identified facilities from incomplete, duplicate or unrecognized entries.

A facility’s presence on a list should not be interpreted without context. Teams need a structured method for reviewing status, documenting decisions and prioritizing supplier follow-up where information indicates elevated uncertainty or risk.

6. Resolve gaps through supplier engagement

The first collection round rarely produces perfect data.

Some suppliers may not respond. Others may return incomplete declarations or lack visibility into their own upstream supply chains. Effective programs therefore combine structured escalation with practical guidance.

This is where supply chain due diligence becomes more than document collection. Companies need to record follow-up actions, help suppliers improve and demonstrate that identified gaps are being managed proportionately.

Why Does Manual CMRT Management Become Difficult?

A single CMRT may be manageable in a spreadsheet. Hundreds or thousands are not.

Manual programs often rely on shared inboxes, locally stored files and trackers that cannot reliably connect declarations with products, supplier entities, reporting years or corrective actions.

This creates several recurring problems:

• Different CMRT versions enter the same reporting cycle
• Supplier names do not match master data records
• Duplicate files are reviewed repeatedly
• Declaration scopes are unclear
• Smelter information is difficult to consolidate
• Follow-up actions are separated from the original evidence; and
• Reporting becomes a time-consuming annual reconstruction exercise

The challenge grows further when a company must manage CMRT and EMRT in parallel. The same supplier may provide components containing 3TG, cobalt, lithium, graphite or nickel, yet different teams may issue separate requests, maintain separate trackers and evaluate the responses independently.

The problem is therefore not simply the number of templates. It is the difficulty of connecting each declaration to the correct supplier, component, material, product and reporting period.

A scalable product compliance model should reuse supplier, material and product data across CMRT, EMRT, REACH, RoHS, PFAS and other requirements rather than creating a separate information silo for each one.

How IntegrityNext Supports CMRT and Conflict Minerals Reporting

IntegrityNext helps companies move beyond decentralized spreadsheet collection toward a structured conflict minerals reporting process.

Suppliers can provide information and upload CMRT declarations through a consistent workflow. The platform supports completeness checks, evaluates relevant smelter information and consolidates supplier data so compliance teams can focus their attention on gaps and higher-risk records.

This connects the document to the wider due diligence process. Teams can identify which suppliers require follow-up, retain supporting evidence and use engagement workflows to drive improvements over time.

The approach is particularly valuable for companies managing large supplier networks. Instead of treating every declaration as an isolated attachment, organizations can connect CMRT information with supplier assessments, product compliance requirements and multi-tier supply chain visibility.

The objective is not simply to collect more templates. It is to create a repeatable process that produces more reliable information, supports targeted action and remains audit-ready as reporting cycles and supplier relationships change.

The same operating model can support EMRT-related supplier engagement. By coordinating minerals reporting requests within a broader supplier and product compliance process, teams can reduce duplicated outreach, distinguish which templates apply to which suppliers and maintain consistent documentation across 3TG and extended-mineral reporting.

Explore IntegrityNext’s approach to conflict minerals reporting or book a demo to discuss how CMRT data can be managed at scale.

From Annual Collection to Continuous Compliance

The CMRT is often approached as an annual supplier campaign: send requests, chase responses, consolidate files and prepare the report.

That cycle is necessary, but it should not stand alone.

Supplier portfolios change. Products are redesigned. Smelters and refiners change status. New template versions are released. Customer requirements evolve. A declaration that was sufficient during one reporting period may not remain sufficient for the next.

A more mature program treats the CMRT as part of a continuous product compliance system. That means maintaining clear ownership, version controls, supplier engagement rules, evidence retention and links between products and declarations.

The strategic opportunity is to use each reporting cycle to improve the underlying data rather than merely repeat the same collection exercise. Over time, companies can reduce unknowns, focus resources on material risks and build a stronger foundation for responsible mineral sourcing.