The companies involved in the development, production, manufacture, possession, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons are engaging in activity that is now prohibited by international law.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (nuclear ban treaty) makes it illegal for the countries that join it to allow any activity in their jurisdiction that might violate the treaty. The treaty specifically prohibits the use, development, testing, production, manufacturing, acquiring, possession, stockpiling, transferring, receiving, threatening to use, stationing, installation, or deploying nuclear weapons.
These are activities in which the following companies are currently involved.
What now?
Based on past weapons prohibitions, including landmines and cluster munitions we can estimate that the fact the weapon is now illegal under international law will lead to demonstrative behavioural changes. This will take place sooner in countries joining the treaty, but, in due course, will influence non-states parties’ production, policies on use and transfer of weapons.
Landmines and cluster munitions are a good example. Since the entry into force of the Cluster Munitions Convention (CMC) in 2010 and the Mine Ban Treaty (MBT) in 1999 production of these weapons nearly ceased, even in countries that didn’t join the treaties. Textron and Orbital ATK, two companies producing cluster munitions in the United States, a non-party state, stopped production in the years after entry into force. Non-party states to the Mine Ban Treaty (MBT), like Egypt, adopted explicit policies against producing landmines after entry into force.
Lockheed Martin, which describes itself as the worlds largest arms manufacturer, announced that it ceased its involvement with the production of rockets, missiles or other delivery systems for cluster munitions and stated it will not accept such orders in the future. The arms manufacturer expressed the hope that its decision to cease cluster munitions related activities would enable it to be included in investor’s portfolios again. This suggests that pressure by financial institutions (and facilitated by governments including through legislation prohibiting investment) was a contributing factor in Lockheed Martin’s decision to end its involvement with cluster munitions production.
This is attributable to the understanding that while it is unlikely that divestment by a single financial institution or government would create sufficient pressure on a company for it to end its involvement in nuclear weapon production, divestment by even a few institutions, or States based on the same justification can impact a company’s strategic direction.
According to a 2013 report by Oxford University[1] “in almost every divestment campaign … from adult services to Darfur, tobacco to Apartheid, divestment campaigns were effective in lobbying for restricting legislation affecting stigmatized firms”.
At the end of the day, there aren’t so very many companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons. Yet, some are currently receiving multi-billion-dollar multi-year contracts to participate in the new nuclear arms race. It will take sustained pressure, from several directions, to shift their direction. But it is possible.
A company like Huntington Ingalls Industries, which currently has nuclear weapon related contracts valued around $48 billion throughout 2028 can, without significant reinvestment, restructure its efforts to focus on activities necessary for the safe dismantlement, storage, and irreversible disarmament of nuclear weapons.
With the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, companies like Huntington Ingalls Industries should shift contracts away from plutonium pit production and refocus on legacy clean up and safe… Click To TweetThe market is shrinking for massive missile production, and it is growing for environmental protection and remediation. Smart investors are staying away from companies involved in mass destruction and instead focused on economic and environmental sustainability.
In coping with economic challenges in a world ravaged by the Covid 19 pandemic, continuing to produce anachronistic weapons only useful for their symbolic value is not a winning strategy. There is an opportunity to adapt and reflect a new reality in which nuclear weapons are comprehensively outlawed and anticipate the change that is coming.
[1] “Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign: what does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel assets?” October 2013, available at: http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-programmes/stranded-assets/SAP-divestment-report-final.pdf