.jpg)
In armed conflict, children are uniquely vulnerable. In 2024, children accounted for 43% of all casualties from mines and explosive remnants of war. Explosive weapons, on average, cause about 69.2% of child casualties in armed conflict. Moreover, government forces are primarily responsible for the killing and maiming of children. The failure of state arms export regulations to prevent transfers of weapons to those with a clear record of human rights and child rights violations necessitates continued calls for corporate responsibility and human rights due diligence (HRDD).
The statements and HRDD policies of leading arms manufacturers ignore the grave impact of their products on children's rights in conflict-affected areas. The authors of this article analyzed the corporate policies of the world’s top 12 arms manufacturers, based on SPIRI’s 2024 rankings. These include Lockheed Martin Corporation, RTX, Northrop Grumman Corporation, BAE Systems, General Dynamics Corporation, Boeing, Rostec, AVIC, CETC, NORINCO, Leonardo, and CASC. We looked for indicators that children's rights protections were considered in each company’s manufacturing process, supply chain, sales or client acquisition, end use of their products, or any other operational aspect.
Alarmingly, we found no indication that these companies recognized or protected children's rights in areas where their weapons are deployed. We acknowledge that companies’ actions may extend beyond what they document in their publicly available policies. However, protecting human rights requires transparency, and transparency begins with public HRDD commitments.
What did we look for?
To understand how arms manufacturers approach their global responsibilities, we analyzed a wide range of corporate documents released publicly between 2010 and 2025. These included official policy statements on human rights; annual sustainability and environmental, social, and governance reports; supplier codes of conduct; and other operational guidelines. We also reviewed shareholder reports and digital resources on social impact, modern slavery, and business resilience. These materials offer a picture of how the industry presents its values to the public, its investors, and its partners.
We specifically looked at how companies define their human rights obligations arising from the impact of their products in the field and in their supply chains. We scoured the documents for mentions of children’s rights and noted the specific contexts in which they appear. Most importantly, we searched for evidence of due diligence and risk assessment practices in place to mitigate the risk of manufacturers’ products causing harm to children, being diverted to unauthorized users, or contributing to human rights violations.
What did we see?
More than anything else, we saw a delegation of responsibility for product safety concerns, accountability, and transparency around human rights to others: suppliers and governments. For example, General Dynamics states that, "Given our role as a core supplier to the United States government and military, we are legally, ethically and morally bound to support the foreign and defense policy of the United States." The company, like others studied, does not act directly but instead shelters behind the law and policy of the United States to ensure protection against misuse of its weapons.
In other words, companies could avoid implementing internal measures to protect human rights by delegating all responsibilities to governments. This is particularly evident in statements addressing risks associated with end users. In all the documents we analyzed, we found no acknowledgment of the risks posed by end users to human rights in general or those of children in particular. Furthermore, we found no indications that companies were considering or implementing measures to prevent or mitigate misuse of the weapons.
What does this mean?
The omissions say a lot. By ignoring the risks inherent to the deployment of their weapons, these companies shirk responsibility for the impact their products may have on the lives of civilian adults and children alike. The UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights reinforce the need for due diligence equal in scope to the severity of a business’s impact on human rights. The UNGPs further emphasize that businesses have a responsibility toward human rights protection independent of state actions. The failure of arms manufacturers to address in their public statements the specific risks associated with the primary purpose of their weapons, while emphasizing risks in other areas such as supply chains, human trafficking, child labor, and sustainability, is a direct subversion of the UNGP mandate and represents gross negligence toward human rights.
The absence of child-specific protection language is not accidental; it is strategic. To acknowledge publicly that the deployment of a weapon may violate children's rights to education or life would, in turn, require consistent assessment of the risks posed to children by weapon sales. It would also require declining or terminating profitable contracts once violations of human rights are suspected—even if the government has previously granted an export license. It would mean monitoring where missiles land, denying sales to high-risk clients, providing remedies when schools are hit, and lifting the shield of immunity that arms manufacturers now enjoy. Above all, implementing these measures would impose huge—potentially unsustainable—financial costs.
Moving forward
We need to question the very foundations of the arms industry’s business model and its reliance on ignoring children’s rights. To recognize children's rights means admitting that the product, when used as intended, frequently violates the most fundamental international human rights treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Arms manufacturing companies already face legal, reputational, financial, and governance risks courtesy of their complicity in war crimes and genocide. Those companies willing to implement industry-specific HRDD and child protection policies will be at the forefront of a more ethical approach to the defense and arms trade.