In the latest issue of ODE magazine there was a small news item called Eco-friendly fire. The item discusses the paradox of corporate social responsibility within BAE Systems, Europe’s #1 weapons manufacturer (and the world’s #4). Following is what they say on CSR with regard to their products:
We aim to design products that are safe to handle and transport. For example, RO Defence, a BAE Systems company, has developed a range of insensitive munitions, using new explosives that are significantly less likely to explode in an accident.
Lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people. Our RO Defence site at Radway Green is developing lead-free ammunition which will be available in 2005.
There have been concerns that the use of depleted uranium in weapons may cause harm. In 2003, we stopped using depleted uranium in our products. Our depleted uranium manufacturing facility at Featherstone is being decommissioned in compliance with standards.
It makes me wonder. How weird is it to say that there may have been concerns that the use of depleted uranium in weapons may cause harm? Weapons are intended to do do physical or mental harm, may it be in attack or defense.
If it is your company’s business to produce and sell weapons how can you even hope to be seen as ethical by starting a CSR program? You may strive to do less damage, but is that moral? At what amount of damage does being moral stop or start?
A spokesman for the Campaign Against Arms Trade thinks the whole thing is laughable. I agree and believe that one aspect of being moral is authentic. Producing weapons such as an Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System and worrying about causing harm with your weapons sounds contradictory to me. They simply can not be a product of the same value set; "our conscience is not impeded by our values to produce weapons, but we worry about the damage we do?".
Corporate social responsibility with BAE Systems sounds like load of crock to me.
