Do gun manufacturers have a duty to prevent violence? – University of Colorado Boulder

Report on Corporate Responsibility in Firearm Manufacturing and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

A recent academic paper by Levente Szentkirályi, published in the Journal of Business Ethics, introduces a “precautionary ethics” framework to re-evaluate the moral and social responsibilities of gun manufacturers. This report analyzes the paper’s core arguments, with a significant emphasis on their implications for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Challenging Corporate Inaction to Advance SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The conventional stance of firearm manufacturers, which deflects responsibility for gun violence, presents a significant obstacle to achieving SDG 16, specifically Target 16.1, which aims to “significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” The research argues against this position, proposing a moral justification for holding manufacturers accountable even when direct causality is scientifically complex.

• Current Impasse: The debate remains polarized, with manufacturers citing the complexity of gun violence’s causes to dismiss their role, thereby hindering progress toward peaceful and inclusive societies.
• Diversionary Tactics: The paper notes that shifting blame to broader social factors like mental health is a tactic historically used by industries such as tobacco and oil to evade responsibility, undermining the development of effective and accountable institutions.
• A New Moral Standard: The proposed framework asserts that corporations, as members of the community, have a duty to be part of the solution, aligning with the principles of justice and institutional integrity central to SDG 16.

A Precautionary Framework for SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The paper advocates for a “precautionary ethics” approach, which is forward-looking and prioritizes the prevention of harm. This directly supports SDG 3 by treating gun violence as a critical public health issue that undermines the well-being of communities, particularly vulnerable populations like children and first responders.

1. Proactive vs. Reactive Regulation: Unlike current risk regulation that often requires definitive proof of harm before action is taken, the precautionary approach justifies preventive measures even under conditions of scientific uncertainty.
2. Duty of Due Care: It establishes that businesses have duties of due care to safeguard the public from potential harm. This shifts the focus from retroactively assigning blame to proactively implementing measures to prevent deaths and injuries.
3. Protecting Vulnerable Groups: The framework places special emphasis on protecting the welfare of those at disproportionate risk, a core tenet of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages (SDG 3).

Implementing Responsible Production for Safer Communities (SDG 11 & SDG 12)

The report outlines practical applications of “duties of due care” that align with SDG 12 (Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns) and SDG 11 (Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable). The goal is not to impose unreasonable burdens but to balance corporate interests with the public’s right to safety.

Examples of Reciprocal Duties of Due Care:

• Redesigning firearms to prevent modifications into automatic weapons.
• Investing in and developing “smart-gun” technologies to prevent unauthorized use.
• Implementing stricter distribution controls and oversight of vendors.
• Ceasing marketing strategies that glorify violence or target at-risk individuals.

By adopting such measures, the industry can contribute to more responsible production cycles and help create the safe community environments envisioned in SDG 11.

Conclusion: Fostering Collaborative Partnerships for Sustainable Development (SDG 17)

The research concludes that moral responsibility extends beyond direct causation. It calls for a paradigm shift where businesses acknowledge their duty not to expose the public to preventable harm. This raises the standard for corporate responsibility across all sectors, urging companies to stop gambling with public welfare. Ultimately, the paper advocates for a collaborative approach, reflecting the spirit of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), where manufacturers, policymakers, and communities work together on a basis of equality and reciprocity to address the pressing challenge of gun violence and advance global sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most central SDG. The article directly addresses the issue of gun violence, which is a fundamental threat to peaceful societies. The call for corporate accountability and preventive measures to reduce violence aligns with the goal of promoting peace and justice.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article frames gun violence as a major public health crisis. It explicitly states, “Gun violence has become one of the leading causes of death among Americans under 44,” directly linking the issue to health outcomes and premature mortality.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article’s core argument revolves around the ethical duties of gun manufacturers. By calling for companies to redesign products, implement stricter distribution controls, invest in safety technology, and change marketing strategies, it advocates for more responsible production patterns to prevent societal harm.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The discussion of mass shootings and the risk to “children in our schools” and “innocent community members” connects to the goal of making communities safe and secure. Gun violence undermines the safety of public spaces and the overall sustainability of communities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article’s entire premise is built on the need to prevent gun violence and the deaths that result from it. The proposed “precautionary ethics” framework is a strategy aimed directly at achieving this target.
• Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being. While gun violence is not a disease, the article’s reference to it as a “leading cause of death among Americans under 44” directly addresses the problem of premature mortality. The call for preventive measures aligns with the spirit of this target.
• Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle. The argument that gun manufacturers have a “moral duty to prevent harm” and should adopt “duties of due care” is a direct call for them to adopt more responsible and sustainable business practices beyond simple profit-making.
• Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces… The article highlights the threat that gun violence, particularly mass shootings, poses to the safety of community members in public spaces like schools. Reducing this threat is essential to achieving this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not mention official UN indicators, but it implies several metrics that could be used to measure progress:

• Reduction in Gun Violence Deaths: The most direct indicator, implied by the statement that gun violence is a “leading cause of death,” would be a decrease in the mortality rate from firearms, especially in the under-44 age group. This would measure progress towards Target 16.1 and Target 3.4.
• Frequency of Mass Shootings: The author’s focus on preventing “mass shootings” suggests that a reduction in the number of such incidents would be a key performance indicator of the effectiveness of precautionary measures.
• Adoption of Safer Technologies and Practices by Manufacturers: The article suggests concrete actions that can be tracked as indicators of corporate responsibility (related to Target 12.6). These include:
  1. The rate of investment in and adoption of “smart-gun technologies.”
  2. The number of firearm models redesigned to prevent alteration into automatic weapons.
  3. The implementation and enforcement of “stricter distribution controls to vendors.”
  4. The cessation of “marketing strategies that glorify violence.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: colorado.edu