Countless financial institutions indicate their support for the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The UNGPs provide additional impetus and justification for ending financial relationships with the companies involved in producing or manufacturing nuclear weapons or their specifically designed key components. 

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide a mandate to “Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.”

The human rights risks associated with nuclear weapons are severe and irremediable, and the companies producing key components for nuclear arsenals are contributing to these human rights risks. 

Since their endorsement in 2011, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have provided an authoritative reference that promotes greater policy coordination and coherence in State action to prevent and address business-related human rights impacts, and the business sector is a relevant stakeholder assisting with the  need to translate policy commitments into reality on the ground.

The Guiding Principles specifically reference international humanitarian law, which binds State and non-State actors, including businesses, as well as individual managers and staff of businesses whose activities are closely linked to an armed conflict. As mentioned by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), determining which corporate activities are “closely linked to an armed conflict” can be a complex task because businesses carry out a wide range of activities that could be perceived as directly or indirectly connected to armed conflict. Business activities may be considered closely linked to an armed conflict if they provide direct support – be it military, logistical or financial assistance – even if they do not take place during actual fighting or on the physical battlefield and even if the business did not actually intend to support a party to the hostilities.

The Guiding Principles do not specifically mention a different type of due diligence for conflict related human rights issues. They are, however,  built around a concept of proportionality: the higher the risk, the more complex the processes. The risks associated with nuclear weapons are potentially catastrophic, as noted in the Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 36 : 

The threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in effect and are of a nature to cause destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale is incompatible with respect for the right to life and may amount to a crime under international law. (paragraph 66)

22 countries have national action plans on the UNGPs. These are a mechanism by which relevant stakeholders can discuss pathways towards implementation of the principles, including their application to the nuclear weapons industry. 

There is a responsibility of the business sector to respect human rights, under Pillar II of the Guiding Principles which "exists independently of States' abilities an/or willingness to fulfill their own human rights obligations". 

In Norway, the Norwegian Council of Ethics provides recommendations on specific companies and the Ministry of Finance makes final decisions. The Norwegian Government Pension fund cannot make investments that may contribute to unethical acts and includes 10 nuclear weapons manufacturing companies on the list of prohibited companies. A survey found that sixteen Japanese banks, including three mega-banks, have guidelines in place to refrain from investing in and extending loans to companies involved in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Nine of them said they did so because they back the TPNW (despite Japan’s non-signatory status).

The Guiding Principles, therefore, add further justification to prevent the risk (and eventual remedy obligations) associated with the production of nuclear weapons, which can never be used without catastrophic consequences.