Europe is entering a transformative phase in its approach to defence and security spending. The European Commission’s proposed 2028–2034 budget outlines nearly two trillion euros in planned expenditures, with a significant portion dedicated to defence capacity building, supporting Ukraine, and bolstering internal security. National budgets across NATO members are also experiencing sharp increases, marking a new chapter of sustained military investment.

This rapid escalation in military funding has reignited a controversial debate: should investments in defence be eligible for ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) classification? The suggestion, while gaining momentum in certain policy circles, poses complex ethical and financial questions.

ESG Labelling and the ReArm Europe Plan

Earlier this year, the European Commission released guidance under its ReArm Europe strategy, outlining how defence investments might meet the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities. The argument centers on aligning defence spending with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16, which focuses on peace, justice, and strong institutions.

The guidance attempts to draw boundaries by excluding certain categories of weapons from ESG consideration. These include anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, chemical weapons, and biological arms. However, significant loopholes remain. Nuclear weapons, incendiary munitions, blinding laser weapons, and other controversial technologies are not explicitly barred. The result is a regulatory grey area where destructive military assets could, in theory, receive sustainable finance labels.

READ MORE: German Hesitation on Gaza Risks Atrocities, Say Israeli Academics

Blurring the Purpose of ESG

At the heart of this debate lies a deeper concern: the fundamental intent behind ESG frameworks is being reinterpreted. ESG was created to direct financial flows toward activities that enhance social equity, environmental protection, and ethical governance. Defence manufacturing and arms trading do not align with these principles.

Some policymakers argue that security and democracy are prerequisites for sustainability. They claim that by defending democratic societies and protecting infrastructure, defence investments reduce ESG risks to businesses and citizens. However, this logic risks transforming ESG from a framework for responsible progress into a tool for legitimizing militarization.

The Ethical Contradiction of “Sustainable” Weapons

Weapons, by their nature, are designed to harm. While national governments must retain the ability to secure their borders and citizens, it does not follow that financial markets should reward or incentivize the production of arms through ESG classification.

Financial institutions that label arms production as “sustainable” run the risk of engaging in what critics now call “warwashing.” This term mirrors the better-known “greenwashing” and refers to the practice of presenting weapons-related investments as socially or ethically sound. Doing so dilutes the public’s trust in ESG standards and misleads investors who intend their capital to support peace, justice, and ecological resilience.

Long-Term Social and Environmental Harm

Beyond the battlefield, the impact of weapons production and usage lingers for decades. Civilian populations in conflict zones often face displacement, injury, and long-term trauma. Environmental destruction is another byproduct. Depleted uranium ammunition, unexploded ordnance, and scorched ecosystems leave behind dangerous legacies that undermine both public health and biodiversity.

Moreover, the arms industry is no stranger to governance challenges. Corruption scandals, opaque supply chains, and violations of export control laws have repeatedly marred the sector. Associating such a track record with the values of ESG would erode the credibility of sustainable finance in Europe and beyond.

A Risk to Investor Intent and Public Trust

A growing number of institutional investors are voicing concerns about expanding ESG labels to include military assets. These investors believe that ESG should reflect values that go beyond mere economic stability. It should prioritize wellbeing, sustainability, and transparency.

Labelling defence investments as ESG-compliant risks misrepresenting the true nature of these financial products to stakeholders and clients. It could also discourage genuine ESG innovation by diverting capital toward sectors built on destruction rather than development.

Conflict Is Worsening Globally

This conversation comes at a time when armed conflict is spreading worldwide. According to the United Nations, two billion people roughly a quarter of the global population now live in regions affected by violence and instability. The idea of attaching a sustainability label to the very tools that fuel these conflicts raises moral and practical contradictions that cannot be ignored.

Explore OneStop ESG Marketplace: ESG reporting

Reaffirming the Core Mission of ESG

As Europe adapts to a changing geopolitical reality, its commitment to sustainability must remain rooted in transparency and ethical purpose. Defence spending may be a necessary function of state policy, but it should not be conflated with sustainable development. Banks and financial institutions should not be encouraged to profit from warfare by manipulating the ESG framework to suit geopolitical narratives.

To preserve the integrity of sustainable finance, Europe must draw a clear line. Defence investments may be strategic, but they are not sustainable. Any move to blur that line risks undermining the very foundation on which ESG stands.

Explore ESG Solutions on our marketplace - OneStop ESG Marketplace.

Keep abreast of the top ESG Events on OneStop ESG Events.

OneStop ESG Educate: Your go-to source for top ESG courses and training programs tailored to your needs.

Stay informed with the latest insights on OneStop ESG News.

Discover meaningful career opportunities on OneStop ESG Jobs.