Some topics are simply considered ‚off-limits‘ within a company. The defense industry was, for a long time, one of them.

I clearly recall Annual General Meetings during my years in the industry: the moment a shareholder approached the microphone and merely touched upon the word „defense“, the atmosphere in the room changed. Quick glances, a serious tone, nervous shuffling of papers, and a rising sense of urgency in the back office.

This issue was not just reputation-sensitive. It was reputation-charged. Or even reputation-damaging.

And today?

The defense sector is no longer an embarrassing issue that people try to sweep under the rug. Across Europe, it’s now seen as a fundamental part of our strategy—in politics, society, and business.

In Germany, it has even become a source of hope for the long-awaited economic shift.

This isn’t just a fleeting change in public mood; it’s a fundamental reputational shift. And it offers crucial lessons, especially for communication professionals.

1. Reputation is not a moral endpoint — it is a historical context in motion

To understand the reputation of the defense industry, one must take a step back and examine the cultural history of interpretation.

After 1945, a fundamental sentiment prevailed in Germany, extending far beyond politics: NEVER AGAIN — and with it, a deeply rooted skepticism towards anything that suggested militarization. The debate over rearmament was not just a strategic question in the Cold War; it was a conflict of identity.

Later, in the 1980s, security policy again became a focal point: hundreds of thousands demonstrated against the arms race, the NATO Double-Track Decision, and the logic of nuclear deterrence.

And then came 1989/90.

With the fall of the Wall and the end of the rigid East-West confrontation, the idea of a ‚peace dividend‘ emerged: less immediate threat, lower defense spending, and more money for international economic cooperation. Europe — and Germany — lived by this logic for many years.

For the reputation of the arms industry, this had a side effect: Defense was decoupled from the feeling of acute danger. It slipped from being a „sensitive necessity“ to a „cost block.“ And the focus of debate increasingly turned to export issues, morality, and purpose.

Reputation is rarely based on facts alone. It is built on frames, on classification: through images, words, historical memories, and collective narratives.

For decades, the defense industry in Germany was viewed within a context that quickly became moral:

The past.
Escalation.
Export debates.
Profit at the expense of human lives.

The concrete facts might have been less extreme, but the overall context (the ‚frame‘) was stronger. What people believe to be true sets the rules for social acceptance.

2. Why Defense was long unspeakable in corporate life

From a communication perspective, the topic was so sensitive because several risk dimensions converged:

1. a) Moral Risk

Many companies — rightly — wanted a modern self-image that resonated with civil society. Defense often didn’t fit this, even when it involved „only“ technologies, supply chains, or dual-use components.

1. b) Activation Risk

At Annual General Meetings, public perception acts as an amplifier: a single term can pull the issue from the periphery to the center.

And AGM dynamics are merciless:

The questioner has the stage.
Media and NGOs are listening.
The executive board must speak in real-time — with a legal safety net and a double bottom line — and still manage reputational risk.

In this situation, the motto for years was: De-escalation. Deflection. Containment.

c) Connection Risk

Companies often didn’t have a good, honest way to talk about their defense links; they usually just ended up sounding like they were justifying something or using weak corporate jargon. Nothing kills trust quicker than language that seems designed to sidestep the real issue.

3. The Truth of Today: The Renaissance of Defensibility

Then came February 24, 2022. And with it, a brutal realization: the threat is real again.

With Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s speech on February 27, 2022, the term Zeitenwende (historic turning point) became a marker: a special fund of 100 billion euros, the commitment to „more than two percent of GDP for alliance and defense capability“.
New priorities were set.

In parallel, public opinion across Europe measurably shifted. „Defense and Security first,“ Eurobarometer suddenly reported, coupled with a clear expectation for the EU to strengthen security.

And it didn’t remain just words: EU states significantly increased their defense spending — to over 340 billion euros in 2024, and projected to over 380 billion euros for 2025.

This is a key communication point: Once security is viewed as both scarce and necessary, the whole picture changes. The defense industry isn’t good or bad, but its role is now easy to understand and justify.

Clarity and justification are the foundation of legitimacy.

This is also evident in the new language of defense companies:

Helsing, for example, clearly (and smartly) names its purpose as „Protecting our democracies“ — a value-based narrative that would have been poorly received with this directness just a few years ago. The responsibility is even formulated more emphatically: „The protection of free, democratic societies through deterrence and defense is our civic duty.“

And Rheinmetall: „With our technologies, our products and systems, we create the indispensable foundation for peace, freedom, and sustainable development: security.“

The narratives and framing are similar among other key players.

4. Every Era Has Its Own Truth

This sentence sounds dangerous if read incorrectly.
It is not a free pass. It points to the following three key aspects:

1. Truth is Shaped by History: Our perception of defense is not fixed; it was molded by historical eras, like the post-war and Cold War years, and the peace movements of 1945–1990.
2. Moral Priorities Shift with Threat: The events of 2022 changed the moral equation. The defense industry is not automatically seen as good, but the failure to ensure defense capability now carries a greater moral weight.
3. Reputation Reflects Societal Needs: Reputation aligns with what society values most at the time. In stable times, we prioritize prosperity; in unstable times, we prioritize sovereignty, resilience, and democratic agency.

This is a fundamental mechanism of societal self-protection, not a PR strategy.

5. Capital Markets & ESG: From Blanket Rejection to Differentiated Assessment

Another driver of the reputational shift comes from financial logic. For a long time, the defense industry was practically toxic in many ESG debates because investors sought to avoid reputational risks.

Today, this is being assessed more differentially. The EU Commission clarified in a Commission Note (30.12.2025) that the EU Sustainable Finance framework is fundamentally compatible with investments in the defense sector.

6. What This all Means for Companies

The new acceptance is real. But it is not comfortable. Precisely because the defense industry is more ’socially acceptable,‘ new pitfalls arise:

The Accusation of Opportunism: „You’re only discovering defense now that there’s money and tailwinds again.“

Export and Partner Questions: Who supplies whom? Which red lines apply? How certain is the final destination and intended use?

Dual-Use Complexity: Gray areas between civil and military — without a clean language and governance framework.

The example of Renk: The company explicitly emphasizes under the point of sustainability: „Our products secure the framework conditions for liberal, democratic, social, ecological, and economic sustainability.“

The defense industry is no longer automatically the elephant in the room. But it remains a subject requiring due diligence.

7. The Communication Perspective

Unlike other sectors, it is not possible for the defense industry to communicate about the company solely through the product. The robust frame is usually: Protection, Resilience, Alliance Capability, Democratic Agency.

Frame does not mean spin. Frame means providing orientation and classification.

The art lies in embracing the new role as a security architect without denying the product’s ethical dimension.

Concluding Remark

The new „social acceptability“ of the defense industry is a major opportunity for the strong, credible positioning of its companies. Essential for this is an active, sustainable network with politics, business, and society.
Those who lead an open dialogue, clearly communicate strategy, values, and responsibility, and act consistently, will strengthen their reputation in what is by nature a critical environment.