Armageddon Investors Exposed: Global List of Banks & Pension Funds Invested in Nuclear Weapons

November 9th, 2014 - by admin

PAX & International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons – 2014-11-09 01:43:55

Special to Environmentalists Against War

Don’t Bank on the Bomb:
Report Exposes Global List of Banks, Pension Funds Invested in Nuclear Weapons


BERLIN (November 7, 2014) — ICAN partner PAX launched the 2014 Don’t Bank on the Bomb report at a press conference with ICAN partners in Berlin. Here are links to the Executive Summary, Campaigners Guide and Full Report, along with information that will allow you to take some action!

Don’t Bank on the Bomb is the only report that provides detailed information on who finances the production, maintenance and modernization of nuclear weapons. The report has four main parts — the Hall of Fame, Runners-Up, Producers and the Hall of Shame. The Hall of Fame and the Runners-Up chapters show that there are more financial institutions than ever before that recognize the stigma associated with nuclear weapons, to the point that they have developed policies limiting or prohibiting investments in nuclear weapons associated companies

The Producers chapter describes how 28 companies are involved in maintaining and modernizing the nuclear arsenals in France, India, Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States. (If you download the chapter, you can get a quick guide to what company works on what arsenal on page 50!). On each producer profile page you can also find a list of what financial institutions invest with them.

The Hall of Shame is where you can find the data that shows how $402 Billion has been invested by 411 financial institutions in the producers identified in the report. These are banks, insurance companies, pension funds and asset managers from 30 countries. Because there are so many different financial institutions we’ve also sorted them by country. You can find a list of countries and their specific data below.

We also made country profiles, so that you can easily see what institutions in your country you can highlight or target. We at PAX are pleased to make this report available, and sincerely appreciate all the help we’ve gotten from our fellow campaigners along the way. The report is still embargoed until tomorrow, Friday 7 November 11am CET, so please don’t share it until then. However, after that if you want to help us out, consider tweeting a message like this one:

Ban investments in #nuclear weapons production! #takeaction
Or look at our twitter suggestion page.

For more information:
Mrs. Susi Snyder PAX (formerly known as IKV Pax Christi)
PO Box 19318 3501 DH Utrecht The Netherlands
T 00 31 (0) 30 233 3346 M 00 31 (0) 6 489 81 492
Twitter: NoNukesCampaign or

Don’t Bank on the Bomb: Executive Summary

UTRECHT (October 2014) — Since January 2011, 411 different investors have made an estimated 402 billion US Dollars available to the nuclear weapon industry. That is the core finding of the 2014 Don’t Bank on the Bomb report.

The nuclear-armed nations spend a combined total of more than USD 100 billion on their nuclear forces every year. This money goes towards assembling new warheads, modernising old ones, and building missiles, launchers and the supporting technology to use them. While the majority of that comes from taxpayers in the nuclear-armed countries, this report shows that private sector investors from many non-nuclear armed countries also provide financing that enables the production, maintenance and modernisation of nuclear arsenals.

In the past year, declassified information and new publications have shown how close the world has come to seeing the use of nuclear weapons.1 At the same time, a greater international focus has been brought on the devastating humanitarian consequences of the weapons on all populations, should they ever be used again.2 The stigma of continued possession of nuclear weapons is growing, as nuclear weapons are increasingly seen as illegitimate components of any national arsenal.

Since the 2013 Don’t Bank on the Bomb report, investments in companies that are involved in the production of nuclear weapons has increased by nearly 89 billion USD, and there are an additional 114 financial institutions investing. It is difficult to pinpoint one particular reason for this increase, as several factors are involved.

One is a very technical issue. Recent restructuring of global financial databases Thomson One and Bloomberg have provided orders of magnitude more information about investments. Due to this, some previously unknown and/or underreported loans have now come to the surface. Another factor could be that the end of the financial crisis is causing an increase in contracts for producing companies and a subsequent increase in the need for private financing of development and production work.

We emphasise that, at this point, there is still a lack of official information in the public domain about the production of nuclear weapons and investment in nuclear weapon producers. That is why the information in this report is by no means exhaustive. The methodology of the report is explained in detail in each chapter.

With this report, PAX, together with partners in the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), aims to increase transparency about the financing behind the bomb, and stimulate support for the stigmatisation, outlawing and elimination of nuclear weapons.

How to read Don’t Bank on the Bomb 2014

Two documents
The 2014 Don’t Bank on the Bomb Report consists of two separate documents: This Executive Summary provides a quick overview of global investments in nuclear weapons producing companies and of the conclusions drawn. The Don’t Bank on the Bomb 2014 Report provides all the details of the investments of 411 financial institutions in 28 identified producing companies.

The report also provides profiles of the 28 nuclear weapons producing companies and the profiles of financial institutions in the Hall of Fame and Runners-Up categories. Research definitions, methodology and analysis of the data are found in the main report as well.

Both documents were prepared based on research conducted by Profundo, an economic research consultancy analysing commodity chains, financial institutions and corporate social responsibility issues. The methodology used for each piece of the report is explained in detail at the beginning of each chapter.

Changes from the 2013 report
Recommendations by campaigners, examination of existing exclusion lists used by some financial institutions and further research led to the following changes in 2014:

• EADS has changed its name to Airbus Group.

• SAIC has split into two companies- SAIC and Leidos. SAIC is no longer associated with nuclear weapons while Leidos is.

• Bharat Electronics has been removed as the radar systems they produce cannot be verified as specific to nuclear capable missiles.

• Finmeccanica was out of the 2013 report, as its earlier contracts had expired. However, new contracts bring it back into the report in 2014.

• Rolls-Royce and Babcock International are no longer included as further research indicates that the parts they produce for the UK Royal Navy are not key components specifically designed for delivering Trident missiles.

• Raytheon, TASC and Textron have been included as research indicates recent contracts for the production of key components for nuclear weapons.

• The 2013 Don’t Bank on the Bomb report provided information about 27 nuclear weapon producers, whereas 28 are included in 2014.

The resulting list of companies compiled in this report is not exhaustive . It is an attempt to identify the privately owned companies that are currently most involved in the nuclear weapon industrial complex.

Limitations of the report
This report does not provide a fully comprehensive overview of all involvements of financial institutions in the nuclear weapon industry. The selection of financial institutions is limited by the fact that the report uses a threshold. Only share and bond holdings larger than 0.5% of the total number of outstanding shares of one or more of the nuclear weapon producing companies are listed. The reason for this is practical: a threshold of 0.1% for example would have resulted in a report profiling nearly 3,000 financial institutions.

The selection of financial institutions in the Hall of Fame and Runners-Up categories is not comprehensive. Only institutions with a (summarized) policy published in English are eligible and the search for institutions with similar policies is ongoing. Information provided by institutions themselves, their clients or readers of this report is welcome.

Summary findings
411 financial institutions involved significantly

Looking at the period starting January 2011, 411 banks, insurance companies, pension funds and asset managers from 30 countries were found that invest significantly in the nuclear weapon industry. 254 are based in North America, 94 are based in Europe, 47 are based in Asia, 10 in the Middle East, 5 in the Pacific, and one is based in Africa.

28 producing companies Don’t Bank on the Bomb 2014 identifies 28 companies involved in the production, maintenance, and modernisation of nuclear weapons. The 28 are companies based in France, Germany, India, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States.

US $402 billion invested
In total, more than USD 402 billion was made available to the nuclear weapon producing companies by the investors listed in the report. These investors assisted with share and bond issuances, owned or managed shares and bonds or provided loans to nuclear weapon producing companies between January 2011 and September 2014.

The top 10 investors alone, provided more than USD 175 billion to the identified nuclear weapon producers. With the exception of French BNP Paribas, all in the top 10 are based in the US. The top 3: State Street, Capital Group and Blackrock, have more than 80 billion USD combined invested in the producers named in this report.

In Europe, the most heavily invested are BNP Paribas (France), Royal Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom) and Barclays (United Kingdom). In Asia, the biggest investors are Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (Japan), Sumitomo Mitsui Financial (Japan), and the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

Positive examples: The Hall of Fame

Don’t Bank on the Bomb 2014 also profiles financial institutions that have adopted, implemented and published a policy that comprehensively prevents any financial involvement in nuclear weapon producing companies. Eight financial institutions have a public policy that is comprehensive in scope and application. These are identified in the Hall of Fame.

The financial institutions in the Hall of Fame are based in Italy, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Hall of Fame is comprised of a mix of ethical banks, government managed and private institutions. By highlighting these financial institutions, we aim to show that institutions can and do decide to ban investments in the nuclear weapon industry.

Inside the debate: Runners-up

Don’t Bank on the Bomb highlights 27 more financial institutions that have taken the step to exclude nuclear weapons producers from their investments, but whose policy is not all-inclusive in preventing financial involvement with nuclear weapon companies.

The Runners-up category is quite broad in definition and offers a place to some financial institutions that are almost eligible for the Hall of Fame, but also to some institutions with a policy that contains loopholes that still allow for considerable sums of money to be invested in nuclear weapon producers. These policies demonstrate the ongoing debates financial institutions are engaged in today.

Challenging the Nuclear Weapon Industry

All the words in the world cannot prevent a nuclear catastrophe from happening. All of the good intentions and plans and meetings of diplomats or heads of state and governments will not guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again. The only way to do that is to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons once and for all. Stigmatising these inhumane and indiscriminate weapons will help. Divestment sends a clear signal “not with my money, not in my name”.

Divestment makes it clear to companies that as long as they are associated with nuclear weapons programmes they will be considered illegitimate themselves, and a bad investment. Divestment efforts can have an impact on defence contractors, the financial sector and governments.

Divestment most often occurs as a result of pressure by the clients of financial institutions — ordinary people — who believe their money should represent their own moral or ethical standards.

Over the past few years, divestment efforts around the nuclear weapons industry have revitalised the issue in the press and for the public. This is leading to more financial institutions that put their money where their principles are enacting policies banning investment in nuclear weapons producers. By doing so, they diminish available investment capital and they promote the further stigmatisation of nuclear weapons. The ultimate aim of divestment is to get nuclear weapons producing companies to withdraw from the nuclear weapons industry completely.

Publicising policies that ban investment in nuclear weapons producers can generate a ripple effect on other financial institutions in a country or across a sector. This is what has happened with some of the financial institutions in the Hall of Fame and Runners-up of this report.

They have informed, and discussed, amongst one another, ways to strengthen their policies against investment in nuclear weapons. Through divestment discussions, the nuclear weapons issue has been raised in an entirely new sector of society.

Exclusions by financial institutions have a stigmatising effect and can convince company directors to decide to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons contracts and expand into other areas. While it is unlikely that divestment by a single financial institution would create sufficient pressure on a company for it to end its involvement in nuclear weapons work, divestment by even a few institutions based on the same ethical objection can have a significant impact on a company’s strategic direction.

Governments too are starting to raise the issue of investment in nuclear weapons. During sessions of the UN General Assembly Open-ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons, the issue of divestment was raised and participants “discussed the role of the public and private sectors”.

During the 2014 nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee meeting, quite a few States raised concerns about the billions of US dollars allocated towards modernisation of nuclear arsenals — especially at a time of significantly shrinking national budgets. Brazil’s Ambassador Pedro Motta Pinto Coelho said it clearly: Nuclear disarmament is also a socioeconomic imperative.

Even in spite of the current global financial constraints, nuclear-weapon States (NWS) continue to invest large sums in order to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals. It is estimated that half the amount annually invested in nuclear arsenals would be enough to achieve internationally agreed development goals on poverty reduction, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015.

References were made by a number of States to the idea of public/private partnerships to stop financing nuclear weapons modernisation. While not explicitly talking about divestment, the idea of diverting funds from nuclear weapons into other areas (primarily development) was supported by many States.

There are a number of actions governments can take that can help create and maintain a nuclear weapons free world. Governments can stigmatize nuclear weapons and demonstrate support to outlaw and eliminate them by calling for divestment from nuclear weapons producers.

They can enact national legislation to outlaw investment. Governments, especially those in existing nuclear weapons free zones, can also express their concern about investment and declare their interpretation of those nuclear weapons free zone treaties to include a responsibility not to invest.

It is time to start negotiations on a treaty that will outlaw the use, development, production, stockpiling, transfer, acquisition, deployment, and financing of nuclear weapons, as well as assistance with these acts under any circumstances.

Experience from the Cluster Munitions Convention shows the importance of understanding why outlawing assistance is important. PAX research has shown that the prohibition on assistance can and will be interpreted to include financing the production of illegitimate weapons.

Nine countries have national legislation specifically prohibiting investment in cluster munitions producers, while another 27 countries have national statements clearly interpreting the prohibition on assistance to include financing.

States in existing nuclear weapons free zones could declare similar understandings from their own free zone treaties. For example:
* In the Latin American Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty: Nations must not take any action “to assist or encourage” the development or manufacture of nuclear weapons inside or outside the zone.

* In the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty: Nations must not do anything “to assist or encourage the manufacture” of nuclear weapons by any other nation, whether it is in the zone or not.

* In the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty: Nations must not “take any action to assist or encourage the research on, development, manufacture […] of any nuclear explosive device”

In the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty: Nation must “refrain from engaging in, encouraging or authorizing, directly or indirectly, […] manufacture […] of any nuclear weapon.”

Additionally, some nations have enacted domestic legislation prohibiting companies from facilitating the manufacture of nuclear weapons. For example, in Australia it is a crime for a person or company to commit ” any act or thing to facilitate the manufacture, production, acquisition or testing ” of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.

There is similar legislation in New Zealand. In both countries a company is also prohibited from providing services, including lending money, to another company if it ” believes or suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the services will or may assist a weapons of mass destruction program “.

For the first time in decades we have a real opportunity to significantly advance the nuclear disarmament agenda through the development of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Additional stigmatization by prohibiting investments will help to generate public awareness and interest in outlawing and eliminating nuclear weapons once and for all.

PAX strives to achieve the highest level of accuracy in reporting. However, at this point, there is still a marked lack of official information available in the public domain about the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, as well as about investments in companies that produce nuclear weapons. The information in this report therefore reflects official information available in the public domain known to PAX.

We welcome comments, clarifications, and corrections from governments, companies, financial institutions and others, in the spirit of dialogue, and in the common search for accurate and reliable information.

If you believe you have found an inaccuracy in our report, or if you can provide additional information, please contact us: or vanderzeijden@

Nuclear Weapons Producing Companies

This report identifies 28 companies operating in France, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States that are significantly involved in maintaining and modernising the nuclear arsenals of France, India, Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States. This is not an exhaustive list. These companies are providing necessary infrastructure to develop, test, maintain and modernise nuclear weapons.

The contracts these companies have with nuclear armed countries are for materials and services to keep nuclear weapons in their arsenals,. In other nuclear-armed countries — Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea — the maintenance and modernisation of nuclear forces is carried out primarily or exclusively by government agencies. This report covers two main types of nuclear weapons companies- manufacturers and service providers. Manufacturers produce the key components necessary to maintain and modernise nuclear arsenals.

Service providers are contracted to maintain specially designed equipment and the technological know-how to modernise and manufacture nuclear weapons and to pick up the pace should a new arms race emerge. Some companies, like Babcock & Wilcox are involved in both service provision and manufacturing of key components.

Aecom (United States)
Aecom provides professional technical and management support services and is part of the joint venture that manages the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), previously known as the Nevada Test Site, a key fixture in the US nuclear weapons infrastructure.

Airbus Group (The Netherlands)
In May 2014, EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) changed its name to Airbus. It is a Dutch company that produces and maintains submarine-launched nuclear missiles for the French navy, and is part of a joint venture that built nuclear missiles for the French air force.

ATK (United States)
ATK (Alliant Techsystems) produces rocket propulsion systems for Trident II submarine launched ballistic missiles. ATK was also responsible for refurbishing the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles to keep them operational until at least 2030.

Babcock & Wilcox (United States)
Babcock & Wilcox manages and operates several US nuclear weapons facilities including the Y-12 National Security Complex, Savannah River Site, Kansas City Plant, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Pantex Plant and Sandia National Laboratories each of which are engaged in various aspects of nuclear warhead modernisation.

BAE Systems (United Kingdom)
BAE Systems is involved in the US and UK Trident II (D5) strategic weapons system programmes and US guided missile submarine attack weapons system programmes. It is also the prime contractor for Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) system.

Bechtel (United States)
Bechtel manages the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories in the US, which play an important role in the research, design, development and production of nuclear weapons. It is also involved in the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee where nuclear weapons are produced.

Boeing (United States)
Boeing is involved in the maintenance of the Minuteman III nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles in the US arsenal. It is responsible for guidance, flight controls, secure codes, weapons systems testing and engineering.

CH2M Hill (United States)
CH2M Hill is one of the joint venture partners in National Security Technologies (NSTec) that manages the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), previously known as the Nevada Test Site, a key fixture in the US nuclear weapons infrastructure.

Finmeccanica (Italy)
Finmeccanica is involved in the design, development and delivery of two Transporter Erector Replacement Vehicles to support the US Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Minuteman III-fleet.

Fluor (United States)
Fluor is the lead partner responsible for the management and operation of the US Department of Energy›s Savannah River Site and Savannah River National Laboratory, the only source of new tritium for the US nuclear arsenal.

GenCorp (United States)
GenCorp is involved in the design, development and production of land- and sea-based nuclear ballistic missile systems for the United States. It is currently producing propulsion systems for Minuteman III and D5 Trident nuclear missiles.

General Dynamics (United States)
General Dynamics provides a range of engineering, development, and production activities to support to US and UK Trident II Strategic Weapons Systems. It is also involved in the guidance systems of the Trident II (D5) nuclear missiles of the US Navy.

Honeywell International (United States)
Honeywell International supports the manufacturing of detonator assemblies. It is also involved in tritium production at the Savannah River Site and in simulated nuclear testing and the life-extension programme for the US navy’s Trident II nuclear missiles.

Huntington Ingalls Industries (United States)
Huntington Ingalls Industries is involved in management of the US nuclear arsenal, and tritium production at the Savannah River Site, the only sources of new tritium for the US nuclear arsenal.

Jacobs Engineering (United States)
Jacobs Engineering Group is involved in the joint venture AWE-ML, which manages the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment, that designs, manufactures and maintains nuclear warheads for the UK.

Larsen & Toubro (India)
Larsen & Toubro is involved in designing and building the Advanced Technology Vessel, the future nuclear-armed submarine of the Indian navy. It is also responsible for developing the launcher system for the nuclear-capable surface- to-air Akash missile system

Leidos (United States)
Leidos (formerly part of SAIC) provides technical and programmatic support for US nuclear weapons maintenance, life extension, and weapons system modifications. It also provides strategic command, control and communications system engineering and technical services in support of the Nuclear C3 System.

Lockheed Martin (United States)
Lockheed Martin is involved in the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons for both the United States and United Kingdom. Among other things, it is responsible for the production of submarine-launched Trident II D5 nuclear missiles.

Northrop Grumman (United States)
Northrop Grumman is a joint venture partner responsible for maintaining the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), previously known as Nevada Test Site. It also provides ongoing support to the Trident II (D5) Underwater Launcher System and Advanced Launcher Development Program for both the US and the UK.

Raytheon (United States)
Raytheon is involved in a project to stretch the lifecycle of the guidance systems of the Trident II (D5) nuclear missiles of the US Navy. It also has a contract to design a communications system for command and control of nuclear-armed bombers.

Rockwell Collins (United States)
Rockwell Collins is involved in the US Minuteman Modernization Program Upgrade. The company was selected to improve the satellite communications capacity of the Minuteman Launch Control Centers.

Safran (France)
Safran is part of a joint venture to build M51 submarine-launched nuclear missiles for the French navy, which each deliver multiple warheads. Its subsidiaries Snecma and Sagem provide the propulsion and navigation systems for these missiles.

Serco (United Kingdom)
Serco owns a one-third share in the joint venture AWE-ML, which runs the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment. It is responsible for manufacturing and maintaining the nuclear warheads for UK arsenal.

TASC (United States)
TASC is involved in the research and development for the Solid Rocket Motor Modernization Study of the Minuteman III system for the US arsenal.

Textron (United States)
Textron designs and builds the US Air Force’s operational inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) re-entry vehicles.

Thales (France)
Thales is part of a joint venture to build the M51 submarine-launched nuclear missiles for the French navy.

ThyssenKrupp (Germany)
ThyssenKrupp is building the Dolphin submarines for the Israeli army, according to Israeli design specifications, including, according to various media reports, land-attack and cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

URS (United States)
URS is a responsible for managing the nuclear and other technically complex operations for the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in the US. URS is also providing electronics systems support for the Trident system for the US Navy.

Principal Authors
Susi Snyder (PAX, the Netherlands)
Wilbert van der Zeijden (PAX, the Netherlands)

Research by
Susi Snyder (PAX, The Netherlands)
Wilbert van der Zeijden (PAX, The Netherlands)
Suzanne Oosterwijk (PAX, The Netherlands)
Barbara Kuepper (Profundo, the Netherlands)
Michel Riemersma (Profundo, the Netherlands)
Joeri de Wilde (Profundo, the Netherlands)
Merel van Sommeren (Profundo, the Netherlands)
Ward Warmerdam (Profundo, the Netherlands)
Jan Willem van Gelder (Profundo, the Netherlands)

Our thanks
Adessium Foundation, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Ray Acheson, Roos Boer, Suzanne van den Eynden, Barbara Happe, Beatrice Fihn, Hans Kristensen, Thomas Küchenmeister, Josefin Lind, Magnus Løvold, Frank Slijper, Miriam Struyk, Daniela Varano, Krista van Velzen, Tim Wright and all financial institutions who provided answers to our questions about their policies and all those who use this report as a tool to delegitimise, outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons.

Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.