UK firms shamed in new report on financing of nuclear weapons

Engineering and financial services firms headquartered in the UK have been shamed in a new ‘Don’t Bank on the Bomb‘ report from the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX.

The report, formally titled Investing in the Arms Race: The companies building nuclear weapons and their financiers, was published on 24 April 2026 – just ahead of the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which started on 27 April. 

Introducing the report, ICAN said in a press release: 

Overwhelming pressure from the defence sector and government officials have encouraged the financial industry to provide more loans and corporate financing, without considering whether those arms companies are involved in the production, maintenance and development of nuclear weapons.

ICAN director of programmes and contributing author to the report Susi Snyder said:

For the first time in years the number of investors trying to profit from an arms race is on the rise, this is a short term and risky strategy that contributes to a dangerous escalation. 

 It is impossible to profit from an arms race without feeding one. Investors have a choice and gambling on an arms race is risky for portfolios and for the world.

Three UK companies names

25 “companies producing nuclear weapons” were listed in the report, including three from the UK – Babcock, BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. 

The report said Babcock:

supports the maintenance and modernization of UK nuclear armed submarines and is subcontracted for work on US nuclear armed submarines. For the year ending 31 March 2025, Babcock reported revenues of £4.8bn.

Meanwhile, BAE Systems

is involved in three nuclear weapon arsenals: those of France, the United Kingdom and the United States.

BAE Systems also:

supports the sustainment of the U.S. ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) inventory, is contracted for work on the submarine-launched Trident missiles and builds the new UK Dreadnought class submarines. In the financial year ending 31 December 2025, BAE Systems reported sales of £30.7bn.

Finally, Rolls-Royce:

produces key components for UK nuclear armed submarines. For the year ending 31 December 2025, Rolls-Royce reported revenues of £20bn.

None of the three responded to an offer by the Canary to comment on their inclusion in the report. 

Children’s charity funding nuclear weapons

The report listed the world’s “top 10 investors (holding shares or bonds)” in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, which “are mostly based in the United States”:

their combined investments in the 25 nuclear weapon producing companies totals $477,037M [and they are responsible for] over 67% of all investments.

Of the top 10, one is in UK – The Children’s Investment Fund Management (TCI Fund).

Part of the TCI Fund’s profits goes to the philanthropy of Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), which says it works:

towards a world where children are healthy, safe and have opportunities. A world that’s prosperous and secure for everyone.

In 2025, TCI Fund invested $16.3bn in nuclear weapons production – a $4.3bn increase compared to $12bn in 2024, according to the report. 

 TCI Fund did not respond to an offer by the Canary to comment on their inclusion in the report. 

205 financial institutions implicated

 The report went on to provide a full list of 205 financial institutions that:

were found to have significant investments (share and bond holdings) in one or more of the 25 nuclear weapons companies. 

 Only institutions with holdings of at least 0.5% of the total number of outstanding shares or bonds of the profiled companies are listed.

The wider list of 205 mentioned 14 firms in the UK. They were AssetCo ($47M), Aviva ($1.2bn), Baillie Gifford ($140M), Barclays ($1.2bn), TCI Fund ($16.3bn), Janus Henderson ($575M), Jupiter Fund Management ($109M), Legal & General ($2.7bn), Rathbones ($452M), Rokos Capital Management ($99M), Royal London ($836M), Schroders ($137M), Sona Asset Management ($12M) and Trinity Street Asset Management ($658M). 

The Canary approached all the firms and offered them the opportunity to comment on their inclusion in the report. Baillie Gifford, Jupiter Fund Management and Sona Asset Management declined to comment. None of the other firms responded. 

The report said: 

125 financial institutions provided financing in the form of loans or underwriting to one or more of the 25 nuclear weapons companies.

Of those, five are based in the UK – Barclays ($5.5bn), HSBC ($2bn), Lloyds Banking Group ($2.2bn), NatWest ($1.3bn) and Standard Chartered ($2.3bn). 

All were approached by the Canary but none chose to comment.  

The main organisations in the UK that procure nuclear weapons and related products and services are the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which recently rebranded to ‘AWE – Nuclear Security Technologies’. They were also mentioned in the report. 

The Canary approached the MOD and AWE. AWE deferred to the MOD, and the MOD did not respond to the opportunity to comment. 

Responsible investors should exclude nukes from portfolios – charity

ShareAction is a charity that works “to build a world where the financial system serves our planet and its people”, according to its website.

The charity published a survey in 2025 covering 76 of the world’s largest asset managers, which found that only six had a comprehensive nuclear weapons exclusion, and none of those six were based in the UK. 

ShareAction senior research manager Abhijay Sood told the Canary: 

There is no evidence that ESG-labelled financial instruments have so far made a substantial difference to UK nuclear weapons activities. 

ESG products still represent a minority of the market, and exposure to nuclear weapons is often excluded, or only referenced at a product level rather than across firms’ entire activities.

While some financial institutions have adopted policies on controversial weapons, relatively few of these explicitly cover nuclear weapons, and fewer still apply exclusions to nuclear weapons programmes in countries such as the UK which are permitted them under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

From our perspective, the minimum expectation for responsible investors is that they should exclude all forms of support for controversial weapons, including nuclear weapons, regardless of where they are produced or deployed. 

Bank concerned by attempts to water down labelling of nukes in financing

A Triodos Bank UK spokesperson told the Canary that the bank was worried about the “erosion” of ESG standards where attempts are underway to make it harder for investors to avoid financing companies involved in nuclear weapons production.

The spokesperson said: 

We welcome the report as it critically examines the evolving landscape of nuclear weapons financing. Nuclear weapons are not like other weapons. 

They should be classified as controversial weapons, and even within that category, they are a class of their own due to their inhumane and destructive nature. 

We’re concerned by the erosion of ESG standards seen in the EU and UK attempting to re-classify nuclear weapons, which would make it harder for responsible investors to identify and avoid companies involved in nuclear weapons production.

Similarly, it is bad news for clients who expect their money to be managed in line with values of peace and human dignity.

At Triodos Bank, our policies exclude all direct investments in companies involved in weapons production, and in the case of controversial weapons we go even further, excluding also financial institutions that provide funding for controversial weapons development and manufacturing.

As responsible investors, but also as individual citizens, we should not be complacent but take a firm stance against nuclear weapons and ensure that at least our private money is not used to finance their development and production.

Spending billions on nuclear weapons in the UK may become less popular, given that the public is experiencing  poor wage growth, high inflation, and the failure by the Labour government to tackle wealth inequality.