EU‑green money has become a silent backer of the war machine, with roughly €50 billion of climate‑labelled capital flowing into weapons manufacturers in 2025 – a three‑fold jump on the 2021 level. The figure is not a statistical quirk; it is the product of 769 so‑called “green” funds that collectively earned €7 billion from stakes in defence‑linked firms.
The scale of the mis‑allocation is staggering. Almost €25 billion of the total landed in just 27 European defence giants, while a further €13 billion – 70 % of all non‑EU flows – funded U.S. arms conglomerates such as Boeing, RTX and General Electric. In total, 104 companies were identified as recipients, with Safran (France) and Rheinmetall (Germany) topping the list at €5.6 billion and €4 billion respectively. The list also includes the likes of MTU Aero Engines, Leonardo, Thales, Indra, Saab, Rolls‑Royce, BAE Systems and the Dutch‑registered Airbus subsidiary, all of which sit comfortably within the EU’s own defence supply chain.
The money does not travel through opaque offshore vaults alone; it is embedded in the portfolios of funds that proudly wear “transition” or “climate‑aligned” badges. ESG Top World, managed by DWS, holds a €95 million stake in Bombardier; Montpensier Arbevel’s French fund carries €60 million of Airbus and Safran; BlackRock’s European Equity Transition fund lists MTU Aero Engines, Rolls‑Royce and Thales for a combined €24 million. Even modestly sized funds, when multiplied across the continent, become a conduit for billions into the arms sector.
The paradox has forced Brussels to act. On 12 December 2025 the Commission unveiled a sweeping overhaul of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation – the SFDR 2.0 proposal – aimed at sealing the loophole that allowed weapons makers to masquerade as “green” investments. The new regime introduces a three‑tier labeling system (Transition, ESG basics and Sustainable), forces at least 70 % of a fund’s assets to meet the chosen sustainability criteria, and bans ESG‑related branding for products that cannot meet that bar. By stripping away the ambiguous “sustainable investment” definition and shifting disclosure to principal adverse impacts, the proposal seeks to make it impossible for a fund to claim climate credentials while holding material stakes in missile manufacturers.
Yet the fix is not without blind spots. The revision excludes investment firms and credit institutions from its scope, meaning a large swathe of pooled‑asset managers can continue to channel green capital into defence indirectly. A whistle‑blower from a mid‑size asset manager, speaking on condition of anonymity, warned that “the new rules will push us to re‑classify holdings, but the underlying exposure remains unless we actively divest.” An EU official tasked with drafting the proposal echoed the concern, noting that “without a clear, enforceable definition of what constitutes a defence‑related activity, we risk merely reshuffling the problem rather than solving it.”
The stakes extend beyond a credibility crisis for EU climate finance; they touch the Union’s broader ambition for strategic autonomy and human‑rights‑compliant investment. Funding firms that supply Israel’s defence sector, such as Elbit Systems, IAI and Rafael, adds a geopolitical dimension that the Commission can no longer sweep under the green‑finance rug.
The next few months will determine whether the EU can reclaim the moral high ground of its climate agenda. Full adoption of SFDR 2.0, complemented by national FDI‑screening guidance and a hard‑line stance from supervisors, could force asset managers to purge weapons exposure from their green products. Meanwhile, NGOs and investors must develop independent monitoring tools to expose lingering loopholes. If the Union truly wants its climate‑finance architecture to finance a sustainable future rather than a new arms race, the reforms must be swift, comprehensive and rigorously enforced.
Image Source: www.publicdomainpictures.net
