- More than 57% of war-fueling companies are based in just 8 countries
- Arms companies are increasingly ending up in investment funds labeled as "sustainable"
Update of the ExitArms Database
Berlin | May 07, 2026
Today, the NGO Facing Finance published an update to the "ExitArms" database (www.exitarms.org). It is the only public, global database identifying companies that supply weapons to warring parties involved in wars that violate international law. The database tracks 1,523 companies that were involved in arms exports to war zones between 2017 and 2025, whether directly, through subsidiaries, or via joint ventures.[1]
The majority of companies supplying weapons for illegal wars are headquartered in these countries: USA (223 companies), Russia (120), Great Britain (117), China, including Hong Kong (107), Germany (96), United Arab Emirates (78), Turkey (70), and France (66). Combined, more than 57% of the companies proven to have exported arms originate from these eight countries, illustrating the high concentration of the global arms trade.
Until 2022/2023, companies from Russia and Israel were among the world's largest exporters of weapons to war zones. In recent years, these exports have decreased significantly as Russian and Israeli firms have focused on equipping their own national militaries for their respective wars of aggression.
The cities hosting the most companies exporting to war zones are[2]: Moscow (46 companies), Beijing (34), Abu Dhabi (29), Dubai, Singapore, Istanbul (25 each), Tehran (22), and Paris (20). Among German cities, Munich (10 firms) and Kiel (9) lead the list.
The "ExitArms" database allows users a nuanced view of defense firms. Regarding the industry's attempt to rebrand itself as a "guarantor of security and sustainability," Frederike Potts, Managing Director of Facing Finance, says: "In public debate, it is often overlooked that defense companies do not only produce for national defense or in support of Ukraine, but continue to supply war-making, human-rights-violating autocracies worldwide."
Despite high demand in Europe due to rapidly rising defense budgets, European firms continue their weapons deliveries to illegal war zones globally.[3] From the perspective of the financial sector, this contradicts those financial institutions currently beginning to invest in defense firms via their "sustainably labeled" funds, allegedly to "support the security and freedom of Europe." ExitArms researcher Luca Schiewe criticizes: "As a result, more and more companies that fuel or even enable illegal wars through weapons deliveries are ending up in sustainable investment funds. This development is fatal for the credibility of sustainable investment products and from a consumer protection perspective."
The Russian state-owned corporation Rostec is responsible for the most deliveries to war zones during the investigation period, with shipments to 33 different warring parties. It is followed by Leonardo (Italy, 23), RTX (USA, 23), Airbus (Europe, 21), Norinco (China, 20), Textron (USA, 20), Baykar (Turkey, 20), Lockheed Martin (USA, 19), BAE Systems (UK, 18), Thales (France, 16), Boeing (USA, 15), and AVIC (China, 15).
Of the 96 recorded German companies, those delivering most frequently to war zones were the German Airbus subsidiary Airbus Defence and Space (14 warring parties), the Rolls-Royce subsidiary MTU Friedrichshafen (12), KNDS[4] (12), Rheinmetall (11), and Volkswagen[5] (10).
The database is freely accessible at www.exitarms.org. Additionally, we are happy to provide an investor list tailored for financial institutions upon request.
Annex
Spotlight Libya: 176 foreign firms were proven to have delivered weapons to Libya after the outbreak of the second civil war in 2014. Rostec (Russia), MSPV, Streit (UAE), Aselsan, and Roketsan (Turkey) stood out for repeated deliveries.
Spotlight Gaza: 205 foreign companies have demonstrably supplied weapons to the Israeli military since the start of the Gaza war in late 2023; primarily General Dynamics, RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Honeywell (all USA).
Spotlight Myanmar: 163 foreign firms were proven to have supplied weapons to the Myanmar military after the start of the Rohingya genocide in 2017; primarily Rostec, Russian Helicopters (Russia), Norinco, AVIC (China), Bharat Electronics (India), and Ukrainian Defense Industry JSC (Ukraine).
Spotlight Russia: 44 foreign firms were proven to have supplied weapons to Russia after the start of the war of aggression against Ukraine in 2022; primarily Beretta Holding (Luxembourg), HESA, Shahed Aviation Industries, and Qods Aviation Industry Company (Iran).
Spotlight Sudan: 44 foreign firms were proven to have supplied weapons to Sudan after the start of the Sudan war in 2023 and the genocide by RSF militias; primarily Rostec (Russia), Sarsilmaz, Baykar (Turkey), EDGE, and Streit (UAE).
Spotlight Yemen: 217 foreign firms were proven to have supplied weapons for the Yemen war after the 2015 escalation; primarily General Dynamics, RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing (USA), Rheinmetall (Germany), Krusik (Serbia), Transmobile (Bulgarien), LIG (South Korea), Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems (UK), Leonardo (Italy), Airbus, and Thales (France).
Arming Both Sides: The analysis reveals deliveries to both sides of highly unstable conflicts, fueling them further:
- Armenia & Azerbaijan: NPO High-Precision Weapons and UralVagonZavod supply both parties in the Nagorno-Karabakh war.
- India & Pakistan: Western firms like Airbus, Lockheed Martin, RTX, Hensoldt, and Leonardo supply both countries in the Kashmir war.
- Saudi Arabia & Iran: Russian firms like Rostec supplied both sides of the Saudi-Iranian conflict during the Yemen proxy war.
Defense and Sustainable Finance
The ExitArms database has implications for the debate on the sustainability of defense investments. While sustainable funds were once hesitant, large asset managers have recently begun including defense companies in ESG funds. Under ESMA guidelines, ESG funds can invest in any defense company that does not produce specific banned weapons (cluster munitions, landmines, bio/chemical weapons).
ESG fund managers typically justify these investments by citing the importance of equipping EU militaries for the defense of democratic states, echoing the defense lobby's "guarantor of security and sustainability" narrative. However, the true reason for this shift appears to be the strong financial performance of defense stocks over the last three years. The true reason for the shift in opinion among ESG fund managers appears to be that defense stocks have significantly increased in value over the past three years, and investment funds that were not invested in the defense industry missed out on this boost in returns.
The ExitArms database shows that Western defense companies do not only equip EU militaries, but also export weapons to war zones such as Yemen, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Gaza, and Myanmar. The question of whether EU states must now invest in defense is completely separate from the question of whether ESG funds should invest in the defense industry. The fact that arms production may be necessary does not mean that investments by private financial institutions in the defense industry are sustainable.
There is little hope that the export practices of European defense firms will improve in the future, as the EU Commission is currently planning a legislative package called the "Defence Omnibus." This would further reduce the already low levels of transparency, lower standards, facilitate corrupt defense deals, and obscure weapons exports to third countries.
Objective of the Database
It is the only public, global database of companies involved in arms exports to warring parties. The primary target group is financial institutions, for whom the database provides a systematic basis for evaluating defense companies regarding credit policies, engagement, or divestment. Furthermore, the database serves as an information source for politics, regulators, academia, media, and civil society.
Methodology
In the period from 2017 to 2025[6], Facing Finance analyzed thousands of arms exports to warring parties[7]. The definition of war zones is based on the conflict intensity criteria of the Heidelberg Conflict Barometer[8]. Wars with international legal legitimacy, through a mandate from the UN Security Council or according to Article 51 of the UN Charter, were excluded.
Facing Finance collects information on the responsible companies through independent research. The goal of this investigation is to prove a company’s actual direct responsibility[9] for the arms export, and not just the fact that the company is the manufacturer of the weapon.
To investigate weapons deliveries to war zones and identify the responsibility of individual companies for specific arms exports, we consulted the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), UN reports, sanctions lists, academic publications, specialist journals, topic-specific websites, commercial databases, independent web research, defense company websites, materials from arms fairs, defense company brochures, government websites, and on-site research at arms fairs. More details at www.exitarms.org/methodology.
Contact:
Frederike Potts
Managing Director Facing Finance e.V.
f.potts@facing-finance.org
0049 177 300 2835
Luca Schiewe
Exit Arms Researcher
luca.schiewe@facing-finance.org
[1] Additionally, there are hundreds of companies that supply a warring party together with foreign defense companies but are based locally in the conflict country. Therefore, these are not considered exports and are not included here.
[2] The headquarters sometimes differs from the location of the production facility.
[3] Whether the rearmament picking up speed in Europe in the coming years will lead to many defense firms focusing on orders from European militaries and exporting fewer weapons to wars worldwide cannot be answered by the ExitArms database, which analyzes past arms exports.
[4] Formerly known as Krauss Maffei Wegmann (KMW).
[5] Volkswagen is involved through its subsidiaries Traton and Everllence (formerly MAN Energy Solutions).
[6] Research into weapons deliveries in 2024 and 2025 is not yet finished and is ongoing.
[7] "Warring parties" refers to countries where wars are occurring, as well as external groups, militias, and states directly involved in a war in another country through troops.
[8] Only conflicts that reached intensity level four (limited war) or five (war) were considered. The methodology of the Heidelberg Conflict Barometer can be found at https://hiik.de/hiik/methodik/.
[9] The responsibility of the investigated companies includes the production, licensing, modernization, development, repair, sale, and transport of military goods to war zones.
