Defense companies justify heavy lobbying expenditures in Britain and Europe by framing their activities as essential for national security, economic prosperity, and technological innovation.

They argue that lobbying is a legitimate, even necessary, part of a healthy democracy that ensures policymakers are well-informed about complex defense issues and the needs of a vital industry.

National Security and Strategic Partnership

The primary justification defense firms use for their lobbying is that it is critical for national and European security.

• Sharing Expertise: The industry positions itself as a strategic partner to governments, not just a contractor. They argue that as the primary developers and manufacturers of complex military technology, they possess a unique and deep understanding of the capabilities needed to counter modern threats. Lobbying, in this context, is framed as a way to share this expertise with policymakers, ensuring that decisions on defense spending are grounded in technical and operational reality. They argue that without their input, governments might make ill-informed decisions that could compromise national security.

• Ensuring Capability: Lobbyists also frame their work as necessary to ensure that defense budgets are allocated to address key "capability gaps." While national security agencies identify threats, the defense industry uses its lobbying power to shape the policy response, often arguing for specific, high-tech systems that happen to be their products. They justify this by saying that only they can provide the necessary platforms and systems to protect the country and its allies.

• Interoperability with Allies: In the EU, lobbyists emphasize the need for interoperability among member states. They argue that by standardizing equipment and technology, they can help create a more cohesive and effective European defense force. This narrative is used to justify lobbying for joint procurement and EU-level funding, such as the European Defence Fund (EDF).

Economic Justification and Job Creation

Beyond security, defense companies heavily rely on economic arguments to justify their lobbying expenditures.

• Sustaining the Industrial Base: A central justification is that lobbying is necessary to secure government contracts and export licenses, which in turn sustain a skilled workforce and industrial base. They argue that without a strong, domestic defense industry, a country would be reliant on foreign suppliers, making it vulnerable during a crisis. Lobbying is therefore presented as a tool to protect jobs and foster economic growth. This argument is particularly effective in the UK, where the government and industry are closely intertwined.

• Funding R&D: The industry argues that a stable, lucrative market, which lobbying helps secure, is essential for funding the massive and risky investments required for research and development (R&D). They claim that the long-term, high-tech nature of defense projects means they cannot rely solely on free-market competition. Instead, they need long-term government support and predictability, which they lobby to secure.

• Economic Diplomacy: Defense firms also position themselves as key players in a country's economic diplomacy. They argue that arms exports are not just commercial transactions but also a way to build strategic alliances and project a country's influence abroad. Lobbying for export licenses is thus framed as supporting foreign policy objectives and creating economic opportunities.

The "Legitimate" Role of Corporate Advocacy

Finally, defense firms justify their lobbying by arguing it's a legitimate form of advocacy in a democratic system.

• Representing a Key Stakeholder: Like any other industry, defense companies argue they have a right to represent their interests to the government. They contend that policymakers would have a limited and one-sided view of a complex sector without their input.

• Navigating Complex Regulation: The defense industry is one of the most heavily regulated sectors. Companies argue that lobbying is necessary to navigate the complex web of regulations, from procurement rules to export controls. They present their lobbyists as "information providers" who help government officials understand the technical and financial implications of proposed policies.

• Checks and Balances: While critics see a conflict of interest, the industry argues that the democratic process itself provides safeguards. They claim that their interests are just one of many voices in a public debate that also includes security agencies, military officials, politicians, and civil society. This framing minimizes the reality that their financial power often gives them a far louder voice than other stakeholders.