Public relations (PR) experts have warned that civil engineering firms could face reputational risks if they become involved with AWE’s (the Atomic Weapons Establishment) project to build a new warhead manufacturing facility.
AWE launches market engagement for Future Materials Campus
Last year the Nuclear Industry Association revealed that firms involved in civil nuclear projects had expressed interest in gaining contracts in nuclear weaponry. A major opportunity has now been brought to market in the form of the development of the FMC, AWE’s flagship programme.
On 12 December 2024, AWE launched a prior information notice (PIN) kicking off preliminary market engagement for its FMC to support the proposed procurement in 2025. AWE invited parties across the construction supplier base to register their interest in participating in future market engagement activities.
Working on nuclear weapons poses reputational risk
Nuclear weapons manufacturing is an intensely controversial area of activity.
According to public attitudes research company YouGov, “the public are divided on whether a nuclear attack should be met with a nuclear response, conventional war or action short of war”.
YouGov’s twice-yearly “What should happen to Trident at the end of its useful life?” opinion tracker shows 46% support Britain replacing Trident with an equally powerful nuclear missile system.
Furthermore, 18% believe Britain should retain nuclear weapons but they should be less powerful and cost less, while 13% think the country should give up our nuclear weapons and 23% don’t know.
The proportion of people who support a like-for-like replacement rose significantly from 34% to 45% after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
It is likely that many of the firms hoping to work with AWE on its FMC will have already factored in any reputational risks they may face.
For firms not currently working with AWE and the wider nuclear weapons supply chain, they will be considering the reaction of stakeholders to this potential new area of work.
PR experts explain reputational risks of working on FMC
PR experts explained what reputational risks civil engineering firms face if they choose to engage with AWE’s FMC project.
Stone Junction describes itself as “a technical PR and digital marketing agency” working with science, technology, engineering and manufacturing clients around the world.
Stone Junction managing director Richard Stone said: “The thing to understand is that there is a difference between making an ethical choice and making a moral choice.
“Ethical choices are really about operating inside the decision-making frameworks that are provided by the society you are part of, while a moral decision is founded on your individual values as a component of that society.
“Ethically, nuclear weapons are a thing that the wider framework of British society, represented by our laws, regulations, directives and recommendations, is entirely welcoming of.
“However, if one of the organisations that you, or your business, is part of feels differently, there could be a clear problem if you disregard that and choose to engage with the sector.”
Cause UK is a B-Corp and “ethical public relations agency based in Harrogate” that works with public and private sector clients and “good causes” according to its website.
Cause UK director Ann Chadwick said: “The significant reputational risk when it comes to weapons manufacturing stems from ethical, social, environmental and political sensitivities. There’s the whole spectrum.
“There’s a risk that they could be seen as war profiteers of the worst kind. Nuclear weapons, ultimately, could destroy life on Earth.”
Which stakeholders should be considered?
Reflecting on which stakeholders should be considered by civil engineering firms when thinking about the reputational risks involved with taking a job constructing a nuclear weapons facility, Chadwick said: “It’s across the board. Investors, stakeholders, they could lose clients and staff as well. The talent pool is important, especially with engineering.
“If they all vote with their feet, then that’s a huge risk.”
Stone added: “According to ICAN [the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons] there are 36 international banks and pension funds who are anti-nuclear, including Holland’s Volksbank and Bank Australia.
“This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone with a pension though; if you have ever made a decision on how to invest your money with an IFA [independent financial advisor], they will have asked if you have a preference for an ethical or halal fund; nuclear weapons are a big no-no in both.
“It’s entirely conceivable that there could also be other businesses, either funded by these financial organisations or who are expanding their own ethical frameworks to encompass an anti-nuclear weapon position and any of these businesses could be put off by a company that deals in the nuclear sector.”
Does the economic opportunity outweigh reputational risk?
Many large civil engineering firms and consultancies have taken on jobs in Saudi Arabia, working on its Neom gigaproject, despite the reports about state-sanctioned fatalities and extremely poor working conditions for migrants on construction sites. This is likely due to the financial benefit of taking on work from such a wealthy client.
Similarly, Stone said he thought that on balance, civil engineering companies would be more likely to take the economic benefits of working with AWE and accept the risk.
“There are two elements to this economic opportunity, one is the contract itself, the other is the specialist skill in the nuclear sector that it will help participating companies build,” Stone said.
“The two of these combined are likely to be more valuable to a civil engineering company than the negative publicity the contract could engender.”
He went on to offer some advice about how to prevent negative publicity.
“From a PR perspective, a civils business with a face that’s accessible to the general public would be well advised to minimise the publicity around their participation though, to avoid any kind of demonstration,” he concluded.
AWE has confirmed it will announce the names of its major delivery partners once they are agreed.
Fallout from use of the weapons
Chadwick added that civil engineering companies should consider the risk of the weapons the FMC manufactures actually being deployed.
She said companies’ support for AWE’s project, if its weapons are used, “could lead to accusations of complicity in war crimes or even violations of international humanitarian law”, given the scale of the indiscriminate devastation they could cause.
In 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion where the then president Mohammed Bedjaoui said disarmament was the ultimate goal for humanity.
Bedjaoui said: “The solution arrived at in this Advisory Opinion frankly States the legal reality, while faithfully expressing and reflecting the hope, shared by all, peoples and States alike, that nuclear disarmament will always remain the ultimate goal of all action in the field of nuclear weapons, that the goal is no longer utopian and that it is the duty of all to seek to attain it more actively than ever [author’s emphasis].”
The scale of the impact of nuclear weapons means their deployment would raise the possibility of the aggressor party being in breach of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Article 51 Protection of the civilian population, part 4 says “indiscriminate attacks are prohibited” and defines indiscriminate attacks as “those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective”.
The nuclear warhead currently in use by the UK military has a yield of around 100 kilotons according to the House of Commons Library. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had yields of 15 and 20 kilotons respectively, according to ICAN.
AWE acting ‘openly and transparently’
Ethical concerns from civil engineering supply chain companies could pose a systemic risk to the FMC project if enough refused to work with AWE.
AWE said: “We cannot comment on the views of individual companies.
“Our approach is to engage openly and transparently with suppliers, fostering collaboration and ensuring alignment with the programme’s objectives.
“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to participate in the creation of a world-class scientific, engineering and technological centre of excellence.”
Like what you’ve read? To receive New Civil Engineer’s daily and weekly newsletters click here.