Is strategic relevance enough to make a company worth investing in?

As public funding for defense, space, and dual-use technologies expands across Europe and allied democracies, a growing number of companies are gaining prominence on geopolitical grounds. But does this translate into financial value? Can a company that plays a critical role in national security or technological sovereignty also generate consistent returns for long-term investors?

Or are we confusing policy-driven importance with scalable business fundamentals? This article explores when and how strategic relevance converges with true financial performance—and why understanding that distinction is essential for building resilient portfolios in an era of systemic transformation.

This analysis answers: What is the central argument of “Is strategic relevance enough to make a company worth investing in?”, and why does it matter for European defence and dual-use markets? What does this mean for European defence funding, procurement and investment decisions? How mature and defensible is the position described in “Is strategic relevance enough to make a company worth investing in?”? Which European actors, programmes and funding instruments are most exposed?