Resilience, defence, climate... What’s the smartest way to brand your impact company in 2025?

Much has been written lately about the current boom in defence tech and dual-use companies, and the growing appetite for these businesses among many European VCs.

For those just catching up, both the ongoing war in Ukraine and President Trump’s return to office have encouraged more businesses to develop technologies, tools and services designed to help countries protect or defend themselves — or to explore how their existing products could be adapted or adopted in response to shifting geopolitical dynamics.

New funding sources have also emerged, such as NATO’s Diana Innovation Fund, an incubator supporting companies tackling what it describes as “critical defence and security challenges” and improving “collective resistance”. This includes defence technologies, but also sectors traditionally categorised under impact or climate tech, including renewable energy and advanced materials. Meanwhile, both national governments and the EU have committed to increased defence funding.

All of this has unfolded in parallel with a drop in investment in more traditional climate tech companies. A recent report from Dealroom suggested funding fell to a five-year low in the first quarter of this year, with experts pointing to a tough exit environment and the buzz around AI as key reasons.

Some VCs have also actively moved away from branding themselves as “climate tech” or “impact” investors. Their reasoning varies: some argue the terms have become too broad, while others see them as increasingly politicised in light of the US administration’s resistance to prioritising climate action.

Against this backdrop, it’s little surprise that growing numbers of climate tech companies appear to be tweaking their messaging to align with the current zeitgeist. A quick scroll through Linkedin posts from startups focused on carbon-cutting technologies reveals "resilience" and "security" are increasingly replacing "sustainability" and "impact" as among the buzzwords of choice.

"This trend is really real"

Some companies are taking it even further. Both US and European media have reported on firms originally founded to tackle climate change now fully rebranding themselves as resilience or security companies – aiming to fit the narrative, secure more funding or land higher valuations.

"This trend is really real," says Robina von Stein, principal at Baltic climate tech VC firm Contrarian Ventures, who tells Impact Loop she’s been surprised at the pace of change in recent months.

“I was in a board meeting with some of my founders yesterday and they were like, ‘Okay, maybe we completely redo our deck for fundraising’.’"

Okay, maybe we completely redo our deck for fundraising

Clever branding or a long-term risk?

But whether it’s a smart long-term move for impact companies to rebrand as resilience or security startups remains up for debate.

"Sometimes you go where the money is, and it is a way of surviving," argues Martina Hegestig, Business Operations Manager at Swedish incubator LEAD, which recently launched an accelerator programme for dual-use innovations.

Since many startups are, by nature, "naturally optimistic", Hegestig says it makes sense that some are seeking to "reframe their value propositions" to improve funding prospects.

However, she warns that the strategy could backfire over time. "If you stray too far from your core purpose just to get funding, you can lose credibility." This, she adds, may be especially relevant for climate tech companies seeking public funding in countries committed to reducing emissions.

Pragmatic use of "resilience"

At Contrarian Ventures, von Stein agrees that founders might need to be pragmatic in using language like "resilience" to help communicate their broader potential and unlock investment. "If people want to use this, because this word is easier to understand, do it," she says.

But she also stresses the importance of staying grounded in mission. Contrarian Ventures, for instance, is resolute in its identity as a climate tech investor.

"We're not going to pivot to defence or resilience suddenly; climate tech is the defining challenge we’ve committed to helping founders solve," she argues.

If people want to use this, because this word is easier to understand, do it

Do labels really matter?

Others – including some branding and communications experts – are sceptical of labels altogether.

Stephen Lee, Communications Strategy Director at Helsinki-based PR agency San Fransisco, says startup sector names have become so trend-driven that they now carry less weight.

"I think that they're becoming less important," he argues. "It’s about the story that you can tell."

He says impact startups often fail in their messaging by focusing too heavily on broad taglines or sector-based branding, instead of articulating what they actually do.

"Your purpose isn't to be resilient. Your purpose isn't to be sustainable. Your purpose is to – make water cleaner, make people's lives better, or these types of things," he says. "That’s what you need to communicate."

These views offer just a small snapshot of a broader, ongoing debate within the impact space (or whatever label it takes next). For now, resilience and security may provide a more fundable framing for climate tech startups with a strong case for the wider utility of their technologies. But how durable or effective that strategy will be depends on how investors, policymakers and markets respond. It’s a trend to watch closely as the sector – and the geopolitical landscape around it – continues to shift.