Defence is booming. But a favorable market alone does not make a compelling investment case. For Nordic defence and dual-use companies, the challenge is to show investors how exceptional market demand translates into sustainable competitive advantage, profitable growth and ultimately shareholder value.

European defence is undergoing a structural shift. Defence spending is increasing, procurement priorities are changing and capital is flowing into defence, security and dual-use technologies. At the Hague summit on 25 June 2025, NATO allies committed to "invest 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035".

For Nordic companies, this creates significant opportunities which investors have noticed. But as more companies compete for capital and investor attention, exposure to an attractive market will not be enough.

A growing defence market is not an investment thesis. It is the starting point for one.

For management teams and boards, the more important question is: Why should our company be one of the winners – and how will that create value for shareholders?

From market opportunity to value creation

Companies naturally know their technologies, products and customers in great detail. They can explain why defence spending is increasing and why demand for their solutions is growing.

Investors look at the company through different lenses. They want to understand which part of the market the company can realistically address. Why it is positioned to win. Whether its competitive advantages can be sustained. How rapidly the business can scale. What capital will be required. And ultimately, how growth translates into margins, cash flow and returns on capital.

In other words, investors need to understand the company's value creation logic. This is where an investment narrative becomes important – not simply as a communications exercise, but as a strategic management tool.

What does an investor need to believe? 

Companies often approach investor communications by asking: What should we tell investors?

We believe management teams should start with a more demanding question:

What does an investor need to believe for our strategy to translate into an attractive investment case?

Five questions every management team should be able to answer

For defence and dual-use companies, five questions are particularly important.

1. Why this market – and which part of it?

β€œDefence” is not a market definition. Investors need to understand where the company's realistic addressable opportunity lies.

2. Why your company?

What gives your company the right to win? Technology, intellectual property, certifications, customer relationships, partnerships, installed base, speed or cost position? Genuine competitive advantages need to be distinguished from corporate claims.

3. Why now?

What has changed – in the market or within your company – that makes the opportunity actionable today?

4. How does growth become financial value?

Management needs to connect strategic ambition with revenue growth, margins, cash generation, investment requirements and capital allocation. Investors do not only want to know how large the company can become. They want to understand what kind of business it can become.

5. What should investors watch next?

What should happen over the next 12, 24 or 36 months if the strategy is working? A credible investment narrative gives investors tangible proof points against which execution can be assessed. Credibility is built when management gives the market a framework for measuring progress.

The difficult questions are often the most valuable

There is another reason to build the investment narrative carefully: the process exposes weaknesses. If management cannot explain why margins should improve as the business scales, the problem may not be the investor presentation.

If the addressable market is enormous but the company cannot define which part it can realistically capture, another market-growth slide will not solve the problem.

If investors struggle to understand the company's differentiation, management should ask whether the competitive advantage itself is sufficiently clear.

This is why investment narrative work belongs in discussions involving the CEO, CFO, management team and board. It sits at the intersection of strategy, capital markets and communication.

Done well, it does more than help a company explain its strategy. It tests the strategy through the eyes of the capital markets.

Ten minutes is a surprisingly good test

At the Listeds Investor Event Β· Defence, Nordic listed and pre-IPO defence and dual-use companies have around ten minutes each to present their businesses to investors and decision-makers.

Ten minutes is not much. That is precisely why it is useful. If the core investment case cannot be made understandable in ten minutes, another twenty slides rarely solve the problem.

The objective is not to simplify the business. It is to make its value creation logic clear.

The Nordic defence sector may be entering an exceptional period of growth. But as more companies compete for investor attention, the winners will not necessarily be those with the biggest market slides or the most ambitious growth targets.

They will be the companies that can credibly answer three questions:

Why us? Why now? And how does this create shareholder value?

That is the investment narrative.

|

|

Sponsored

From defence story to investment case: what investors need to understand

From defence story to investment case: what investors need to understand

Commercial partnership:

Β·

5 min read

Defence is booming. But a favorable market alone does not make a compelling investment case. For Nordic defence and dual-use companies, the challenge is to show investors how exceptional market demand translates into sustainable competitive advantage, profitable growth and ultimately shareholder value.

European defence is undergoing a structural shift. Defence spending is increasing, procurement priorities are changing and capital is flowing into defence, security and dual-use technologies. At the Hague summit on 25 June 2025, NATO allies committed to "invest 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035".

For Nordic companies, this creates significant opportunities which investors have noticed. But as more companies compete for capital and investor attention, exposure to an attractive market will not be enough.

A growing defence market is not an investment thesis. It is the starting point for one.

For management teams and boards, the more important question is: Why should our company be one of the winners – and how will that create value for shareholders?

From market opportunity to value creation

Companies naturally know their technologies, products and customers in great detail. They can explain why defence spending is increasing and why demand for their solutions is growing.

Investors look at the company through different lenses. They want to understand which part of the market the company can realistically address. Why it is positioned to win. Whether its competitive advantages can be sustained. How rapidly the business can scale. What capital will be required. And ultimately, how growth translates into margins, cash flow and returns on capital.

In other words, investors need to understand the company's value creation logic. This is where an investment narrative becomes important – not simply as a communications exercise, but as a strategic management tool.

What does an investor need to believe? 

Companies often approach investor communications by asking: What should we tell investors?

We believe management teams should start with a more demanding question:

What does an investor need to believe for our strategy to translate into an attractive investment case?

Five questions every management team should be able to answer

For defence and dual-use companies, five questions are particularly important.

1. Why this market – and which part of it?

β€œDefence” is not a market definition. Investors need to understand where the company's realistic addressable opportunity lies.

2. Why your company?

What gives your company the right to win? Technology, intellectual property, certifications, customer relationships, partnerships, installed base, speed or cost position? Genuine competitive advantages need to be distinguished from corporate claims.

3. Why now?

What has changed – in the market or within your company – that makes the opportunity actionable today?

4. How does growth become financial value?

Management needs to connect strategic ambition with revenue growth, margins, cash generation, investment requirements and capital allocation. Investors do not only want to know how large the company can become. They want to understand what kind of business it can become.

5. What should investors watch next?

What should happen over the next 12, 24 or 36 months if the strategy is working? A credible investment narrative gives investors tangible proof points against which execution can be assessed. Credibility is built when management gives the market a framework for measuring progress.

The difficult questions are often the most valuable

There is another reason to build the investment narrative carefully: the process exposes weaknesses. If management cannot explain why margins should improve as the business scales, the problem may not be the investor presentation.

If the addressable market is enormous but the company cannot define which part it can realistically capture, another market-growth slide will not solve the problem.

If investors struggle to understand the company's differentiation, management should ask whether the competitive advantage itself is sufficiently clear.

This is why investment narrative work belongs in discussions involving the CEO, CFO, management team and board. It sits at the intersection of strategy, capital markets and communication.

Done well, it does more than help a company explain its strategy. It tests the strategy through the eyes of the capital markets.

Ten minutes is a surprisingly good test

At the Listeds Investor Event Β· Defence, Nordic listed and pre-IPO defence and dual-use companies have around ten minutes each to present their businesses to investors and decision-makers.

Ten minutes is not much. That is precisely why it is useful. If the core investment case cannot be made understandable in ten minutes, another twenty slides rarely solve the problem.

The objective is not to simplify the business. It is to make its value creation logic clear.

The Nordic defence sector may be entering an exceptional period of growth. But as more companies compete for investor attention, the winners will not necessarily be those with the biggest market slides or the most ambitious growth targets.

They will be the companies that can credibly answer three questions:

Why us? Why now? And how does this create shareholder value?

That is the investment narrative.

About IR Partners

IR Partners is a strategic capital markets communications advisory. We work with listed companies, growth companies and companies preparing for the capital markets, helping management teams and boards clarify their investment narrative, strengthen their capital markets positioning and navigate strategic turning points.

Board Programme

Built for Nordic listed company boards.

The only programme in the Nordics designed specifically for listed-company board work.
Five sessions, one cohort, twenty leaders in one room - Helsinki, 2026.

Board Programme

Built for Nordic listed company boards.

The only programme in the Nordics designed specifically for listed-company board work.
Five sessions, one cohort, twenty leaders in one room - Helsinki, 2026.

Topics

# Topics

Authors

Tiina Olkkonen is the Founding Partner and Chair of IR Partners.

Tiina Olkkonen is the Founding Partner and Chair of IR Partners.

Authors

Guest columnist

Tiina Olkkonen is the Founding Partner and Chair of IR Partners.

All Listeds newsletters (bundle)

One sign-up, the full picture.

Get every Listeds newsletter: the daily signal drumbeat, the weekly Pulse briefing, the monthly Best of the Month, the CEO letter, and the Weekend read.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy

All Listeds newsletters (bundle)

One sign-up, the full picture.

Get every Listeds newsletter: the daily signal drumbeat, the weekly Pulse briefing, the monthly Best of the Month, the CEO letter, and the Weekend read.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy

Latest signalsLive feed
Moves trackerLive feed

Investor Event

Listeds Investor Event Β· Defence

Nordic defence is in a once-in-a-generation growth cycle. Eight listed and pre-IPO companies pitch to 100+ invited investors at Valkoinen Sali, Helsinki

21 September 2026

Latest on Listeds

Leadership Moves

Two new listed CEOs, no search, no external hire

Sep 2, 2026

No Large Cap company changed its chief executive in the first half of 2026. The demergers at UPM and Aspo have produced two new listed-CEO seats anyway β€” and both went to the parent's own executive, named before the board that will supervise them existed.

Two people will become chief executives of Nasdaq Helsinki-listed companies in the next five months. Neither was recruited. Neither was chosen by the board of the company they will run, because at the time they were appointed that board had not been elected and the company did not yet exist.

Tuija Suur-Hamari becomes President and CEO of WISA Group Plc when UPM's plywood demerger completes, expected on or about 31 October, with trading due to start on 2 November. Matti-Mikael Koskinen becomes CEO of ESL Shipping Group Plc when Aspo's demerger completes on 31 December, with trading expected on or about 4 January 2027

Both are internal. Both were named by the demerging parent's board. And both arrive in a market where, on the Listeds CEO Index β€” Finland, produced in partnership with SAM Headhunting, the largest Finnish listed companies did not appoint a single new chief executive in either quarter of the first half of 2026.

Two names, both from inside

Suur-Hamari has run UPM Plywood since 1 November 2025 at the latest, on an appointment announced on 17 April 2025. She joined UPM from Wihuri, where she had been Managing Director of Wipak Oy since 2016, and before that was President and CEO of Kotkamills Oy. Born in 1969, she holds a Master's degree in engineering from Helsinki University of Technology. WISA will be her first listed-company chief executive role, and it arrives almost exactly a year after she joined UPM.

Koskinen has been Managing Director of ESL Shipping Ltd since 1 May 2013, appointed at the age of 41 from Meriaura, where he had been Managing Director since 2007. Thirteen years in the same operating role, and the company he runs is being listed around him.

Neither is a first-time chief executive. Both are first-time listed-company chief executives, and neither reached the seat through a search.

Against a market that stopped hiring at the top

The index recorded 12 new CEO starts in the second quarter of 2026 and 25 across the first half, an annualised pace of about 50 against 44 for all of 2025. Every one of the Q2 starts happened below Large Cap: seven Small Cap, four First North, one Mid Cap. Large Cap recorded zero changes for a second consecutive quarter, a year after more than a third of that tier replaced its CEO.

Set the demerger appointments against that and the pattern is consistent rather than contrary. External hires were 50% of Q2 starts, or 60% of the ten starts that actually changed the leader. The two demerger appointments are internal promotions, the share of external hires on seats created by corporate structure so far is zero. Where boards did hire in Q2, the average age at start was about 54, roughly four years above the age at which the sitting population first took the role. A 1969 birth year puts Suur-Hamari at 56 or 57 on day one; Koskinen, 41 in March 2013, will be in his mid-fifties.

So the demerger wave is not widening the pool. It is creating seats and filling them with the profile Finnish boards were already buying.

One thing it does change: Suur-Hamari will be one of a small number of women running a Nasdaq Helsinki-listed company. Women held 8.1% of the 186 sitting CEO roles at 30 June, and one of the 25 first-half starts. The CEO index already records two women taking up CEO roles in the third quarter; WISA adds a fourth-quarter one, and it arrives by demerger rather than by succession.

The seat is created by a structural vote, not a succession decision

Under the Finnish Corporate Governance Code, appointing the chief executive is the board's own duty. A demerger inverts the sequence, unavoidably. UPM announced Suur-Hamari as WISA's President and CEO on 29 April. Tapio Korpeinen as chair, Mats Nordlander as deputy chair, and Sakari Ahdekivi, Frank Herrmann, Nina Kiviranta and Emmanuelle Picard were elected as board members by UPM's extraordinary general meeting six weeks later, on 31 August. Aspo's board intended that Rolf Jansson will be elected as Chair of the Board and Matti-Mikael Koskinen as CEO of ESL Shipping Group on 3 August; ESL Shipping Group's own board will not be elected until the extraordinary general meeting on 7 December, four months after the fact.

Shareholders in both cases vote on a structure. The chief executive comes attached to it.

That is not a criticism of any of the people named β€” there is no other way to staff a company that does not yet exist. 

Valmet is the one that would break the freeze

WISA and ESL Shipping Group are not Large Cap businesses. WISA reported EUR 409 million in plywood sales in 2025; ESL Shipping Group generated EUR 178.4 million over the twelve months to June 2026, and Telko Group EUR 294.6 million.

Valmet is a different order. Its board announced on 24 July that it would review separating Biomaterial Solutions and Services from Process Performance Solutions into two listed companies. Process Performance Solutions runs at roughly EUR 1.7 billion in annual net sales after the Severn acquisition, with close to 70% of that now outside pulp and paper. Group net sales were about EUR 5.2 billion in 2025, leaving Biomaterial Solutions and Services as much the larger of the two, though Valmet has not disclosed a standalone figure for it in this release. Chair Pekka Vauramo said the board would proceed only if separation proved "clearly in the best interests of our shareholders." An update is due no later than the full-year 2026 results.

If it happens, one board decision produces two Large Cap-scale chief executive seats in a tier that recorded no CEO change at all in the first half of 2026. No leadership has been named for either. President and CEO Thomas Hinnerskov runs both today.

There is a second thing to watch at Valmet. CFO Katri Hokkanen leaves at the end of September; her successor Pia Aaltonen-Forsell arrives at the latest at the end of January 2027, and no interim arrangement has been disclosed. The company is weighing a two-company split across that gap.

The seat nobody has named

Aspo's demerger creates one more chief executive question than it answers. Rolf Jansson has been Aspo's CEO and, since 23 January 2026, also Managing Director of Telko. He is intended to be elected chair of ESL Shipping Group's board. Who leads Telko Group Plc, the continuing company, renamed, is not disclosed in the demerger plan. The prospectus is due in November.

What to watch

Three things follow for boards and nomination committees.

A demerger is a leadership decision at least a year before it is a market event. The CEO, the leadership team and the board of a company that will not trade until 2027 were all settled in the summer of 2026, and shareholders approved them inside a structural vote.

The route does not widen the pipeline. Every demerger-created seat named so far has gone to an executive already inside the parent, at the age profile Finnish boards have been favouring anyway.

And the counting matters. These starts land in the Q4 2026 and Q1 2027 CEO Index, not the current one, which means the index will register CEO appointments that no board actually searched for. Whether Valmet adds two Large Cap entries to that count is the open question of the next two quarters.

Executive Intelligence

Helsinki's boards run 270 committees under 60 different names

Sep 1, 2026

Around forty of those names belong to a single company each. Citycon has the only cyber committee on the exchange, and last year it did not meet.

Citycon's board has a Cyber Committee. It is the only one on Nasdaq Helsinki. The company's own governance disclosure records that in 2025, the Cyber Committee did not convene. Its Audit and Governance Committee met four times that year. Its Nomination and Remuneration Committee met seven.

A cyber committee is a defensible answer to a real exposure for a listed property owner. What stands out is that no other Helsinki-listed board has formalised the same risk in the same way, or in many cases at all.

35+ committee names belong to a single company each

Citycon is not the only board with a committee nobody else has. Raisio established an M&A Committee at its 2025 annual general meeting, chaired by board chair Arto Tiitinen. Orion runs an R&D Committee, chaired by Hilpi Rautelin, the only one of its kind in the Finnish listed market. Revenio has an Integration Committee. GRK Infra has a Tender and Project Committee. HKFoods runs a Working Committee and a Special Committee. Fortum has folded technology and investment into one body, and YIT has done the same with investment and projects.

Audit and remuneration still do almost all of the work

Across 184 Helsinki-listed companies, 127 have at least one board committee. Fifty-seven have none. Those 127 boards run 270 committees between them.

The functions concentrate tightly. Audit appears in 122 committee mandates, remuneration in 71, and people, personnel or human resources in 59. Nomination or governance appears in 26, sustainability in 14, risk in 13.

Another 11 committees use "Compensation" instead of remuneration, so a body explicitly charged with pay appears in 82 of the 270 β€” and that still excludes the 17 Personnel, People and Human Resources committees holding the same mandate without naming pay.

The names do not concentrate at all. After normalising for capitalisation and ampersands, those 270 committees carry 60 distinct labels, and 38 of them are used by exactly one company.

Most of that variety is cosmetic. People and Sustainability. Sustainability and Personnel. Sustainability and HR. Remuneration and HR. HR and Compensation. People and Compensation. Human Resources and Remuneration. Seven labels, one mandate.

The Code mandates the function, not the label

None of this is a compliance failure. The Finnish Corporate Governance Code 2026 is explicit: "Companies do not have an obligation under the Corporate Governance Code to establish committees or a shareholders' nomination board. As the establishment of the committees is not obligatory, the lack of committees is not deemed to be a departure from the code and therefore there is no need to report or explain it."

The Code also lets boards merge mandates, stating that "the board of directors may combine duties of the committees referred to in the Corporate Governance Code into a single committee or also establish other permanent or temporary committees, combine the duties assigned to different committees, or decide that a certain matter be prepared by the entire board of directors ". It requires only that the statutory audit duties sit somewhere, whether in a dedicated audit committee, in another committee, or with the board as a whole.

Committee data does not aggregate across Helsinki

For a board, a specialist committee is a statement about where directors spend their hours. Orion formalising research and development, and Nokia formalising both technology and strategy, tell a reader something that the committee list in an annual report otherwise flattens.

For anyone reading across the market, the absence of a shared vocabulary is the cost. Screening Nasdaq Helsinki for boards with a technology committee returns no reliable answer. Nokia, Kalmar, Kempower and Revenio call it Technology. Fortum calls it Technology and Investment. Sotkamo Silver calls it Technical. Citycon has carved cyber out on its own. (That reading is interpretation. It is a comparability problem for investors and index work, not a governance failing at any individual company.)

Worth watching is whether specialist committees spread beyond the handful of boards that run them. Technology-type committees number seven across the market. Cyber committees number one, and last year it did not meet.

Join our Pulse, Best-of-the-Week, and Weekend newsletters

Join our Pulse, Best-of-the-Week, and Weekend newsletters