The UK’s nuclear warhead manufacturer AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment) has rebranded in an attempt to attract more workers. However, it has refused to disclose to the Canary how much public money it spent on the accompanying public relations (PR) exercise.
AWE faces increased demand for its services following the Conservative Party government’s decision, under the Integrated Review 2021, to increase the UK’s stockpile of nuclear warheads from 225 to 260.
That decision came during the context of increasing hostility from Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the poisoning of the Skripals in 2018, but before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In addition, the US and Russia had withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) in 2019.
AWE: rebranded to ‘attract more workers’
Two high profile parts of AWE rebrand were changes to its logo and tagline, which were shared in materials including posters in public places like trains.
The logo used to be teal or black letters saying AWE and a teal or black electron field detail, all on a white background. This has been replaced with black AWE letters with softened edges and the phrase ‘nuclear security technologies’ in all caps.
AWE has two main sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield, both in Berkshire. An anti-nuclear weapons campaigner, familiar with the Aldermaston site, told the Canary they had seen “big adverts on the side of busses in Oxford and Reading” for AWE.
In addition, the campaigner said they saw adverts on the handsets of petrol pumps at three different Sainsbury’s petrol stations in the local area encouraging people to apply for jobs at AWE Aldermaston.
Failing to mention what it really does
One poster spotted on a train says “There’s more to working at AWE than you think… like meaningful work protecting the nation and an impressive range of benefits” with a person dressed in personal protective equipment holding a tablet computer:
The poster also says employees have access to benefits “including enhanced maternity/paternity pay, support for professional development & a 9-day working fortnight”.
It goes on to list a QR code and a link to its website where readers can “find out more about a career with AWE.” At no point does the poster mention weapons, warheads, Trident, or the Continuous-at-sea-Deterrent (CASD), which is the UK government’s official wording for the submarine-based nuclear weapon system.
The Aldermaston campaigner said they thought the rebrand had taken place because of the nationalisation of AWE.
AWE was run by a Lockheed Martin, Serco, and Jacobs Engineering consortium from 2008 until 2021 when the Ministry of Defence (MoD) took over ownership.
The campaigner said they “definitely” thought the rebrand was about improving recruitment at AWE, and said they thought AWE employees “seem much happier” following nationalisation of the company.
Transparency request rejected by nuclear weapons maker
Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, AWE was asked:
Please will you share with me information you have about the recent (2023/2024) rebrand of AWE? Information including any presentations, brand books, brand guides, and house styles.
In addition, please will you share how much was spent on the rebrand including any breakdowns of costs where available, and the name of the organisation(s) which provided the rebrand.
In response to the FOI request, AWE said:
We can confirm that AWE holds all of the information you have requested, however, we are withholding the information under section 43(2) of the FOI Act.
FOI responses where a request is refused often include a breakdown of the arguments the organisation used in favour of, and against, disclosing the information. AWE laid out its case.
Explaining its argument in favour of disclosure, AWE said:
The factors in favour of disclosure of the information would be to provide openness and transparency in public spending and the procurement process, the Act makes a presumption towards disclosure of information wherever possible and to insight public confidence in the integrity and fairness of AWE.
It went on to explain, at length, arguments against disclosure. AWE said:
Factors against disclosure of the information would be that freedom of information requests can be used as powerful tools for our adversaries to gain a better understanding of our external risk exposure.
Disclosure could also harm the commercial interest of the suppliers by revealing sensitive information that competitors could exploit. Suppliers may also be less willing to engage with AWE in future contracts if they believe their identities and potentially sensitive information could be disclosed.
This could have a major impact on the procurement process and disrupt operations and facilities which would in turn prevent the maintenance of Continuous at Sea Deterrent (CASD) and undermine the defence of the nation.
AWE: transparency over public spending ‘could incite malicious activities’
It continued:
From a security perspective, releasing this information could also incite malicious activities beyond the control of the UK. Adversaries might use the information to impersonate AWE or its staff, leading to fraudulent or harmful actions.
While there is a public interest in promoting openness and transparency, these must be weighed against commercial interests. The outcome of the Public Interest Test (PIT) was that the information should be withheld to prevent prejudice to commercial interest.
AWE’s refusal to share information about its procurement of public relations services contrasts with other areas of defence procurement, such as the names of suppliers of the Trident missiles used to carry nuclear warheads – Lockheed Martin – and the Vanguard-class submarines used to carry the missiles – BAE Systems Marine.
In addition, Capita proudly shared information about how it provided public relations support to the British Army with its recruitment campaign ‘This is Belonging’ in 2020. It’s unclear how AWE can justify withholding information about its PR activities, while other parts of the military disclose their PR providers.
AWE confirms rebrand designed to attract more employees
The Canary put the points raised by the anti-nuclear weapons campaigner and Worthy to AWE.
An AWE spokesman said:
AWE’s brand refresh reflects the company’s growth and evolution over the past 25 years and our vision to deliver a safe and secure future for all.
A strong, clear identity helps us to communicate the company’s direction and values to external partners at home and abroad, and to attract the UK’s diverse talent, innovation and skills.
The decision to conduct a brand refresh rather than a wholesale change in brand allowed us to minimise costs and provide value for money.
Was the FOI refusal a possible deterrent for future requests?
Birkbeck College, University of London senior lecturer in politics Ben Worthy has research interests in government transparency, particularly freedom of information, political leadership and British politics.
Worthy said the commercial confidentiality argument “makes sense partially, as you can see how logically publishing the details could disadvantage/advantage different groups in the future”:
However, I can’t follow how this then endangers national security and the wider weapons systems. I can’t quite follow the trail there.
It could be that this is just a cut and paste response, with this sentence left in as a logical follow to all refused requests, as a kind of heavy deterrent to future requests.
Featured image via the Canary, additional image supplied
