The Ethics of Geopolitical Neutrality: Corporate Responsibility vs. National Security in Modern Warfare

Abstract

The accelerating entanglement of multinational corporations in the infrastructure of modern warfare has destabilised the long-held assumption that private enterprise can remain neutral in geopolitical conflict. Cloud computing platforms, satellite communication networks, semiconductor supply chains, and social media ecosystems are now load-bearing components of national defence, transforming corporations from passive bystanders into active — if reluctant — belligerent-adjacent actors. This paper examines the ethical tension between corporate claims to geopolitical neutrality and the practical demands of national security in the context of modern, technologically mediated warfare. Using a qualitative, document-based case-study methodology, the paper analyses the behaviour of major technology firms during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the contested role of Starlink in battlefield communications, the evolving treatment of the defence sector within Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment frameworks, and the historical precedent of corporate disengagement from apartheid-era South Africa. Drawing on stakeholder theory, shareholder-primacy theory, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and Just War theory, the paper develops a four-quadrant analytical framework — the Corporate Neutrality Spectrum — that classifies firm behaviour according to the degree of voluntary alignment with state security objectives and the depth of human-rights due diligence performed. The analysis finds that genuine corporate neutrality is, in practice, unattainable once a firm's infrastructure becomes militarily consequential; the meaningful ethical question is not whether to take a side, but through what governance process, with what transparency, and with what accountability that side is chosen. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for firms, investors, and regulators, and identifies avenues for further empirical research, including firm-level surveys and comparative regulatory analysis across jurisdictions.