The topic of armaments is usually divided into two categories:

• conventional weapons, which include classic military equipment (rifles, military aircraft, warships, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, etc.), intended for armies and National Defense, and fist weapons that can also be purchased by private individuals, where the state authorizes it
• the Unconventional or controversial weapons, that is, those weapons that also cause devastating consequences on the civilian population:
  • Anti-personnel mines, both buried and toy-shaped, also designed to target the civilian population
  • Fragmentation (cluster) bombs, which open near the target and release explosive devices in all directions
  • bacteriological and chemicalweapons , which have incalculable medium-term health consequences for anyone who comes into contact with the substance they release
  • Depleted uranium munitions, which are highly carcinogenic due to the radiation they give off
  • nuclear weapons, which cause devastating effects with the explosion, capable of disintegrating entire cities, and serious long-term damage on the environment and the Society

Two visions of sustainability oppose each other:

• A widely held view that the sustainability of a Society goes through to an appropriate defense policy and to the Management of a modern professional army, necessary conditions for facing internal and external threats and for being able to dialogue while having sufficient military power at hand in crisis situations. In this case:
  • all activities related to conventional armaments are deemed necessary and therefore sustainable
  • controversial weapons are banned as not socially acceptable
• A minority view inspired by pacifism defining armament-related activities as unsustainable by nature, as they are based on a logic of confrontation between peoples and not cooperation. Instead, investments should be placed in areas of activity with a positive impact on peoples. According to this line of thinking:
  • military investments lend themselves to nationalistic logic and fuel dangerous "escalation" situations harmful to peoples, so they are fundamentally unsustainable
  • controversial weapons are totally unacceptable

The topic of armaments is mainly approached through two types of approaches:

The normative approach related to the signing and implementation by sovereign states of a list of international treaties, in particular:

• The 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which provides for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, disarmament and peaceful use under the supervision of an international body (IAEA)
• The Ottawa Convention of 1997, which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and sale of anti-personnel mines and provides for their relative destruction
• The 2008 Oslo Convention banning the use of cluster bombs, i.e., explosive weapons that disperse sub-munitions(bomblets) over a certain area

The exclusion approach applied to Society that manufacture or sell armaments.

The exclusions thus cover Society that have material activity (more than 2%/5% of turnover depending on the funds) in the conventional and unconventional war industry. Sometimes, the tolerance is zero.
Some funds extend the exclusions to Society that participate in government procurement for National Defense.

82% of the surveyed sustainable funds put investment restrictions in connection with the armament sector, namely :

• 81% of funds implement restrictive measures and exclude companies active in the manufacture and sale of controversial weapons
• 58% of sustainable funds exclude Society that manufacture or market conventional weapons