Branding ‘progressive’ security: The case of Sweden
| Published date | 01 March 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00108367231184730 |
| Author | Wayne Stephen Coetzee,Sebastian Larsson,Joakim Berndtsson |
| Date | 01 March 2024 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367231184730
Cooperation and Conflict
2024, Vol. 59(1) 86 –106
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00108367231184730
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Branding ‘progressive’ security:
The case of Sweden
Wayne Stephen Coetzee ,
Sebastian Larsson and Joakim Berndtsson
Abstract
Contemporary research on so-called Nordic branding has provided crucial insights into the social
power of states and how various actors use and circulate ‘progressive’ nation brand tropes
for political and commercial goals. Hitherto, the literature on Nordic branding has focused on
a wide range of substantive issues, among other things, human rights, gender equality, social
welfare and foreign aid, but considerably less attention has been paid to the topic of security. The
present article adds to a small but established literature on how the security sphere is increasingly
entangled with nation branding. In the Nordic region, we argue, the latter is particularly evident in
the case of Sweden – one of the world’s largest per-capita arms exporters in the post-Cold War
era but also a country known and often revered for its peaceful and progressive image. Focusing
on the case of Sweden, the article contributes to knowledge of how defence industry-related
actors (both public and private) draw on and frame nation branding tropes to sell and legitimise
their products and services to both insiders (domestic constituents) and outsiders (the global
security market).
Keywords
defence industry, framing, Nordic branding, progressiveness, security branding, Sweden
Introduction
‘It is a human right to feel safe’. These are the words used by Sweden’s largest weapons
manufacturing company, Saab AB1 (henceforth Saab), to explain that company’s vision
and mission in recent years (Saab, 2020). While such statements may be considered
superficial or common marketing slogans used by corporations, their discursive implica-
tions are more profound. For example, the literature on security branding has highlighted
how security has ‘become a key selling point in the practice of place branding’ (Coaffee
and van Ham, 2008: 191). Furthermore, it is suggested that security branding ‘adds value
Corresponding author:
Wayne Stephen Coetzee, University West, Gustava Melins Gata 2, S-461 32 Trollhattan, Sweden.
Email: wayne-stephen.coetzee@hv.se
1184730CAC0010.1177/00108367231184730Cooperation and ConflictCoetzee et al.
research-article2023
Article
Coetzee et al. 87
to, or at least reconfigures, existing brand images, and creates Unique Selling Points
(USPs) for political actors and places’ (Coaffee and van Ham, 2008: 191).
For the most part, research on security branding has focused on how state and non-
state actors deploy strategies to manage safe and secure images of a place. Less explored,
however, is how the brand image of places (broadly defined) that are already perceived
as safe, secure, and peaceful is used to sell security – be it security products or services.
Such oversight is perhaps most evident regarding the Nordic region. Except for Iceland,
most Nordic countries2 have substantial security industries. While these industries have
been mainly geared towards domestic consumption, their operations have incrementally
adopted a transnational reach over the past 30 years. The latter has resulted in some
Nordic countries becoming significant security technologies and weapon systems pro-
viders. Concomitantly, the Nordic countries are widely perceived and indeed branded as
the ‘do-gooders’ in international affairs (de Bengy Puyvallée and Bjørkdahl, 2021) – evi-
denced by striking descriptions of the Nordics as ‘agents of a world common good’
(Bergman, 2007) and ‘moral superpowers’ (Dahl, 2006). The question fronting our
investigation is: How do defence industry actors (both public and private) strategically
frame such ‘progressive’ place or nation brands to sell and legitimise security products
and services?
In this exploratory article, we focus on Sweden. As a country setting, Sweden is an
interesting case study for the following reasons: It has had a long history of military non-
alignment3 and of being recognised as a ‘neutral’ country and has not been at war with
another state since 1814 – marking one of the longest uninterrupted periods of peace
experienced by any state in the world (Bjereld and Möller, 2016). Sweden’s international
reputation regarding neutrality and military non-alignment, some suggest, has been stra-
tegically used as a branding asset by state and non-state actors to set it apart from other
peace-promoting countries such as Norway (Nissen, 2021). However, since the mid-
1900s, Sweden has also had a significant arms industry supporting its so-called ‘total
defence’ model. Rather uniquely for its size, the country produced weapon systems for
all military branches – air, land and sea – domestically, largely thanks to significant
investments into military research and development (Stenlås, 2008). When Sweden’s
security policy was reprioritised and defence budgets diminished in the 1990s and 2000s,
major arms companies like Saab were forced to internationalise and focus increasingly
on exports. This impetus makes the Swedish industry a significant player in the global
arms trade today and places it in the unusual company of some of the most powerful
states in the world (Burja, 2022).
Although Sweden’s foreign and security policies have received serious scholarly
attention over the years, its defence industry has been largely overlooked in the branding
literature. Hence, our article aims to not only contribute to existing research on Nordic
branding (namely, its practices and consequences) by bringing critical attention to the
topic of security. It also contributes to a deeper understanding of how defence industry-
related actors (both public and private)4 frame symbolic notions surrounding a particular
version of ‘progressive’ nation branding tropes for commercial purposes. Drawing on
Coetzee and Berndtsson’s (2023) analysis of Sweden’s security economy, we treat
Sweden’s public and private security actors as two sides of the same coin because, his-
torically, these actors have been unusually intertwined concerning arms production and
To continue reading
Request your trial