Logistics companies must close the gap between commitment and action in conflict zones

A range of industries have come under scrutiny for their involvement in or links to human rights abuses in the ongoing conflict in Israel and Gaza. One sector mentioned in a recent report by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese into corporate complicity in Palestine is shipping and logistics.

In the globalised world, economic ties between nations and companies are intertwined and complicated, and a vast range of industries are engaged with Israel. A wide range of companies within the transport, logistics, and shipping sector have or are currently working in Israel, including Israel’s own Zim, Germany’s Hapag Lloyd, and China’s COSCO among many others. The Special Rapporteur has called global giants like Denmark’s A.P. Moeller Maersk ‘integral to this ecosystem, because it has allegedly transported components, parts, weapons and raw materials used by the Israeli military; as well as allegedly shipping goods from illegal settlements and UN-database-listed companies’ to US and other markets from,  including making no distinction between products made in Israel or from the Occupied Territories, despite EU regulations requiring clear labelling. The UN database, prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, lists businesses that operate in the Occupied Territories and is intended to make companies accountable for their activities. The Special Rapporteur’s report has not named other shipping companies also doing business with Israel and it is not entirely clear why one company is singled out.

In response to the report, Maersk has updated its statement about its military-related cargo shipments, stating that the UN report ‘appears to be based not on an independent investigation, but rather on input from third-party sources that have not been validated or verified.’ The company disagrees with many of what it calls ‘assertions’ by the Special Rapporteur and says such assertions risk ‘the overall goal of ensuring engagement with the business community in progressing the shared understanding and embedding of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) as a core element of responsible business conduct.’ Maersk has stated that it does not ship weapons or ammunition to active conflict zones and affirms that its operations comply with international regulations.

However, the central point made by the Special Rapporteur’s report is that the company is not conducting sufficient due diligence, and its actions are enabling the continuation of a conflict that has seen vast human suffering. Rather than make its risk assessment or due diligence findings public, Maersk has challenged its critics.

Maersk’s general call for strengthened understanding of the UNGPs in the business community is a worthy goal, but it is a longer term, less critical measure. The urgent need is for the international business community and civil society to rally together and work towards ending the conflict, to advance human rights, peace and security. Towards that end, the priority for responsible businesses should be to ensure that their conduct does not contribute to or prolong the conflict.

Earlier this year, a Danwatch investigation charged that Maersk transported several thousand tonnes of weapons components to Israel since October 2023, shipments which experts believe were likely used in Israel’s military operations in Gaza. This raises serious questions about whether Maersk’s actions were consistent with the heightened due diligence that is expected of companies operating in conflict-affected and high risk areas, as well as its own commitment to “respecting human rights, in line with the UNGPs”. These expectations are outlined in the guidance prepared by the UN Working Group for Business and Human Rights (UNWG) and the UNDP, which in turn is drawn from the UNGPs. .

As the Special Rapporteur’s report shows, this is not only about Maersk. There is a wider accountability gap: between what companies say about due diligence and what they actually disclose. In an era of rising scrutiny, the question is no longer whether a company has a policy, but whether it can demonstrate its application in practice, especially when operating in conflict-affected regions.

Claiming “We do due diligence” is not enough

In March 2025, Maersk responded to criticisms by stating: “We conduct heightened due diligence, particularly in regions affected by active conflicts, including Israel and Gaza.” But when shareholders proposed that Maersk disclose the content and outcomes of this due diligence, the board voted against it.

Under the UNGPs, companies are expected to identify, prevent, and mitigate risks, and report. A degree of transparency is expected. In conflict-affected regions, that expectation becomes even more crucial. Guiding Principle 21 says that companies should be prepared to communicate their impacts externally when there are concerns raised by stakeholders. The communication should be regular and accessible, sufficiently detailed for stakeholders to evaluate the company’s response, and not pose risks to stakeholders or company personnel, while maintaining commercial confidentiality. The UNWG/UNDP guidance further states: “If a business is active in the context of risk of severe human rights impact, which is by definition the case with heightened human rights due diligence, it should report formally on how it is addressing such impacts.” This calls for not just legal compliance, but also an assessment of impacts based on the analysis drawn from active stakeholder engagement so that stakeholders understand and evaluate how decisions are made. The reality, however, is that companies speak of conducting human rights due diligence, but largely treat it as a confidential, internal process. The result is a growing gap between public claims and verifiable action - an erosion of trust at a time when corporate accountability is under intense scrutiny.

Business with States engaged in active conflict requires more transparency

Many companies maintain commercial relationships with states accused of serious human rights abuses. This practice spans multiple industries, from defence to tech to agriculture to finance. But the higher the risk of complicity in harms to human rights, especially when a state’s actions are considered by Legal and UN experts as being consistent with genocide, the higher the bar for responsibility.

In high-risk settings, companies must evaluate whether their activities might contribute to or be directly linked to adverse impacts, even if they are not the direct cause.

Failing to take these steps weakens a company’s ability to prevent harm and undermines its credibility. It also exposes companies to the risk of being accused of complicity. Investors are rising to the challenge. As an earlier commentary published on IHRB’s website shows, Norway’s government pension fund has responded to concerns and begun divesting from companies doing business in Israel during the current conflict. The Fund’s exclusion of Oshkosh and ThyssenKrupp for inadequate due diligence and continued weapons sales to the Israeli military is one example, and shows how failure to act on credible human rights risks can lead to reputational and financial consequences.

Inconsistent standards undermine credibility

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Maersk acted swiftly, halting operations and withdrawing from the market, complying with regulations.  

To be sure, Israel does not face sanctions, but it faces mounting evidence of international law violations.  Compliance with the laws and regulations is essential, but when the law is silent, the company has to conduct enhanced and heightened due diligence to ensure that it adheres to international norms and standards.  

The absence of formal sanctions does not exempt companies from their responsibility to respect human rights. Companies are expected to act with consistency and integrity across all contexts and apply their ethical standards uniformly, regardless of geopolitical pressure.

This points to a wider challenge for global business. If a company’s policies lack clear, consistent standards and transparent criteria for evaluating risk and deciding when to disengage, they expose themselves to accusations of double standards.

Dismissing civil society weakens stakeholder engagement

Across sectors, stakeholder voices, including journalists, NGOs, affected communities, and shareholders, are essential to holding companies accountable. When a company dismisses or discredits those voices rather than engaging with them, it not only deepens mistrust, but risks setting a precedent that discourages transparency and weakens civic space.

Moving forward, all companies working in conflict settings need to be forthright in explaining publicly who they have consulted, what they heard, and what they decided as a result of their heightened due diligence

In a positive development that followed pressure from an activist campaign, Mærsk announced that it will end its transports in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The need for disclosure alongside due diligence

Maersk’s case is one example of a wider systemic issue in global business. The reliance on due diligence as a rhetorical shield, without accompanying disclosure or accountability, has become a default strategy for too many multinational companies, as findings show.

Doing business with governments engaged in armed conflict or repression may be lawful, but legality is not the same as legitimacy. If companies want to respect human rights, they must move beyond vague assurances and demonstrate how risks are assessed, mitigated, and acted upon in practice. This includes disclosing supply chain information via open-access platforms like Open Supply Hub to increase transparency. Publishing human rights risk assessments helps clarify how key issues are identified and addressed. Feedback tools that gather worker input across the value chain enables timely responses to concerns. Crucially, collaborating with local stakeholders, such as trade unions and civil society, ensures risk mitigation strategies reflect the realities on the ground.

Transparency, consistency, and meaningful engagement by business have always been essential, never more so than in conflict zones - they are the minimum standards required to close the growing accountability gap in global business.