Exposing the financial

flows into illegal

Israeli settlements
 Contents
Foreword by Michael S. Lynk 3
Executive summary and recommendations 5
Glossary 13
List of Abbreviations 17

1. Introduction 18

2. Methodology 19
2.1. Scope 19
2.2. Selection of Business Enterprises 19
2.3. Analysis of Financial Relationships 20
2.4. Due hearing 21

3. The International Legal Framework 23

3.1. The illegality of Israeli Settlements under International Law 23
3.2. Responsibilities of Business Enterprises and Financial Institutions 25
3.2.1. Responsibility of Business Actors under IHL 25
3.2.2. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 26
3.2.3. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 28
3.2.4 Specific Responsibilities of Financial Investors 29
3.3. Duties of States under International Law 30
3.3.1. Third State responsibility 30
3.3.2. State Duty to Respect, Protect and Fulfil Human Rights 31

4. How European Financial Institutions are involved in the Settlement Enterprise 35

4.1. Business Enterprises involved in Activities linked to 35
Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
4.2. Case studies: BNP Paribas, Booking Holding, and Heidelberg Cement 36
4.2.1. BNP Paribas 36
4.2.2. Booking Holdings 42
4.2.3. HeidelbergCement AG 47
4.3. Relationships between listed business enterprises 53
and European Financial Institutions

5. The way forward 92

92
Pictures: ©Al-Haq • Graphic design: Bart Missotten

5.1. Examples of Financial Institutions that have recently withdrawn

from business enterprises linked to Israeli settlements
5.2. Normative and Practical Developments in the Field 96
of Business and Human Rights
5.2.1. The UN Binding Treaty on Business & Human Rights 96
5.2.2. Mandatory due diligence in the European Union 96

6. Recommendations 98

ANNEX 1: List of Companies considered for the Report 101

ANNEX 2: Creditors (2018-May 2021, US$ mln) 109

2
Foreword by Michael S. Lynk
Professor Michael S. Lynk is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967
(2016- current).

We are living in a transitional moment regarding the relationship between business and human
rights, one that holds out both promise and peril.

The promise is that the work of the United Nations and other organizations in recent years to
enlarge this relationship – the creation of the 2011 Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights, the ongoing negotiations for a new human rights treaty on business conduct, and the
leadership, among others, of the UN Working Group on human rights and transnational corpo-
rations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – is raising the bar
on our legal and best-practices expectations respecting the involvement of businesses that are,
unwittingly or not, implicated in human rights violations. In the eyes of some human rights de-
fenders, these emerging tools are opening doors to more effective campaigns that would hold
businesses accountable through enhanced corporate engagement, transparent reporting prac-
tices, reputational criticism, litigation and company boycotts.

The peril is whether these emerging tools will actually be effective in holding companies ac-
countable for their involvement, directly or indirectly, in human rights violations. Enforceability
is the Achille’s heel of international human rights law, the inability to effectively compel na-
tions and corporations to live up to the legal and political obligations that bind them. The es-
tablishment of international human rights commitments – whether through standard-setting or
through treaties – can have the unintended consequence of diminishing pressure on states and
corporations regarding ongoing breaches of human rights, if the standard or treaty becomes
the accomplishment in itself and inadvertently turns the spotlight away from achieving ongoing
and meaningful accountability. In the absence of mandatory international courts or decisive po-
litical action by the UN Security Council, it is only through the invaluable work of human rights
defenders, critical journalism, responsive international forums and other soft law measures that
a bright spotlight can be kept on the promise of states and corporations to respect and enhance
human rights everywhere.

This comprehensive and top-drawer report on the mercantile relationships between European fi-
nancial institutions and corporations involved in the Israeli settlement enterprise richly illustrates
this transitional moment that we are passing through. International law is crystal clear that the
Israeli settlements are a flagrant violation of the prohibition in Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949
against civilian settlements established by an occupying power in occupied territory. They are
also a presumptive war crime under the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Numerous reports from the United Nations have concluded that the settlements are the source
of serial and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. The settlements are the primary politi-
cal instrument – the pervasive “facts on the ground” – employed by the Government of Israel to
advance its de facto and de jure annexation claims and to deny Palestinian self-determination.

Despite the clarity of the law on the illegality of the settlements and the solid documentation
of their adverse human rights impact, the Israeli settlements continue to attract international
corporate engagement. The involvement of these corporations with the settlements – through
investments, banking loans, resource extraction, infrastructure contracts and equipment and
product supply agreements – provides them with the indispensable economic oxygen they re-

3
quire to grow and thrive. This corporate involvement also offers a form of political legitimization,
in the sense that ignoring the clear declaration of the international community to not provide
assistance to the settlements becomes a direction that need not to be taken seriously if no con-
sequences will follow.

Yet, notwithstanding the durability of the Israeli settlement project, there are also grounds for
optimism, starting with this report. As it so incisively details, international civil society is more
loudly insisting on complete corporate withdrawal from the settlements. The United Nations Hu-
man Rights Council published a database in 2020 of business enterprises involved in the Israeli
settlements. Influential pension funds – such as the Norwegian KLP – have withdrawn their in-
vestments from a number of corporations with links to the Israeli settlements. And the decision
by the Ben and Jerry’s ice cream company to exclude sales of its products to Israeli settlements
after 2022 initiated a broader international debate on the efficacy of corporate involvement in
the settlements.

The comprehensiveness, the legal precision and the moral sensibility of this report ensures that
it will have a lasting influence on the deliberations in corporate boardrooms, the decision-mak-
ing in foreign ministries, the debates at the United Nations and the campaigns of civil society.
Knowledge in the pursuit of justice is a resilient political weapon. The task for the rest of us is to
use this knowledge to bend the arc of history ever closer to its goal.

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
& RECOMMENDATIONS
The “Don’t Buy into Occupation” (DBIO) coalition is a joint initiative between
25 Palestinian, regional and European organisations based in Belgium, France,
Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK). The
coalition aims to investigate and highlight the financial relationships between
business enterprises involved in the illegal Israeli settlement enterprise in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and European Financial Institutions (FIs).
Israeli settlements, their maintenance and expansion are illegal under international law and con-
stitute acts which incur individual criminal liability as war crimes and crimes against humanity
under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). International humanitarian law
(IHL), as per the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits the Occupying Power from the individual
or mass forcible transfer and deportations of protected persons, as well as from transferring
parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.1 In addition, the confiscation of
land to build or expand settlements in occupied territory is also prohibited, whereas the exten-
sive destruction and appropriation of property for the benefit of settlements violates a number
of provisions of IHL, as found in the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Fourth Geneva Convention,
and in customary IHL.2

In addition, Israeli settlements have resulted in a myriad of human rights violations against the
protected Palestinian population, while fragmenting the West Bank and isolating it from Jeru-
salem, and rendering sustainable and independent social and economic development for Pal-
estinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) impossible to achieve. As evidenced by
legal experts and human rights organisations, settlements are also a key component of Israel’s
apartheid regime over the Palestinian people, in which Israel administers the territory under two
entirely separate legal systems and sets of institutions: a civil administration for Israeli-Jewish
communities living in illegal settlements on the one hand, and a military administration for the
occupied Palestinian population living in Palestinian towns and villages on the other.

Israeli, European and international business enterprises operating with or providing services to
Israeli settlements, play a critical role in facilitating the functioning and growth of settlements.
Considering the illegality of settlements, the associated wide range of international humanitar-
ian law violations, severe adverse human rights impacts on the Palestinian population and the
obstruction of the development of the Palestinian economy, private actors have a responsibility
to ensure that they are not involved in violations of international law and are not complicit in
international crimes, and address any adverse human rights impacts arising from their activities
and business relationships. However, despite its illegal nature, European financial institutions
continue to invest billions into the Israeli settlement enterprise.

5
Main findings
• New research by a cross-regional coalition of 25 Palestinian and European organisations
shows that, between 2018 and May 2021, 672 European financial institutions, including
banks, asset managers, insurance companies, and pension funds, had financial relationships
with 50 businesses that are actively involved with Israeli settlements.
• During the analysed period, US$ 114 billion was provided in the form of loans and under-
writings. As of May 2021, European investors also held US$ 141 billion in shares and bonds
of these companies.
• The 50 companies for which this research found financial relationships with European finan-
cial institutions, are: ACS Group, Airbnb, Alstom, Altice Europe, Ashtrom Group, Atlas Copco,
Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Bezeq Group, Booking Holdings, Construcciones y Auxiliar de
Ferrocarriles (CAF), Caterpillar, Cellcom Israel, Cemex, CETCO Mineral Technology Group,
Cisco Systems, CNH Industrial, Delek Group, Delta Galil Industries, DXC Technology, eDreams
ODIGEO, Elbit Systems, Electra Group, Energix Renewable Energies, Expedia Group, First
International Bank of Israel (FIBI), General Mills, HeidelbergCement, Hewlett Packard En-
terprise (HPE), Israel Discount Bank, Magal Security Systems, MAN Group, Manitou Group,
Matrix IT, Mivne Group, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, Motorola Solutions, Partner Communications
Company, Paz Oil Company, Rami Levy Chain Stores Hashikma Marketing 2006, RE/MAX
Holdings, Shapir Engineering and Industry, Shikun & Binui, Shufersal, Siemens, Solvay, Terex
Corporation, Tripadvisor, Volvo Group, and WSP Global.
• All 50 companies are involved in one or more of the “listed activities”3 that raise particular hu-
man rights concerns, which constitute the basis for inclusion in the UN database of business
enterprises that are involved in Israeli settlements, which was published in February 2020.

The Top 10 creditors (loans and underwritings) alone provided US$ 77.81
billion to businesses that are actively involved with Israeli settlements:

1. BNP Paribas (France): US$ 17.30 billion; provided to ACS Group, Airbnb, Alstom, Altice
Europe, Atlas Copco, Bank Leumi, Booking Holdings, Caterpillar, Cemex, Cisco Systems,
CNH Industrial, Delek Group, DXC Technology, Elbit Systems, Expedia Group, General Mills,
HeidelbergCement, HPE, MAN Group, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, Motorola Solutions, Siemens,
Solvay, Terex, Tripadvisor, Volvo Group, and WSP Global.
2. Deutsche Bank (Germany): US$ 12.03 billion; provided to ACS Group, Airbnb, Alstom, Al-
tice Europe, Atlas Copco, Booking Holdings, Caterpillar, Cisco Systems, CNH Industrial, Del-
ek Group, eDreams ODIGEO, General Mills, HeidelbergCement, HPE, MAN Group, Motorola
Solutions, Siemens, Terex, and Volvo Group.
3. HSBC (United Kingdom): US$ 8.72 billion; provided to ACS Group, Alstom, Bank Leumi,
Booking Holdings, Caterpillar, Cemex, Cisco Systems, Delek Group, Expedia Group, General
Mills, HPE, Motorola Solutions, Siemens, Solvay, Terex, Volvo Group, and WSP Global.
4. Barclays (United Kingdom): US$ 8.69 billion; provided to Airbnb, Altice Europe, Caterpillar,
CETCO, Cisco Systems, CNH Industrial, Delek Group, DXC Technology, eDreams ODIGEO,
General Mills, HeidelbergCement, HPE, MAN Group, Siemens, Terex, and Tripadvisor.
5. Société Générale (France): US$ 8.20 billion; provided to ACS Group, Alstom, Altice Europe,
Caterpillar, Cemex, CNH Industrial, eDreams ODIGEO, General Mills, HPE, MAN Group, Man-
itou Group, Siemens, and Volvo Group.
6. Crédit Agricole (France): US$ 5.55 billion; provided to ACS Group, Alstom, Altice Europe,
Cemex, CNH Industrial, HeidelbergCement, HPE, MAN Group, Manitou, Siemens, Solvay, Ter-
ex, and Volvo Group.

6
7. Santander (Spain): US$ 4.75 billion; provided to ACS Group, Alstom, Cemex, CNH Industrial,
eDreams ODIGEO, HPE, MAN Group, Motorola Solutions, Siemens, Terex, and Volvo Group.
8. ING Group (Netherlands): US$ 4.60 billion; provided to ACS Group, Altice Europe, Caterpil-
lar, Cemex, CNH Industrial, Delek Group, DXC Technology, HeidelbergCement, HPE, Siemens,
Solvay, and Volvo Group.
9. Commerzbank (Germany): US$ 4.37 billion; provided to ACS Group, Alstom, Caterpillar, CNH
Industrial, DXC Technology, HeidelbergCement, MAN Group, Siemens, Solvay, and Terex.
10. UniCredit (Italy): US$ 3.58 billion; provided to ACS Group, Alstom, CNH Industrial, MAN
Group, Motorola Solutions, and Siemens.

The Top 10 investors (shareholdings and bondholdings) alone invested US$

67.22 billion in businesses that are actively involved with Israeli settlements:

1. Government Pension Fund Global (Norway): a total of US$ 11.52 billion invested in 41 com-
panies: ACS Group, Airbnb, Alstom, Ashtrom Group, Atlas Copco, Bank Hapoalim, Bank
Leumi, Bezeq Group, Booking Holdings, CAF, Caterpillar, Cellcom, CETCO, Cisco Systems,
CNH Industrial, Delek Group, Delta Galil Industries, DXC Technology, Electra Group, Energix,
Expedia Group, FIBI, General Mills, HeidelbergCement, HPE, Israel Discount Bank, MAN
Group, Manitou Group, Matrix IT, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, Motorola Solutions, Partner Commu-
nications Company, Paz Oil Company, Rami Levy Chain Stores Hashikma Marketing 2006,
Shufersal, Siemens, Solvay, Terex, Tripadvisor, Volvo Group, and WSP Global.
2. Investor AB (Sweden): US$ 10.59 billion; invested in Atlas Copco.
3. BPCE Group (France): a total of US$ 8.98 billion invested in 26 companies: ACS Group, Air-
bnb, Alstom, Atlas Copco, Bank Leumi, Booking Holdings, CAF, Caterpillar, Cemex, CETCO,
Cisco Systems, CNH Industrial, Delek Group, DXC Technology, Expedia Group, General Mills,
HeidelbergCement, HPE, Manitou Group, Motorola Solutions, RE/MAX Holdings, Siemens,
Solvay, Terex, Tripadvisor, and Volvo Group.
4. Crédit Agricole (France): a total of US$ 7.18 billion invested in 30 companies: ACS Group,
Airbnb, Alstom, Atlas Copco, Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Booking Holdings, CAF, Caterpil-
lar, Cemex, Cisco Systems, CNH Industrial, DXC Technology, Electra Group, Expedia Group,
General Mills, HeidelbergCement , HPE, Israel Discount Bank, Manitou Group, Mizrahi Tefahot
Bank, Motorola Solutions, Shapir Engineering and Industry, Shikun & Binui, Siemens, Solvay,
Terex, Tripadvisor, Volvo Group and WSP Global.
5. Deutsche Bank (Germany): a total of US$ 6.41 billion invested in 39 companies: ACS Group,
Airbnb, Alstom, Atlas Copco, Bezeq Group, Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Booking Holdings,
CAF, Caterpillar, Cemex, CETCO, Cisco Systems, CNH Industrial, Delek Group, DXC Tech-
nology, eDreams ODIGEO, Elbit Systems, Electra Group, Expedia Group, FIBI, General Mills,
HeidelbergCement, HPE, Israel Discount Bank, Manitou Group, Mivne Group, Mizrahi Tefahot
Bank, Motorola Solutions, Paz Oil Company, RE/MAX Holdings, Shapir Engineering and In-
dustry, Shufersal, Siemens, Solvay, Terex, Tripadvisor, Volvo Group and WSP Global.
6. Allianz (Germany): a total of US$ 5.16 billion invested in 30 companies: ACS Group, Airbnb,
Alstom, Atlas Copco, Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Bezeq Group, Booking Holdings, Cater-
pillar, Cemex, CETCO, Cisco Systems, CNH Industrial, Delek Group, DXC Technology, Expedia
Group, FIBI, General Mills, HeidelbergCement, HPE, Israel Discount Bank, Matrix IT , Motorola
Solutions, Shufersal, Siemens, Solvay, Terex, Tripadvisor, Volvo Group and WSP Global.
7. Swedbank (Sweden): a total of US$ 4.77 billion invested in 14 companies: ACS Group, Al-
stom, Atlas Copco, Booking Holdings, Caterpillar, Cisco Systems, Expedia Group, General
Mills, HeidelbergCement, HPE, Siemens, Solvay, Volvo Group, and WSP Global.
8. Legal & General (United Kingdom): a total of US$ 4.31 billion invested in 47 companies: ACS
Group, Airbnb, Alstom, Ashtrom Group, Atlas Copco, Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Bezeq
Group, Booking Holdings, CAF, Caterpillar, Cellcom, Cemex, CETCO, Cisco Systems, CNH

7
 Industrial, Delek Group, Delta Galil Industries, DXC Technology, eDreams Odigeo, Elbit Sys-
tems, Electra Group, Energix, Expedia Group, FIBI, General Mills, HeidelbergCement, HPE,
Israel Discount Bank, Manitou Group, Matrix IT, Mivne Group, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, Motorola
Solutions, Partner Communications Company, Paz Oil Company, Rami Levy Chain Stores
Hashikma Marketing 2006, RE/MAX Holdings, Shapir Engineering and Industry, Shikun &
Binui, Shufersal, Siemens, Solvay, Terex, Tripadvisor, Volvo Group and WSP Global.
9. Alecta (Sweden): a total of US$ 4.24 billion invested in Atlas Copco and Volvo Group.
10. AB Industrivärden (Sweden): US$ 4.06 billion invested in Volvo Group.

The three case studies in this report present an in-depth critical

analysis of the European financial institutions and multinational’s
involvement in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise4, including:

• BNP Paribas, domiciled in France, accounted for US$ 8.97 billion or 14% of the total value
of loans given to the business enterprises that are involved in Israel’s settlement enterprise.
Among its largest shareholders are the Belgian Government (7.7%) and the Government of
Luxembourg (1%). Although BNP Paribas Group has committed itself to a range of interna-
tionally recognised standards and norms related to human rights, including the UN Global
Compact, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines), it continues to be broadly in-
volved in the financing (loans, underwritings, investments) of 33 business enterprises that
are involved in the Israeli settlement enterprise: ACS Group, Airbnb, Alstom, Altice Europe,
Atlas Copco, Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Booking Holdings, CAF, Caterpillar, Cellcom Israel,
Cemex, CETCO, Cisco Systems, CNH Industrial, Delek Group, DXC Technology, Elbit Systems,
Expedia Group, General Mills, HeidelbergCement, HPE, MAN Group, Manitou Group, Mizrahi
Tefahot Bank, Motorola Solutions, RE/MAX Holdings, Siemens, Solvay, Terex, Tripadvisor,
Volvo Group, and WSP Global. Such financing strongly contradicts BNP Paribas’ claimed
respect for human rights principles and standards.
• Booking.com is a brand of Booking Holdings (United States). It is incorporated in the Neth-
erlands and has been listed as one of the 112 business enterprises in the UN Database. The
group has been implicated through enabling the listing of accommodation in illegal set-
tlements on appropriated Palestinian land. European creditors to Booking Holdings in the
period between January 2018 and May 2021 are Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, HSBC, and
Standard Chartered. In total, these four banks provided US$ 590 million in loans and US$ 1.6
billion in underwriting services. In addition, the top 20 European investors (shareholdings
and bondholdings) to Booking Holdings held investments totalling US$ 12.19 billion. The
four largest investors are BPCE Group, Janus Henderson, Crédit Agricole, and Government
Pension Fund Global (Norway).
• HeidelbergCement, headquartered in Germany, is one of the world’s largest building ma-
terials companies. In 2007, it acquired Hanson Israel and the Nahal Raba quarry located
in the OPT. HeidelbergCement claims to have a commitment to human rights and related
norms and guidelines, such as the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines, while at the same time
contributing to grave human rights violations against Palestinians who have been system-
ically deprived access to their land and natural resources due to quarrying operations, as
documented by various civil society organisations. Important European creditors to Hei-
delbergCement between January 2018 and May 2021 include Deutsche Bank, Danske Bank,
BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, and ING Group. In total, 16 creditors provided loans to a value
of US$ 5.7 billion and underwriting services for a total of US$ 2.7 billion in the period under
review. Moreover, the top 20 European investors held HeidelbergCement shares and bonds
with a total value of US$ 1.80 billion. The largest investors are Deutsche Bank, Deka Group,
Crédit Agricole, and Bestinver.

8
Responsibilities of Business Enterprise
and Financial Institutions
Business enterprises that are directly or indirectly involved in the Israeli settlement enterprise –
including through financing, insuring, and trading with partners, suppliers and subsidiaries that
have ties with and proven links to the construction, expansion and maintenance of Israel’s illegal
settlements – run a high risk of involvement in grave violations of international humanitarian law;
of complicity in, or profiting from, war crimes and crimes against humanity; and of contributing
to human rights violations. Such a risk is not limited to production and trade relationships, but
extends to financial institutions as well. In the words of the UN human rights office (OHCHR), in
January 2018:

“Considering the weight of the international legal consensus concerning the illegal na-
ture of settlements themselves, and the systemic and pervasive nature of the negative
human rights impact caused by them, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a com-
pany could engage in activities in the settlements in a way that is consistent with the UN
Guiding Principles and with international law”.

In accordance with the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines, business enterprises that through
their activities may facilitate and contribute to human rights violations have a responsibility to
conduct enhanced due diligence to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts, and thus
avoid involvement or complicity in breaches of international law. These responsibilities apply
also in relation to the supply chain and indirect relationships.

Companies whose activities, products or services are directly linked to severe human rights
impacts are expected to have a rapid response and to consider responsible disengagement.
Responsible disengagement is a global standard of expected conduct for all companies wher-
ever they operate, and exists independently of States’ ability and willingness to fulfil their own
human rights obligations. International financial institutions, including banks and pension funds,
also have a responsibility under the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines to use their leverage through
meaningful, time bound engagement to ensure their investee companies act responsibly and in
line with international law standards, and to divest from those who do not.

In recent years, several financial institutions have taken up their responsibility by divesting from
business enterprises linked to Israeli settlements due to risks of being involved in violations. The
two most recent and important examples are those of Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP)
and the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG). KLP is Norway’s largest pensions
company, and in July 2021 divested from 16 companies linked to Israel’s settlement enterprise,
following KLP’s due diligence processes. In a similar vein, GPFG announced in September 2021
that it will exclude three companies that are actively involved with Israeli settlements. Since
2010, numerous other institutions, banks, and companies such as Dexia Crédit Local (France),
Deutsche Bank (Germany), Barclays (UK), HSBC (UK), AXA IM (France), Government Pension
Fund Global (Norway), Danske Bank (Denmark), Sampension (Denmark), United Methodist
Church (United States), Quakers in Britain Church (the UK), Storebrand (Norway), and Europcar
Groupe (France) have taken decisions to divest from some business enterprises involved with
Israeli settlements.

9
Recommendations
Based on the analysis and findings presented, the relevant applicable international law frame-
work, and the jurisprudence of various international instruments, the report provides a set of
recommendations for financial institutions, business enterprises, European governments and
institutions, and local authorities across Europe.

Financial institutions should:

1. Conduct enhanced human rights due diligence (EHRDD) – including through human rights
impact assessments – at all stages of the decision making process, on all business relation-
ships with enterprises that are in the financial institution’s lending, underwriting and invest-
ment portfolios and which are known to be involved in activities linked to the settlements
in the OPT.
2. Establish mechanisms to take time-bound and effective action on the findings of impact
assessments and create appropriate tools to publicly communicate how negative human
rights impacts are being addressed.
3. Exercise leverage on business enterprises known to be involved in activities linked to the
settlements in the OPT in order to have the company cease these activities and relationships.
In cases where exercising leverage is not an available course of action, or where investors are
unable to use existing leverage to ensure compliance with international law, including human
rights standards and international humanitarian law, responsibly terminate the financial rela-
tionship with the enterprise in question.
4. Engage in dialogue with local stakeholders, i.e., the protected Palestinian population, in
order to provide effective remedy for any harm caused or contributed to by the financial
institution’s investments and relationships.
5. Develop clear guidelines and policy statements which state that involvement with illegal
Israeli settlements is an exclusion criterion in the financial institution’s investment portfolio.
6. Use their leverage with industry associations, regulators, policy makers and standard setting
bodies to promote and ensure adherence to international human rights and humanitarian
law, and EHRDD, as the industry standard.

Business enterprises should:

7. Responsibly cease all activities and relationships with, as well as responsibly disengage
from, illegal Israeli settlements, in line with the UNGPs, OECD guidelines and all relevant re-
sponsibilities under international human rights and humanitarian law.
8. Respect applicable provisions of international law in all activities and relationships linked
to the OPT and Israel.
9. Introduce appropriate reparations and remedial processes for all those affected by vio-
lations and adverse impacts of its activities and relationships linked to Israel’s settlement
enterprise, in consultation with those directly affected, as part of the business’ grievance
mechanism in order to ensure redress and accountability for all those negatively affected by
its activities and operations.
10. Introduce strong and enhanced human rights due diligence procedures within the entire
supply chain to ensure that operations and activities abroad and through subsidiaries fully
respect international law, including international humanitarian law where relevant. In addi-
tion, business enterprises should ensure that their corporate social responsibility framework
considers IHL.

10
European governments and institutions should:
11. Provide political and financial support to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) to fulfil its mandate to annually update and publish the UN database of
business enterprises involved in certain activities relating to settlements in the OPT.
12. Ensure that business enterprises operating within their jurisdiction undertake enhanced
human rights due diligence procedures to prevent involvement in violations of human
rights in occupied territories and conflict-affected areas, in line with the UNGPs and OECD
Guidelines and relevant responsibilities and obligations under international human rights
and humanitarian law, and that businesses introduce urgent and immediate preventive mea-
sures, divestment and disengagement policies to curb corporate involvement in violations
throughout their activities and relationships in such contexts.
13. Publish updated business advisories on direct and indirect financial investments, activities
and relationships with the Israeli settlement enterprise, warning about the associated legal
risks and consequences; and put in place a proactive dissemination strategy towards busi-
ness enterprises. Actively encourage the European Union (EU) to publish a joint EU business
advisory on financial investments linked to Israel’s settlement enterprise, and develop a pro-
active dissemination strategy for such advisory.
14. In cases where an individual European government is a shareholder in a financial institu-
tion that is involved in one or more of the “listed activities”, take appropriate measures to
ensure that the financial institution, through processes of engagement and exclusion, ter-
minates its involvement and develops a formal policy that prevents any such future invest-
ments linked to violations.
15. Apply public procurement law in line with obligations and responsibilities as state bodies un-
der international law, the UNGPs and OECD guidelines, which entails avoiding the awarding
of public contracts to companies involved in grave violations of international law.
16. Make explicit in procurement guidelines that the State and local authorities are expected
to apply public procurement law consistently in line with the State's obligations under in-
ternational law and ensure companies’ respect of the standards of conduct provided by the
UNGPs and OECD guidelines.
17. Report periodically and publicly on the country’s efforts to implement UN Security Coun-
cil resolution 2334 (2016), as well as planned activities and efforts to further operationalise
the resolution.
18. Prohibit the import of illegal settlement products and services from entering European mar-
kets, and ban trade with and economic support for illegal Israeli settlements, as part of rele-
vant positive and customary obligations of third States under international humanitarian law.
19. Support and play a positive and constructive role in the negotiations to progress the adop-
tion of a draft legally binding instrument to regulate in international human rights law the
activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises (UN Binding Treaty).
20. Address conflict-affected areas and occupied territories in the business and human rights
frameworks that are being developed at national, EU and UN levels, such as in National
Action Plans (NAPs), the UN Binding Treaty, national and EU mandatory due diligence legis-
lation, and other relevant tools and mechanisms.
21. Incorporate legislation to give effect to the principle of universal jurisdiction at a domestic
level, for the prosecution of corporate-related grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions
and international crimes committed in the OPT, to ensure accountability.
22. Fully cooperate with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
in line with relevant obligations set forth in the Rome Statue and the Geneva Conventions,
as well as express public support for the independence of the Court in its investigation into
the Situation in Palestine.

11
23. Include corporate-related grave breaches and international crimes committed in the OPT,
namely those linked to illegal Israeli settlements, in the implementation of the EU Global
Human Rights Sanctions Regime, as well as human rights violations, including those perpe-
trated by corporate entities.

Local authorities across Europe should:

24. In cases where a local municipality has its own pension funds, undertake a review of invest-
ments in any of the “listed activities” for involvement in the Israeli settlement enterprise, as
outlined by the UN. In these cases, begin the process of divestment from companies listed
by the OHCHR in the UN database, in view of the rigorous and extensive engagement un-
dertaken by the OHCHR prior to the database’s publication.
25. Ensure local authority pension funds implement adequate investment screening and due
diligence procedures to comply with obligations not to be complicit in violations of inter-
national law.
26. Apply public procurement law in line with obligations and responsibilities as state bodies un-
der international law, the UNGPs and OECD guidelines, which entails avoiding the awarding
of public contracts to companies involved in grave violations of international law.

12
Glossary
Area A: makes up 18 % of the West Bank and encompasses six major cities in the West Bank. It
is currently under Palestinian civil and security control. The Palestinian Authority governs “the
powers and responsibilities for internal security and public order” and the administration of civil
spheres, such as health, education, and other municipal services, as per the 1995 Israeli-Palestin-
ian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II). However, Israel has contin-
ued to retain de facto overriding control over the entirety of the West Bank.

Area B: makes up 21 % of the West Bank and encompasses parts of the West Bank between Area
A and C that are placed under full Palestinian civilian control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security
control, as per the Oslo II agreement. However, as previously mentioned, Israel, as the Occupying
Power, continues to retain de facto overriding control over the entirety of the West Bank.

Area C: makes up 61 % of the West Bank and encompasses those parts of the West Bank that
are under full Israeli civil and military control, including land registration, planning, building and
designation of land use. It contains the bulk of Palestinian agricultural and grazing land, water
sources and underground reservoirs, as per the Oslo II agreement.

Bond Issuances: issuing bonds can best be described as cutting a large loan into small pieces
and selling each piece separately. Bonds are issued on a large scale by governments, but also
by business corporations. Like shares, bonds are traded on the stock exchange. To issue bonds,
a company needs the assistance of one or more (investment) banks, which then underwrites a
certain amount of the bonds (see also explanation of “underwriting” below).

Business Enterprise: is an entity carrying out commercial activities projects, and ventures for
profit, covering all types of companies/firms from multinationals to companies registered and
operating in one country.

Captive Palestinian market: a situation resulting from Israel’s control over the access points to
the OPT and a lack of continuity of territory (Area A, B, C as per Oslo II), affecting trade inside
as well as import into and export from the OPT through discriminatory laws, policies, and prac-
tices limiting the ability of Palestinian businesses, governmental institutions and individuals to
access and/or benefit from land and other natural resources or free movement of goods, in what
amounts to ‘economic annexation’.

Due Hearing Process: due hearing is part of the research methodology utilised for the DBIO
report. Financial institutions, the case studies mentioned in this report, and the additional com-
panies that are not part of the UN Databasen were sent the results of the report and given the
opportunity to provide input on the findings on financial relationships as well as on their ap-
proach to human rights due diligence.

Enhanced Human Rights Due Diligence: ‘enhanced’ due diligence is the heightened care with
which due diligence processes need to be executed, when businesses and financial institutions
are faced with increased risks of adverse human rights impacts due to their operations in com-
plex environments, including conflict-affected areas such as military occupation.

Erga Omnes: (or ‘towards all’) means the rights or obligations owed by a State towards the
international community as a whole. Erga omnes obligations are binding on all States of the
international community.

13
Financial Institutions: entities dealing with financial transactions, and providing investments,
loans, and deposits, including banking institutions, as well as investors such as pension funds.

Fragmentation of the Territorial Contiguity of the OPT: this is the permanent fracturing of the
continuous stretch of Palestine’s territory, carried out through Israeli practices of land appropri-
ation, the construction of Israeli settlements, the Separation Wall, segregated road systems, the
military closure of the Gaza Strip, and enforced by a system of physical obstacles to the free-
dom of movement of individuals and goods, including through military checkpoints, roadblocks,
trenches, and road gates, resulting in fragmentation, de facto annexation, and the creation of
Palestinian enclaves under overriding Israeli control.

Home State: is the country where a business enterprise is domiciled. According to Principle 2
of the UNGPs, States should set out clearly the expectation that all business enterprises domi-
ciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations. In
the context of conflict and occupation, ‘home States’ have particularly important roles to play
in preventing and addressing human rights abuses by business enterprises domiciled in their
territory and/or jurisdiction.

Host State: is the country that receives business enterprises to operate within its territory and/
or jurisdiction. As per the UNGPs, in conflict-affected areas ‘host States’ may be unable to pro-
tect human rights adequately, owing to a lack of effective control, or they may themselves be
engaged in human rights abuses. Considering its effective control over the OPT as an Occupying
Power, Israel holds the responsibilities of a host state. It also acts as the home and host state to
Israeli companies operating in the OPT.

Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD): the continuous process of identifying and addressing
the human rights impact of a company across its operations and products, and throughout its
supplier and business partner networks. Business enterprises and financial institutions should
conduct due diligence to “cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may
cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations,
products or services by its business relationships.”

Israeli Civil Administration: is the body responsible for the implementation of Israel’s govern-
ment policy in the OPT. It is a part of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories
(COGAT), which is a unit in the Israeli Ministry of Defence.

Israel’s Settlement Enterprise: the term settlement enterprise (derived from Israeli government
existing policy and practice), includes physical and non-physical structures and processes cov-
ering a range of aspects of settlement development and expansion. For example, the provision
of vital water supplies and services, the planning and zoning of land, the development of out-
posts, the provision of connecting road infrastructure, and the incentivisation of businesses and
financial institutions to locate on and profit from sovereign Palestinian lands and resources. As
such, this report uses the term “settlement enterprise” to include a diverse range of commer-
cial activities linked to the establishment, maintenance and expansion of settlements and the
involvement therein. Illegal settlements in the OPT have taken the form of residential settlement
towns and cities, industrial zones, agricultural settlements, tourism and religious sites, among
others, facilitated by the Israeli government and official institutions, along with agencies and
private actors. Notably, Israel’s settlements policy consists of several acts in contravention of
international humanitarian law, including the transfer in of Israeli settlers, the forcible transfer of
the protected Palestinian population through land and property seizure and confiscation, house
demolitions, and residency revocations, among other methods which lead to forcible Palestinian
displacement.

14
Jus Cogens (or “peremptory norm”): refers to certain fundamental, overriding norms of interna-
tional law from which no derogation in treaties is permitted.

Loan: the easiest way to obtain credit is to borrow money. In most cases, money is borrowed
from commercial banks. Loans can be either short-term or long-term in nature.

Long-term Loans: have a maturity of at least one year, but generally of three to ten years. Long-
term corporate loans are particularly useful to finance expansion plans, which only generate re-
wards after some period of time. The proceeds of corporate loans can be used for all activities of
the company. Often long-term loans are extended by a loan syndicate, which is a group of banks
brought together by one or more arranging banks, with the aim of spreading the risk. The loan
syndicate will only undersign the loan agreement if the company can provide certain guarantees
that interest and repayments on the loan will be fulfilled.

(Managing) investments in bonds: financial institutions can also buy bonds of a certain com-
pany. The main difference between owning shares and bonds is that the owner of a bond is not
a co-owner of the issuing company; the owner is a creditor of the company. The buyer of each
bond is entitled to repayment after a certain number of years, and to a certain interest during
each of these years.

(Managing) shareholdings: financial institutions can, through the funds they are managing, buy
the shares of a certain company. This provides the company with new equity and gives the fi-
nancial institution a direct influence on the company’s strategy. The magnitude of this influence
depends on the size of the shareholding.

Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT): refers to the territory occupied by Israel in 1967, compris-
ing the West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Project finance: is a specific long-term loan. The proceeds of this loan can only be used to fi-
nance a specific project: a mine, pipeline, wind farm, road, etc. Project finance is often extend-
ed by a banking syndicate, like corporate loans. However, different from corporate loans, the
repayment of a project finance loan is dependent upon the revenues that a project is expected
to generate once it is up and running. To guarantee the payment of interest and repayments as
much as possible, the banks usually demand that the revenues of the project must be used first
to pay interest and repayment. Only if the revenues are large enough, the remainder will be paid
out as dividends to the owner(s) of the project.

Revolving credit facility: a revolving credit facility provides a company with an option to take
up a loan from a bank (or more often: a banking syndicate) when it has an urgent financing
need. The maturity of revolving credit differs, but they are often concluded for a five-year peri-
od and then renewed. Many companies however renegotiate their revolving credit facility every
year with the same banking syndicate. Amounts, interest rates, fees and participating banks can
change slightly every year. As the financial press often reports these renegotiations for larger
companies, this might raise the impression that banks are lending huge sums of money to the
same company every year. However, a revolving credit facility concerns renegotiations of basi-
cally the same facility and is hardly ever actually called upon for a loan. Revolving credit facilities
are included in the same category of loan services provided to companies which means that the
value of loans given in the tables may be higher than the actual called-upon amounts.

Share issuances: issuing shares on the stock exchange gives a company the opportunity to in-
crease its equity by attracting a large number of new shareholders or to increase the equity from
its existing shareholders. If it is the first time a company offers its shares on the stock exchange,

15
this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO). If a company’s shares are already traded on the stock
exchange, this is called a secondary offering of additional shares. To arrange an IPO or a sec-
ondary offering, a company needs the assistance of one or more (investment) banks, which will
promote the shares and find shareholders. The role of investment banks in this process therefore
is very important.

Short-term loans: (including trade credits, current accounts, leasing agreements, etc.) have a
maturity of less than a year. They are mostly used as working capital for day-to-day operations.
Short-term debts are often provided by a single commercial bank, which does not ask for sub-
stantial guarantees from the company.

Underwriting: is in effect buying securities with the intention of selling to investors. Still, in the
event that the investment bank fails to sell all securities it has underwritten, it will end up owning
them.

16
List of Abbreviations
ARSIWA - International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Interna-
tionally Wrongful Acts
AFSC - American Friends Service Committee
CERD - UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
CESR - UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
CRC - Convention on the Rights of the Child
DBIO - Don’t Buy into Occupation coalition
ECCJ - European Coalition for Corporate Justice
EHRDD - Enhanced Human Rights Due Diligence
ESG - Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance
EU - European Union
FI - Financial Institutions
FIDH - International Federation For Human Rights
HRC - The UN Human Rights Council
HRDD - Human Rights Due Diligence
IHL - International Humanitarian Law
IHRL - International Human Rights Law
ICC - International Criminal Court
ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ICJ - International Court of Justice
ICRC - International Committee of the Red Cross
NIS - New Israeli Shekel
OECD - The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OECD Guidelines - OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
OHCHR - The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
OPT - Occupied Palestinian Territory
PRI - UN Principles for Responsible Investment
UK - United Kingdom
UN - United Nations
UN Database - United Nations database of business enterprises involved in activities linked to
Israeli settlements in the OPT
UNGPs - United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights - the UN Working Group on the issue of hu-
man rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises
U.S. - United States
US$ - United States Dollar

17
1. Introduction
The “Don’t Buy into Occupation” (DBIO) coalition is a joint initiative between
25 Palestinian, regional and European organisations based in Belgium, France,
Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK). The
coalition aims to investigate and highlight the financial relationships between
business enterprises involved in the illegal Israeli settlement enterprise in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and European Financial Institutions (FIs).
Financial institutions can be directly linked to violations committed in the illegal Israeli settle-
ments in the OPT through the provision of loans and underwriting services to, or through in-
vestments in shares and bonds of, business enterprises involved in the settlement enterprise.
European FIs should be aware of the risks of being linked to the settlement enterprise, and of
their responsibilities under international law, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines). In
order to do so, this report – the first of its kind, which will be annually updated by the DBIO co-
alition – has identified a total number of 130 business enterprises that are involved in activities
linked to Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise in the OPT. This list of business enterprises, which
builds upon the existing UN database of business enterprises involved in activities linked to Is-
raeli settlements in the OPT (UN Database)5, together with the UNGPs, serves as the basis for
further research into the financial relationships between business enterprises and European FIs.

Section 2 outlines the methodology used to identify the business enterprises and financial insti-
tutions included in this report. Section 3 provides an overview of the international legal frame-
work applicable in the OPT, of relevant international norms setting out the responsibilities of
business enterprises and financial institutions, and of the legal responsibilities of third States
and home States within this context. Section 4 first presents the business enterprises identified
for the purpose of this report, then outlines the financial relationships (including loans, under-
writing services, and shareholdings) between 50 business enterprises and European financial
institutions. Section 4 also highlights three case studies (Booking Holding/ Booking.com, BNP
Paribas and HeidelbergCement), which exemplify the different types of corporate involvement
in the Israeli settlement enterprise.6

Section 5 subsequently outlines a number of positive developments in the past years, in which
financial institutions have, to a certain extent, taken up their responsibility to no longer be in-
volved in Israeli settlements, given the manifest violations of international law and adverse hu-
man rights impacts. It also provides a brief discussion of a number of positive developments in
the field of business and human rights, such as the ongoing negotiations on the legally binding
instrument to regulate in international human rights law the activities of transnational corpora-
tions and other business enterprises (UN Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights) and
the forthcoming EU human rights due diligence (HRDD) legislation. Civil society has been at
the forefront in advocating for the inclusion of binding regulations and accountability for cor-
porate activities and relationships complicit in international crimes in situations of conflict and
occupation. Finally, Section 6 provides a number of recommendations to business enterprises
involved in activities linked to the settlements, to financial institutions, and to national and local
authorities across Europe.

18
2. Methodology
2.1. Scope
Geographically, the research conducted for the purpose of this report was limited to business
enterprises involved in Israel’s settlement enterprise in the occupied West Bank, including the
eastern part of Jerusalem, of the OPT. This geographic focus does not intend to reinforce the
imposed fragmentation of the Palestinian people, as it is specifically centred on Israel’s illegal
settlement enterprise. In the analysis of financial relationships, the research was limited to finan-
cial institutions based in the 27 European Union (EU) Member States as well as in Norway and
the United Kingdom (UK).

2.2. Selection of Business Enterprises

The publication of the UN Database in February 20207, represented an important milestone for
business and human rights-related efforts in the context of Israel’s prolonged occupation of the
OPT, as well as an important step towards corporate accountability in such contexts. The UN
Database, and the criteria for inclusion that are premised on international law and the UNGPs,
therefore forms the starting point for this research.

However, the narrow interpretation of the mandate and temporal limits applied by the OHCHR to
the UN Database have led to the omission of many business enterprises involved in grave viola-
tions and international crimes linked to Israeli settlements. Therefore, the research presented in
this report has identified a limited set of additional publicly listed companies for inclusion in the
analysis of financial relationships with European financial institutions. The online database pro-
vided by the Israeli research centre Who Profits was used as a key point of reference for recent
evidence of involvement (after 2018). Additional information and evidence was gathered from
company registers, company publications, media articles, and other related resources.

To determine what constitutes “involvement” in the Israeli settlement enterprise, the analysis
followed Article 17 of the UNGPs, with corporate human rights due diligence requiring a business
enterprise to:

“[…] cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or con-
tribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations,
products or services by its business relationships.”

Furthermore, the following ten “listed activities”, which raise particular human rights concerns
and that provide the criteria for the UN Database mandate, were used as a key reference through-
out this report:

• The supply of equipment and materials facilitating the construction and the expansion of
settlements and the wall, and associated infrastructures;
• The supply of surveillance and identification equipment for settlements, the wall and check-
points directly linked with settlements;
• The supply of equipment for the demolition of housing and property, the destruction of ag-
ricultural farms, greenhouses, olive groves and crops;
• The supply of security services, equipment and materials to enterprises operating in settle-
ments;
• The provision of services and utilities supporting the maintenance and existence of settle-
ments, including transport;

19
• Banking and financial operations helping to develop, expand or maintain settlements and
their activities, including loans for housing and the development of businesses;
• The use of natural resources, in particular water and land, for business purposes;
• Pollution, and the dumping of waste in or its transfer to Palestinian villages;
• Captivity of the Palestinian financial and economic markets, as well as practices that disad-
vantage Palestinian enterprises, including through restrictions on movement, administrative
and legal constraints;
• Use of benefits and reinvestments of enterprises owned totally or partially by settlers for
developing, expanding and maintaining the settlements.

The application of these criteria alone would have generated a much longer list of companies
involved in the settlement enterprise, as can be seen from the Who Profits database with 499
entries.8 Given that a key interest of this research was to identify links with European financial
institutions, a public listing at a stock exchange (particularly in Europe or the United States) was
an additional selection criterion, as this presents a much higher likelihood for such relationships.
Moreover, the evidence of involvement is until 2018 and not prior, whereas a search into relevant
recent changes was conducted.

Finally, the business enterprises included in the UN Database were checked for any changes to
their status since February 2020, in relation to activities linked to the settlement enterprise9.
Since then, Avgol Industries (with its parent Indorama Ventures) announced in February 2020
the relocation of its plant from the Barkan Industrial Zone in the West Bank, to India10, where-
as Alstom Citadis is no longer involved in the Jerusalem Light Rail project11. However, Alstom
acquired Bombardier Transportation in January 2021, and is therefore still included in the list.12

The final selection of 130 business enterprises should therefore not be seen as an exhaustive
list of business enterprises that are involved with Israeli settlements. Many smaller business-
es involved with Israel’s settlement enterprise were not included in the scope of this research,
although they might have bilateral relationships with banks and FIs, as explained in the next
section.

2.3. Analysis of Financial Relationships

The business enterprises included in the analysis were screened for financial relationships with
European financial institutions. Investments by subsidiaries were summarized under the parent
company, regardless of the location of the subsidiary. Information was sought in the financial
databases of Refinitiv (formerly known as Thomson EIKON), Bloomberg, and IJGlobal. Most of
the companies are involved in (geographically) diverse activities. It is therefore important to
note that the identified financial flows are not limited to activities related to the settlements but
related to overall and often much broader business activities.

Due to the varying size and nature of the business enterprises, and some comparatively small
business enterprises included in the UN Database, financial relationships with European financial
institutions were not found for all companies. Small and medium-sized privately-owned business
enterprises rarely issue bonds and have a higher likelihood of receiving bilateral loans and cred-
its. Financial databases almost exclusively cover syndicated financing. Therefore, such small and
medium-sized privately owned business enterprises, though included in the UN database, were
not researched further, due to a lack of ties with European FIs.

20
The following information was considered:

• Shares/bonds held or managed at the most recent available filing date, as of May 2021;
• Loans and credits in the period since January 2018 to May 2021;
• Underwriting of share and bond issuances in the period January 2018 to May 2021.

In cases where the amount committed by a financial institution for its participation in a loan or
underwriting syndicate was unknown, this was estimated by using a method that has been test-
ed on a large number of loans and underwritings. The book-ratio (see formula below) is used to
determine the spread over book-runners and other managers. A book-runner is the main lender/
underwriter leading the syndicate of financial institutions.

Bookratio: number of participants - number of bookrunners

number of bookrunners

Due to the large number of business enterprises and resulting amount of data on financial rela-
tionships, the following choices were made for the inclusion of financial institutions in this report:

• In the overall overview of financial institutions linked to the long-list of selected business
enterprises, all creditors as well as the top 10 share and bondholders per business enterprise
are listed.
• In the case studies on Booking Holding (incl. Booking.com) and HeidelbergCement, all iden-
tified creditors are named, meaning those European financial institutions that have been
identified as participants in the provision of loans and underwriting services in the period
under review. Moreover, the top 20 financial institutions holding or managing shares and
bonds from these business enterprises are named.
• In the case study on BNP Paribas, all identified financial links with the business enterprises
included in the study are listed.

2.4. Due hearing

The financial institutions mentioned in the main body of the report were given the opportunity to
review the results and provide input on the findings on financial relationships, as well as on their
approach to human rights due diligence. In total, 138 financial institutions were contacted. Simi-
larly, the business enterprises covered in the three case studies of this report, and the additional
companies that are not part of the UN database, were given the opportunity to comment on
the findings presented by the DBIO coalition. At the time this report went to press, the coalition
received content-related responses from 21 financial institutions, the three case studies (Book-
ing, BNP Paribas, and HeidelbergCement) and four of the additional companies included in the
company selection.13 These responses have been considered and noted throughout the report.

21
22
3. The International
Legal Framework
3.1. The illegality of Israeli Settlements under International Law
Israel’s military administration of the occupied Palestinian territory i.e. the West Bank, including
the eastern part of Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip is governed by international humanitarian law,
including the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relevant provi-
sions of applicable customary international law, along with the complementary provisions of
international human rights law.

Belligerent occupation is meant to be temporary in nature, and the occupied territory must
be administered in accordance with the law of occupation, until the occupation is brought to
an end. Critically, due to the temporary nature of the occupation, the occupant is merely a de
facto administrator and does not acquire sovereign rights over the territory14. Any attempts by
the occupant to exercise sovereign rights, such as alienating the public immoveable property of
the occupied territory, not only violates IHL, but may also amount to an intention to annex the
territory, in contravention of core principles on the territorial integrity of Member States and the
non-acquisition of territory by use of force, prohibited under the Charter of the United Nations.15

Under international law, Israeli settlements, their maintenance and expansion are illegal and
comprise a number of acts that amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The rec-
ognition of the settlement enterprise as a situation resulting from an internationally wrongful act
has been reiterated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN Security Council, the UN
General Assembly and the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.16 In 2016,
UN Security Council resolution 2334 re-iterated that Israeli settlements have “no legal validity
and constitute a flagrant violation under international law”.17 The resolution called on Israel to
freeze all settlement activities and to dismantle all settlement outposts established since March
2001. It further called on all States to “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory
of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.18

The practice of forcible transfer is specifically prohibited during a military occupation. Article
49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Conventions states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or
transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. Article 49 also prohibits
the “individual or mass forcible transfer” of protected persons – in this case, the occupied Pal-
estinian population are “persons protected by the Convention” finding themselves in the hands
of an “Occupying Power of which they are not nationals”.19 The Commentary to the Convention
explains that Article 49 is intended to “prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War
by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for
political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories”.20

Israel’s acts of eviction, creation of coercive environments that force displacement, and discrim-
inatory planning and zoning and house demolitions that facilitate the building of outposts or
settlements, are illegal acts amounting to forcible transfer which may be prosecuted as “grave
breaches” of the Fourth Geneva Convention.21 Similarly, forced transfers within the occupied ter-
ritory, deportation from the occupied territory along with the practice of transfer of settlers into
the OPT are explicitly listed as grave breaches and war crimes in articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)
(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In addition, deportation or

23
forcible transfer, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against
any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack amounts to a crime against humanity, in-
curring individual criminal liability under Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of the ICC.

In order to construct and expand settlements, Israel relies on the extensive appropriation of Pal-
estinian land, as well as the pillage and destruction of Palestinian property. Under article 46 of
the Hague Regulations, the Occupying Power is prohibited from confiscating private property,
and the requisition of private property is allowed only in exceptional cases for the needs of the
occupying army.22 Further, Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the destruction
of public and private property. In addition, the Occupying Power’s administration of public im-
moveable property such as natural resources is strictly regulated by the rules of usufruct, which
limits how the Occupying Power can use public property23, prohibiting for example, the dam-
aging or depletion of finite non-renewable natural resources in the occupied territory as well as
the exploitation of resources for the benefit of the domestic economy of the Occupying State.24
The Occupying Power may only narrowly use the resources of the occupied territory under the
strict condition that it benefits the occupied population25, or if it is used strictly to satisfy the
needs of their army.26 The exploitation of public and private resources of the occupied territory
beyond permissible requisitions27, and usufruct amounts to pillage, a war crime prosecutable un-
der the Rome Statute of the ICC.28 Similarly, extensive appropriation of property, not justified by
military necessity, and carried out unlawfully and wantonly is also prosecutable as a war crime.29
Additionally, corporate actors complicit in aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes,
including appropriation and pillage of land and natural resources, may also be held individually
criminally liable.30

Since 13 June 2014, the ICC has exercised territorial jurisdiction over the OPT, i.e. the West Bank,
including the eastern part of Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, in the Situation in the State of Pal-
estine. On 3 March 2021, the ICC Prosecutor announced the opening of an investigation into war
crimes and crimes against humanity in the Situation in the State of Palestine.31 Crimes within the
jurisdiction of the Court include the crime of population transfer in, deportation, forcible transfer,
extensive appropriation of property, pillage, destruction of property, murder and wilful killing,
in addition to inhumane acts of apartheid and persecution, orchestrated to maintain the status
quo of colonisation.

In addition to grave breaches of international humanitarian law, Israeli settlements and its asso-
ciated policies and practices also violate numerous provisions of international human rights law
(IHRL), among others the right to self-determination and permanent sovereignty over national
and natural resources. In 2004, the ICJ confirmed that international human rights treaties such
as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) apply to the OPT.32 Israel’s administration of the OPT must therefore be guided by its ob-
ligation to eradicate, prevent and prohibit racial segregation and apartheid in territories under
its jurisdiction, as provided for under Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination (CERD).

International law criminalises as the crime against humanity of apartheid “inhuman acts com-
mitted for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of per-
sons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”.33 In 2020, the
Committee on Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in its Concluding Observations on
the State of Israel, reiterated its concerns on “the consequences of policies and practices that
amount to segregation, such as the existence in the OPT of two entirely separate legal systems
and sets of institutions for Jewish communities in illegal settlements on the one hand and Pales-
tinian populations living in Palestinian towns and villages on the other hand,” and called on Israel
to eradicate all policies and practices of racial segregation and apartheid.34

24
Indeed, since 1948 Israel has established a legal architecture that codifies a privileged status for
its Israeli-Jewish citizens and discriminates against all non-Jewish persons, particularly the Pales-
tinian people as a whole, including protected Palestinians in the OPT, Palestinian citizens of Israel
and Palestinian refugees and exiles in the diaspora.35 Israel segregates Palestinians in the Gaza
Strip, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees and exiles in the diaspora, into different
administrative groups, held under differing legal regimes, to prevent their unification and resis-
tance to its settler colonisation, and to orchestrate the transfer in of settler Israeli-Jews.36

This has undermined the realisation of Palestinians’ inalienable rights, including the right to
self-determination and permanent sovereignty and has been a key instrument in facilitating Is-
rael’s expanding settler colonisation into the West Bank. Following long-established efforts by
Palestinian civil society and human rights organisations37, and authoritative legal analysis of in-
ternational experts38, a growing body of legal analysis39 has concluded that Israel is maintaining
an apartheid regime of institutionalised racial segregation and domination against the Pales-
tinian people. Israel’s illegal residential, industrial and agricultural settlements contribute to the
strategic fragmentation of the Palestinian people and the disruption of the territorial contiguity
of the OPT, rendering a viable Palestinian state impossible. Israel maintains its domination over
the Palestinian people and their land40, by using a complex system of discriminatory laws, poli-
cies, and practices that target the Palestinian people as a whole, irrespective of their geographic
location.41

For instance, Palestinians in the West Bank are governed by military law, while Israeli-Jewish set-
tlers are subject to Israeli civil law. Therefore, Israel applies two separate legal regimes for each
racial group in the same territory, an act consistent with the definition of apartheid.42 Jewish
hegemony and domination is evidenced in the Jewish Nation-State Law (2018), which curtails
the right of self-determination in the State of Israel to the Jewish people, while at the same time
giving constitutional force to the expansion of illegal settlements in the OPT “as a national value”
in furtherance of Israel’s de facto annexation of the occupied West Bank.43 The legal architecture
to create settlements is inherently racist necessitating the appropriation of Palestinian private
and public land, the forcible transfer of Palestinians, discriminatory zoning policies, separated
roads, military checkpoints, closed military zones, and violence against Palestinians by Israeli
settlers who enjoy the impunity guaranteed by the Israeli forces and government.44

3.2. Responsibilities of Business Enterprises and Financial Institutions

While the State of Israel has played a key role in advancing the construction and expansion of
settlements in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, their maintenance and growth would
not have been possible without private actors, including non-profits such as the Jewish National
Fund, the World Zionist Organisation, and the Israel Land Fund, as well as Israeli and multination-
al business enterprises. Under the auspices of the Israeli authorities, such actors have played a
central role in, amongst others, the unlawful appropriation of land, investment and trade in illegal
settlements, as well as the unlawful exploitation of natural resources in the OPT for the benefit
of the Israeli economy and its population, at the expense of Palestinians. In particular, the role of
business enterprises in the establishment, maintenance and expansion of Israeli settlements (as
well as Israel’s occupation and wider violations) cannot be denied or understated.45

3.2.1. Responsibility of Business Actors under IHL

Businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights and principles of international law
throughout their operations and relationships.46 In the context of armed conflict and occupation,

25
non-state actors – including business enterprises carrying out activities that are closely linked
to an armed conflict – must respect the applicable rules of international humanitarian law.47 This
means that there are certain “obligations on managers and staff” and that they are exposed “to
the risk of criminal or civil liability”.48 When operating in situations of conflict and occupation,
businesses retain legal risks “for the commission or complicity in war crimes or on civil liability for
damages” for which they may be held liable.49 The ICRC guidelines on Business and International
Humanitarian Law note that:

“A significant risk of criminal liability thus exists for those who commit grave breaches of
international humanitarian law, including where business enterprises or their represen-
tatives commit or knowingly assist violations carried out by others, such as contractors,
subsidiaries or clients. Moreover, participation in war crimes might also give rise to civil
liability before national courts.”50

As such, business enterprises that are directly or indirectly involved in the Israeli settlement
enterprise – including through finance, insurance, and trade with partners, suppliers and subsid-
iaries that have ties and proven links to the construction, expansion and maintenance of Israel’s
illegal settlements – run a high risk of involvement in violations of IHL and potential complicity
in war crimes and crimes against humanity.51

IHL also regulates the occupier’s use of natural resources and administration of public immov-
able property in the occupied territory.52 This means that business enterprises must be aware of
the risk of taking part in associated serious grave breaches such as the unlawful appropriation of
private and public property and the crime of pillage53, prohibited by IHL.

3.2.2. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), adopted by UN Member
States in 2011, are the global authoritative standard on the respective obligations and responsi-
bilities of States and business enterprises to prevent, address, and remedy human rights abuses
in the context of business activities and relationships.54

The UNGPs require business enterprises to:

• Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities,
and address such impacts when they occur55, and;
• Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their
operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not con-
tributed to those impacts.56

As a result, all business enterprises, regardless of their size, sector, operational context, owner-
ship and structure57, have a responsibility to undertake human rights due diligence. This includes
the identification, assessment and mitigation of adverse human rights impacts, as well as the
establishment of processes to take effective action on the findings from impact assessments,
and the obligation to integrate them to track the effectiveness of responses. Finally, it also com-
prises the creation of processes to publicly communicate how the business enterprises address
these impacts.

Moreover, the UNGPs explicitly state that “business relationships” include relationships with busi-
ness partners, value chain stakeholders, and any other non-state or state entity directly linked
to its business operations, products or services.58 This means that supply chain relationships also
require due diligence on human rights impacts, as well as action on prevention and mitigation.

26
In its ‘Statement on the implications of the UNGPs in the context of Israeli settlements in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory’ in 2014, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights
confirmed the following:

• Business enterprises doing business, or seeking to do business, in or connected to the Israeli

settlements in the OPT need to be able to show that they neither support the continuation
of an internationally recognised illegal situation nor are complicit in human rights abuses.
• Businesses also need to prove that they can effectively prevent or mitigate the risk of human
rights violations and that they are able to account for their efforts in this regard – including,
when necessary, terminating their business interests or activities.59 Failure to undertake ef-
fective human rights due diligence can lead to adverse human rights impacts or to complic-
ity in abuses committed by other actors. 60

In this regard it is important to note the OHCHR’s statement from January 2018:

“Considering the weight of the international legal consensus concerning the illegal na-
ture of settlements themselves, and the systemic and pervasive nature of the negative
human rights impact caused by them, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a com-
pany could engage in activities in the settlements in a way that is consistent with the UN
Guiding Principles and with international law.”61 (emphasis added)

The UNGPs require that if a business finds that it has caused or contributed to an adverse
human rights impact, it has a responsibility to actively engage in remediation, and to take the
necessary steps to cease such activity and end such business relationship.62 Indeed, there are
numerous examples of financial institutions and business enterprises that have terminated
their relationships or activities associated with Israeli settlements due to the risks involved.63

• In the context of the OPT, enhanced human rights due diligence is required. Enhanced due
diligence measures include, among others, increasing the frequency of human rights impact
assessments; formally integrating human rights principles into relevant business contracts;
exercising “extreme caution” in all business activities and relationships involving acquisition
of assets; and seeking formal advice from the enterprise’s home state, as well as from inter-
national organizations and mechanisms.64

Other forms of enhanced human rights due diligence include65:

• A requirement to operate in line with the set responsibilities under international hu-
manitarian law and international human rights law on business enterprises, and other
relevant laws, throughout the assessment process;
• A requirement not to pursue operations in situations in which due diligence cannot
be conducted and/or guarantee that there will not be complicity or contribution to
violations that may amount to grave breaches of international law and internationally
recognised crimes;
• Plan and allow for urgent and immediate preventive measures, divestment and disen-
gagement policies, to avoid corporate involvement in and/or contribution to human
rights violations in their activities and relationships66;
• Meaningful consultations with the relevant stakeholders, including affected communi-
ties and marginalized groups, guaranteeing free, prior and informed consent of indige-
nous peoples and local communities before the start of any project or activity.

27
• Even if businesses linked to settlements are operating in compliance with Israeli law, corporate
responsibility to respect human rights supersedes compliance with Israel’s regulations.67
• Where transnational corporations are involved, their “home” States (for example European
States) have crucial roles to play in assisting these corporations and “host” States (Israel in
this case) to ensure that businesses do not become involved in human rights abuses. States
should help ensure that business enterprises operating in those contexts are not involved in
human rights abuses. They can do so by engaging with business enterprises to help them
identify, prevent and mitigate risks; providing assistance to assess and address risks; deny-
ing access to public support and services for an enterprise involved in gross human rights
abuses and that refuses to cooperate in addressing the situation; and by ensuring that their
current policies, legislation, regulations and enforcement measures are effective in address-
ing the risk of business involvement in gross human rights abuses.68
• States should also take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses by business
enterprises that are owned or controlled by the state, or receive substantial support and
services from state agencies, such as official investment insurance or guarantee agencies.
When a business enterprise is controlled by a state or when its acts can be attributed to a
state in some other way, a failure to respect human rights by the business enterprise may
entail a violation of the state’s own obligations under international human rights law.69

3.2.3. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has issued the OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which incorporate the UNGPs and state that enterprises
should carry out ongoing human rights due diligence. The OECD Guidelines further state that
business enterprises should:

“[S]eek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked
to their business operations, products or services by a business relationship, even if they
do not contribute to those impacts”.

In addition, the OECD guidelines add that “where an enterprise contributes or may contribute
to an adverse human rights impact, it should take the necessary steps to cease or prevent its
contribution.”70

Human rights are also included in the 10 Principles of the UN Global Compact, a voluntary ini-
tiative for businesses. The Global Compact expects businesses to, at a minimum, respect human
rights, act with due diligence to avoid infringing on them, abide by international standards and
avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their activities and re-
lationships.71 Principle 1 states that “businesses should support and respect the protection of in-
ternationally proclaimed human rights”, while Principle 2 provides that businesses should “make
sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses”.72 Both principles have been derived
from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

While the initiative itself is not designed to monitor or measure companies’ performances, its
Integrity Measures aim to safeguard it and promote public accountability and transparency of
participants (i.e., businesses) by facilitating dialogue among relevant actors.73 As outlined in
this report, there is credible evidence that the business enterprises and financial institutions list-
ed – some of which are participants in the UN Global Compact – are involved in the settlement
enterprise, in breach of the Compact principles, namely Principle 1 and Principle 2. The UN Global
Compact principles have been relied on to exclude and terminate relationships with business en-
terprises involved in the illegal settlement enterprise due to the associated human rights impacts.74

28
3.2.4 Specific Responsibilities of Financial Investors

Financial institutions, regardless of their size, are also expected to respect human rights in their
activities and operations, including in their provision of finance, and should therefore avoid caus-
ing or contributing to human rights violations, prevent and mitigate those.75 As such, the UNGPs
are not limited to production and trade relationships, but extend to financial institutions as well.
According to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, investors have an “unpar-
alleled ability” to influence business enterprises and scale up progress on the implementation of
the UNGPs:

“[I]nstitutional investors would be expected to seek to prevent or mitigate human rights

risks identified in relation to shareholdings” (...) if efforts in this regard are not success-
ful, the Guiding Principles stipulate that the institutional investor should consider ending
the relationship”.76

In a similar vein, in 2017, the OHCHR highlighted the responsibility of banks to conduct human
rights due diligence to identify whether and how they are involved in activities with adverse hu-
man rights impacts, which may be contributions “through its own activities and impacts that may
be directly linked to its operations, products or services through its clients or customers (i.e. its
‘business relationships’)”. A bank’s “own activities” in this context include actions and decisions
(including omissions) involving third parties, such as providing financial products and services
to clients.77 Recognising the particular responsibility of institutional investors in ensuring respect
for human rights, the OECD also developed a dedicated guidance on due diligence for institu-
tional investors, and separately for corporate lending and securities underwritings.78

Since 2006, there also exists the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). These princi-
ples are a voluntary and aspirational set of investment principles that offer a choice of actions
for incorporating considerations regarding Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance
(ESG) into investment practice. By agreeing with these principles, institutional investors commit,
among others, to incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis, decision-making processes
and ownership policies and practices.79

In June 2021, in a report issued at the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the UNGPs, the UN
Working Group on Business and Human Rights outlined in detail the specific responsibilities
of investors to respect human rights. As noted in this report, the UNGPs expect institutional
investors to have in place a policy commitment to respect all internationally recognised hu-
man rights. This policy should be approved at the most senior level of the institution, describe
the institution’s human rights expectations of all of its business relationships, and be publicly
communicated. Investors are also expected to carry out human rights due diligence during the
pre-investment phase as well as during the life of their investment, in order to know how their
investment activities are connected with human rights risks and to show how they are taking
steps to address these risks.80

In order to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts connected to investment ac-
tivities, investors are expected to take appropriate action based on assessment findings. This
depends on the form and level of connection between the investor and the human rights risk or
impact, which can be categorized as follows:

“[...] there are impacts that an investor: “(1) has caused – through its own business activi-
ties (e.g., [impacts on] its own employees) [or] where its own activities remove or reduce
someone’s ability to enjoy a human right [such as] where the investor holds a controlling
stake in an investee company (e.g., through the majority ownership model in private eq-

29
 uity)... (2) has contributed to – a) through its own business activities where it is one of
several contributors or b) through a business relationship or investment activity that in-
duces or facilitates an outcome from an investee company or project [such as] when the
investor holds high ownership stakes and could or should have known about harm, but
preventive actions were insufficient; or (3) is directly linked to – through the activities,
products or services of an investee company or project”.81

On the basis of such assessment, investors should take the necessary and appropriate measures:

“Where an investor has caused harm, they are expected to cease or prevent the action
causing the harm and play a direct role in remediating the harm. Where an investor has
contributed to harm, they are expected to cease or prevent the action contributing to the
harm, play a direct role in remediating the harm to the extent that they have contributed
to it and build and use their leverage to influence other actors contributing to the harm
to prevent, mitigate and address the harm. Where investors are directly linked to nega-
tive human rights impacts through their investment activities, they are expected to build
and use their leverage to influence other actors causing or contributing to the harm to
prevent, mitigate and address the harm. [...] Where an investor lacks sufficient leverage
to affect change in the behaviour of an investee company and is unable to increase its
leverage, it may consider responsible divestment (or exclusion)”.82

Such a process should take place in a transparent, public and time-bound manner in order
to mitigate human rights abuses by positively influencing and shifting the corporate conduct
throughout the entire lifecycle of the investment.83

In addition, as outlined by the OECD, in case of direct linkage, investors have a clear responsibil-
ity to use any leverage that they have to influence actors causing or contributing to the harm to
prevent, mitigate, and address such harm. The ‘any’ is important, as the fact that an investor has
little leverage on the investee company does not do away with its responsibility. It needs to look
for ways to increase that leverage.84

As also outlined by the OHCHR, in practice there is a “continuum” between being “directly
linked” and “contributing” to an adverse impact, which depends on the investor’s own actions
and omissions. If an investor identifies (through its due diligence process), or is made aware of
an ongoing adverse impact that is directly linked to its business relationship with an investee
company, yet over time fails to take reasonable steps to see to prevent or mitigate the impact, it
could eventually be seen as facilitating the continuance of the situation and thus be in a situation
of “contributing”.

3.3. Duties of States under International Law

3.3.1. Third State responsibility

The numerous Israeli violations of jus cogens norms of international law result in obligations erga
omnes on the part of third States, including States in Europe and the European Union (EU), to
cooperate to bring such illegal situations to an end. As the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the Inter-
national Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Commission of Jurists’ Draft Articles on Re-
sponsibility of States for Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) confirmed, third States have an obligation to:

• Ensure respect for international humanitarian law;

• Not recognize as legal, the internationally wrongful acts of another State;

30
• Not render aid or assistance in maintaining an illegal situation;
• Cooperate with States and the international community to bring serious breaches to an end,
through lawful means.85

Draft Article 41 (2) of ARSIWA states that “no state shall recognize as lawful a situation created
by a serious breach of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international
law”, with serious breaches encompassing the denial of the right to self-determination of peo-
ples, illegal acquisition of territory, annexation, and racial discrimination for example.86

The obligation not to render assistance to illegal Israeli settlements has also been covered in UN
Security Council resolution 465 (1980), which “calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any
assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories”.87
Further, UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016) also calls on UN Member States to “dis-
tinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories
occupied since 1967”.88 In practice, this should translate into tangible actions, including stronger
differentiation measures in business activities, trade, and other economic activities that take
place between Israel and the international community, namely the EU – Israel’s largest trade
partner. In this vein, among others, the labelling of products and services originating from settle-
ments should be considerably enhanced, as part of distinguishing between the OPT and Israel,
ensuring non-preferential treatment for settlement products, and the exclusion of settlements
and associated actors from benefiting from bilateral agreements, funding and development pro-
grams. It should be noted that differentiation in this context is part and parcel of implementing
the State’s obligation of non-recognition.

The third State obligation to not render aid or assistance to the maintenance of an illegal situa-
tion was explicitly confirmed in the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ (2004).89 It should be empha-
sized that following this, the UN General Assembly, including all EU Member States, adopted a
resolution that acknowledged the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion and called “upon all States Members of
the United Nations to comply with their legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion”.90
As such, the international community, including European States, confirmed they are legally
bound to ensure Israeli respect for IHL, to not recognize the illegal situation created by Israel,
and not to render aid or assistance to illegal Israeli acts.

Moreover, Common Article 1 of the Four Geneva Conventions, requires all High Contracting Par-
ties to “respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances”. Accord-
ing to the authoritative 1958 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) commentary, this
requires that State Parties “do everything in their power to ensure that the humanitarian princi-
ples underlying the Conventions are applied universally”.91 In March 2016, the ICRC reconfirmed
the obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and the absolute prohibition
for third States to render aid or assistance to violations.92

3.3.2. State Duty to Respect, Protect and Fulfil Human Rights

As the primary duty bearers under international law, States must protect against human rights
violations and abuses by third parties, including business enterprises, within their territory and
jurisdiction.93 As set out in Principle 1 of the UNGPs, the State duty to protect individual rights,
the rule of law and access to remedy, equally and without discrimination, requires taking con-
crete steps and actions in order to “prevent, investigate, punish and redress” abuses by business
enterprises, including through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudications.

31
The measures that States need to take to fulfil their duty to protect and ensure respect for hu-
man rights include the enforcement of laws requiring businesses to respect human rights, as
well as updating and enacting laws and policies to ensure that businesses operate in a condu-
cive environment that enables their respect for human rights. In addition, States should provide
effective guidance and advice to businesses as to how to respect human rights, and require
them to address the negative implications of their involvement and contribution to violations of
international law.

As such, States should provide clear and effective means to regulate the operations of business
enterprises at a domestic level, and when businesses domiciled within their jurisdiction operate
extraterritorially, in order to prevent adverse impacts and human rights violations.94 In 2011, the
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reiterated the extraterritorial obligations
of States, emphasizing that States are required to take the necessary steps to prevent human
rights violations abroad by corporations domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction.95 In its
General Comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the ICESCR in the context of busi-
ness activities, the CESCR explained that obligations stemming from the Covenant are estab-
lished at three levels; to respect, to protect and to fulfil – both within the national territory of the
State and extraterritorially where it may exercise control in the context of business activities. The
Committee reaffirmed that States parties to the Covenant may be held directly responsible for
the action or inaction of business entities in specific circumstances, including when:

“The entity concerned is acting on that State party’s instructions or is under its control
or direction in carrying out the particular conduct at issue, as may be the case in the
context of public contracts; (b) when a business entity is empowered under the State
party’s legislation to exercise elements of governmental authority or if the circumstances
call for such exercise of governmental functions in the absence or default of the official
authorities; or (c) if and to the extent that the State party acknowledges and adopts the
conduct as its own”.96

In accordance with the UNGPs, in the case where the State owns or in any way controls the
business enterprise, it should take additional measures to protect against human rights abuses,
including by ensuring effective human rights due diligence is implemented.97

General Comment No. 24 (27) further explicitly points out the extraterritorial obligations when
States may influence the situation outside their territory by controlling the activities of business-
es in their jurisdiction, therefore to the duty to realize and/or advance rights extraterritorially.98
For example, in its Concluding Observations in 2020 on the sixth periodic report of Norway, the
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) expressed concern about
Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, due to
its involvement through investments in the unlawful demolition of Palestinian homes and Israeli
settlements in the OPT, and the fact that “not all investments of the Fund are subject to the eth-
ics assessment process of the Council of Ethics”.99 The Committee therefore recommended that
Norway reviews the investments of the Government Pension Fund Global in business activities
linked to the OPT in light of its obligations in the advisory opinion of the International Court of
Justice of 2004. The CESCR further recommended Norway to:

“[E]nsure that the ethically motivated guidelines for observation and exclusion from the
Fund are in line with its territorial and extraterritorial obligations under the Covenant,
as indicated in paragraphs 25 to 37 of the Committee’s general comment No. 24 (2017)
on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in the context of business activities. It further recommends that the State party
pursue a rigorous process of ethics assessment by the Council of Ethics”.100

32
As set out in Principle 7 of the UNGPs, in conflict-affected areas, including situations of oc-
cupation such as the case of the OPT, and where the risk of violations of international law are
heightened, States should take measures to ensure that corporations are not involved in gross
human rights abuses. The State can do this in various ways, including by supporting the busi-
ness enterprise in identifying, preventing, and mitigating the risks to human rights associated
with their activities and relationships as early as possible. Where a business involved in gross
human rights abuses does not cooperate to address such involvement and adverse impact,
the State should deny it access to public support and services. Overall, the State should ensure
that the policies, legislation, regulations, and enforcement measures, including rigorous human
rights due diligence processes, set in place are adequately effective to address risks arising from
involvement in violations of human rights.101

The ‘host State’, in this case Israel (Occupying Power), retains the primary responsibility to pro-
tect against actual and adverse human rights impacts and abuses by businesses and their op-
erations102, including the responsibility to prevent, investigate, punish and redress human rights
abuses and adverse impacts of business activities on individuals and communities within its
jurisdiction. Therefore, Israel should provide an adequate regulatory framework to ensure corpo-
rate respect for human rights and ensure that individuals affected by corporate activities within
its jurisdiction have access to effective remedies, including through judicial, administrative and
legislative means.103 However, it is important to stress that Israel has been the main perpetrator
of violations against Palestinians and is unwilling to provide any protections for the Palestinian
population.

As such, and where multinational corporations are involved, the ‘home State’ has a key role to
play in protecting against actual and adverse human rights impacts by businesses within their
domiciliation or jurisdiction.104 To this end, the ‘home State’ should “foster closer cooperation
among their development assistance agencies, foreign and trade ministries, and export finance
institutions in their capitals and within their embassies, as well as between these agencies and
host Government actors; develop early-warning indicators to alert government agencies and
business enterprises to problems; and attach appropriate consequences to any failure by enter-
prises to cooperate in these contexts, including by denying or withdrawing existing public sup-
port or services, or where that is not possible, denying their future provision”.105

States should further identify gaps in addressing corporate-related human rights abuses in con-
flict-affected areas, including by activating civil, administrative and criminal liability mechanisms
for enterprises within their jurisdiction and as suitable to their involvement and contribution to
violations of international law and human rights.

It should be emphasized that it goes without saying that the measures provided in the UNGPs
for States (both ‘host’ and ‘home’ States), with businesses involved in conflict-affected areas, are
in addition to the already-existing obligations under international humanitarian law, internation-
al human rights law and international criminal law, as previously highlighted. Therefore, ‘home
States’ are also third-party States with specific obligations under international humanitarian law,
as highlighted previously in Section 3.3.1.

33
34
4. How European Financial
Institutions are involved in
the Settlement Enterprise
4.1. Business enterprises involved in activities linked to
settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory

In March 2013, the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission, created by the UN Human
Rights Council in 2012, presented its final report on the implications of the Israeli settlements on
the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the
OPT, comprising the West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.106
In its report, the Fact-Finding Mission set out a list of activities (see also Section 2 of this report)
which raised particular human rights violations concerns.

In follow up to the International Fact-Finding Mission’s report, the UN Human Rights Council, in
March 2016, adopted resolution 31/36, which requested the OHCHR to “produce a database of
all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed in paragraph 96 of the afore-mentioned
report, to be updated annually”.107 After years of delay due to political pressure, the OHCHR
eventually published the UN Database in February 2020, in the form of a written report. In this
report, the OHCHR identified 112 Israeli and multinational business enterprises that are involved
in one or more of the “listed activities”.108

The publication of the UN Database was enthusiastically welcomed by Palestinian, Israeli, Euro-
pean and international human rights groups and civil society, who highlighted its significance in
ensuring transparency and promoting accountability for business activities in the OPT and other
situations of occupation and conflict.109 At the same time, however, several groups criticised the
narrow interpretation by the OHCHR of the mandate, as well as the restrictive temporal frame
applied. Who Profits, an independent Israeli research centre dedicated to exposing the commer-
cial involvement of Israeli and international corporations in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian and
Syrian lands, and who themselves maintain a database of business enterprises involved in the
Israeli settlements, stated that “[T]he UN list of 112 companies involved in the Israeli occupation
is an important step toward corporate accountability. However, its narrow focus and restrictive
temporal frame leave out hundreds of complicit corporations and wider structures of disposses-
sion”.110

This was also noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Pales-
tinian territories occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk, who in a July 2021 report to the UN Human
Rights Council deplored the “temporal limitations (limited to the period between January 2018
and August 2019), and the fact that it (the database) only included a fraction of the business
enterprises with activities in the settlements.”111

Moreover, it remains unclear with what regularity the UN Database will be updated due to on-
going political pressure and financial constraints.112 The annual update of the UN Database, as
explicitly requested in UN Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution 31/36 of 2016, and technically
due for publication in February 2021, has not taken place at the time of writing.

35
Therefore, for the purpose of this report, the “Don’t Buy into Occupation” coalition has identified
another 18 business enterprises that are reported to be involved in one or more of the “listed
activities” that constitute the basis for inclusion in the UN Database (see also section 2 on meth-
odology). In total, 130 business enterprises have been identified as being involved in one or more
of the “listed activities”. These 130 business enterprises are listed in Annex 1 and form the basis
for this research into potential financial relationships with European financial institutions.

4.2. Case studies: BNP Paribas, Booking Holding and Heidelberg Cement
This section focuses on three case studies that exemplify different types of involvement in the
Israeli settlement enterprise, including one European financial institution (BNP Paribas) and two
multinationals domiciled in the EU (Booking Holding through Booking.com and Heidelberg Ce-
ment).

The case studies were selected to present a cross-sample based on the type and level of in-
volvement; i.e., financing (BNP Paribas), service provision (Booking Holdings) and supply chain
(HeidelbergCement); scope of financial involvement; and, the adverse impact on Palestinians’
individual and collective rights - as protected persons under international law.

The case studies illustrate a broader phenomenon, and do not suggest that they are the only
business enterprises involved in activities related to the settlements that should merit attention.
For each of the case studies, a short company profile is first provided, followed by a description
of the company's current policy approach toward human rights due diligence. Then the case
study zooms in on how the company is involved in the settlement enterprise, including an over-
view of its financial relationships.

4.2.1. BNP Paribas

Company profile

BNP Paribas is Europe’s largest bank by assets, with a total of 2.52 trillion euro at the end of
2020. It reported revenues of 44.3 billion euro and a net income of 7.1 billion euro.113 Headquar-
tered in France and publicly listed at Euronext Paris, the bank has operations in more than 60
countries worldwide.114 Among its largest shareholders are the Belgian Government (7.7%) and
the Government of Luxembourg (1%).115

Policy approach to human rights due diligence

BNP Paribas has an exclusion list, which discloses the goods and activities that are left out from
the bank’s financing, investments, or transactions. This list is limited to controversial weapons
and business activities with a great risk of health or environmental impacts. It makes no refer-
ence to businesses or sectors that are linked to severe human rights abuses.116

In addition to this exclusion list, BNP Paribas Group has committed itself to a range of voluntary
standards and norms related to human rights, including the UN Global Compact, the UNGPs,
the OECD Guidelines, and the internationally accepted human rights standards as defined in the
International Bill of Human Rights.117

Moreover, BNP Paribas is a member of ‘Entreprises pour les Droits de l’Homme’ (Businesses for
Human Rights), an association of businesses based in Paris, whose goal is “[…] to promote the

36
understanding and integration of human rights within companies by deploying vigilance mea-
sures”.118 BNP Paribas has also signed up to the Equator Principles, thereby reiterating its com-
mitment to conduct human rights due diligence in line with the UNGPs.

In its Statement on Human Rights published in 2012, the bank explicitly stresses its commit-
ment to the framework of ‘Protect, Respect, and Remedy’ as laid out in the UNGPs. Against this
backdrop, BNP Paribas acknowledges its responsibility as a provider of financial services within
the context of these requirements, meaning that it “[…] seeks to ensure it is not complicit, ei-
ther directly or indirectly, in the violation of Human Rights”. For its clients, the bank states that
it expects them to do their business in accordance with international human rights standards.119

In its 2018 Code of Conduct (the most recent version to date), BNP Paribas stresses its special
vigilance “[…] to not be complicit in any potential violation of Human Rights through its financ-
ing and investment activities.”120 The bank’s statements are in line with the key criteria laid out
in the UNGPs and acknowledge the fact that the UNGPs not only apply to production and trade
relationships, but also to financial institutions as enablers of business activities.121 It should be
noted that in the due hearing process for this report, BNP Paribas responded to the DBIO coali-
tion “reassuring” the rigorous application of their Code of Conduct and all of their engagement
policies in all circumstances.

Moreover, BNP Paribas specifically mentions its ambitions to engage with civil society and in-
creasingly participate in Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) dialogue with
external stakeholders.122 In a 2020 publication on “BNP Paribas and human rights”, the bank also
stated that “the BNP Paribas Group uses its influence to encourage clients to respect human
rights as they conduct their business (...) Where there is any suspicion or evidence that a client
of BNP Paribas or a company in its portfolio is seriously breaching human rights, the Group will
conduct an in-depth due diligence investigation and enter into a dialogue with the company
concerned”.123

In 2019, BNP Paribas’ progress towards the implementation of the UNGPs was also assessed in
the BankTrack Human Rights Benchmark, alongside 50 of its banking peers, and given a rating
of 6 points out of a possible 14. BNP Paribas was marked as a “follower”, outside of the leading
group of 10, a “leader” and a “front runner” bank.124

However, in stark contrast to its stated policies and attempts to align itself with the UNGPs,
OECD Guidelines and other relevant international standards, and as evidenced in detail below,
BNP Paribas continues to be broadly involved in the financing of business enterprises that are
deeply entwined in Israeli settlements, thereby strongly contradicting its stated respect for
human rights principles and policies.

37
Overview of involvement in Israeli settlements

In the period from 2018 to May 2021, BNP Paribas has participated in loans or underwriting to the
following analysed business enterprises:

Table 1: Loans and underwritings by BNP Paribas to business enterprises involved in activities
linked to the settlements (2018 to May 2021)

Business enterprise Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)

Siemens Germany 2,767 - 2,767

Alstom France 462 1,087 1,549

Volvo Group Sweden 94 1,268 1,361

Hewlett Packard Enterprise U.S. 368 893 1,260

Cemex Mexico 496 662 1,158

Caterpillar U.S. 1,050 104 1,154

Expedia Group U.S. 200 820 1,020

Delek Group Israel 371 547 918

CNH Industrial The Netherlands 610 186 796

General Mills U.S. 216 529 745

HeidelbergCement Germany 354 243 597

Booking Holdings U.S. 175 417 592

Solvay Belgium 252 250 503

Airbnb U.S. 67 385 451

Cisco Systems U.S. 310 - 310

DXC Technology U.S. 290 10 300

Altice Europe Netherlands 55 231 286

WSP Global Canada 215 17 233

MAN Group Germany 211 - 211

Bank Leumi Israel - 188 188

38
 ACS Group Sweden 89 94 183

Tripadvisor U.S. 60 115 175

Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Israel - 150 150

Motorola Solutions U.S. 79 55 135

Atlas Copco Sweden 101 - 101

Elbit Systems Israel 83 - 83

Terex U.S. - 75 75

Total 8,974 8,326 17,300

Source: Bloomberg and Refinitiv, viewed in May 2021.

BNP Paribas accounted for US$ 8.97 billion or 14% of the total for the largest loan value to the
analysed business enterprises involved in activities linked to the settlements, among European
financial institutions in the period since 2018. Similarly, BNP Paribas also accounted for the larg-
est share in the underwriting of share and bond issuances to such business enterprises. Since
2018, its involvement of US$ 8.33 billion accounted for 17% of the total identified value of under-
writing services provided to the analysed business enterprises (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Key European creditors to companies linked to the settlement enterprise and the role
of BNP Paribas, 2018 to May 2021

Source: Bloomberg and Refinitiv, viewed in May 2021.

39
Based on latest available filing data, BNP Paribas is also a large investor with links to 30 of the
analysed business enterprises involved in activities linked to the settlements:

Table 2: Investments of BNP Paribas in business enterprises involved in activities linked to the
settlements (May 2021, latest filing date)

Business enterprise Country Shareholdings Bond Holdings Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)

Siemens Germany 822 - 822

Cisco Systems U.S. 562 2 564

Alstom France 506 3 509

Booking Holdings U.S. 250 35 285

Motorola Solutions U.S. 252 - 252

Volvo Group Sweden 17 172 189

Caterpillar U.S. 143 - 143

General Mills U.S. 118 1 119

Solvay Belgium 55 43 98

HeidelbergCement Germany 22 60 82

Expedia Group U.S. 58 0 58

Atlas Copco Sweden 55 - 55

ACS Group Spain 14 15 29

DXC Technology U.S. 22 - 22

Bank Hapoalim Israel 22 - 22

Hewlett Pack- U.S. 15 4 19

ard Enterprise

CNH Industrial The Netherlands 13 3 17

CAF Spain 13 - 13

Bank Leumi Israel 9 - 9

Manitou France 6 - 6

Tripadvisor U.S. 6 - 6

40
Terex U.S. 5 0 5

WSP Global Canada 5 - 5

Cemex Mexico 2 - 2

CETCO Mineral U.S. 2 - 2

Technology Group

RE/MAX Holdings U.S. 0.4 0.4

Delek Group Israel 0.2 0.2

Elbit Systems Israel 0.1 0.1

Airbnb U.S. 0.1 0.1

Cellcom Israel Israel 0.0 0.0

Total 2,996 339 3,335

Note: 0 indicates values smaller than US$ 0.05 million.

Source: Bloomberg and Refinitiv, viewed in May 2021.

The picture for investors is more fragmented than for creditors when looking at the broader
European picture, Of the total identified investments of European financial institutions in shares
and bonds of the analysed business enterprises, BNP Paribas owned or managed 2.4% (US$ 3.34
billion) (Figure 2), making it the 12th largest European investor.

Figure 2: Key European investors and role of BNP Paribas (May 2021, latest filing date

Source: Bloomberg and Refinitiv, viewed in May 2021.

41
Previous engagement with BNP Paribas

The financial relationships of BNP Paribas with companies that are implicated in various stages
of the construction, maintenance and expansion of Israeli settlements have been highlighted by
several public campaigns over the past five years.

In 2017, a coalition of French civil society organisations and unions, together with Al-Haq, pub-
lished a report on the financial links of French banks and insurance companies with a group of
five Israeli banks and four companies, and their contribution to the maintenance and expansion
of Israeli settlements. In the report, BNP Paribas was found to hold shares in Bank Hapoalim
and the telecommunications company Cellcom, both Israeli, and to have participated in a loan
to the Israeli Electric Company (IEC).125 The publishing organisations approached BNP Paribas
to request a meeting on multiple occasions in 2016 and 2017 by email and phone calls to the
headquarters, Corporate Social Responsibility departments and local branches as well as at their
annual general meetings. None of the requests for a meeting were answered by BNP Paribas.126

In May 2018, 11.11.11, CNCD-11.11.11, FairFin and Financité published findings on links between Bel-
gian and Israeli banks involved in the settlement enterprise. Besides Deutsche Bank, the research
found that BNP Paribas owned or managed shares of Bank Hapoalim for a total amount of 6.08
million euro.127 Prior research found that Bank Hapoalim had financed various construction and
infrastructure projects in settlements in the West Bank, including the occupied eastern part
of Jerusalem. Moreover, it provided loans and financial services to various settlement region-
al councils, as well as individual settlers.128 Despite this evidence of direct links between Bank
Hapoalim and the settlement enterprise, the value of Bank Hapoalim shares owned or managed
by BNP Paribas subsidiaries has more than tripled since 2018 (Table 2).

Another report commissioned by Belgian organisations 11.11.11 and CNCD 11.11.11, published in June
2018, which looked at four business sectors (unlawful exploitation of natural resources, settle-
ment construction and infrastructure, the provision of financial services to settlements, and tour-
ism) linked to severe breaches of human rights and humanitarian law in the occupied West Bank
including the eastern part of Jerusalem, identified BNP Paribas to have financial relationships
with eight of the analysed business enterprises.129

4.2.2. Booking Holdings

Company profile

Booking Holdings, publicly listed on the NASDAQ, states to be the world’s leading provider
of online travel and related services. It serves consumers and local partners in more than 220
countries and territories through its brands Booking.com, Priceline, Agoda.com, Rentalcars.com,
KAYAK, and OpenTable. Total revenues reached US$ 15.1 billion in 2019 but dropped by more
than half in 2020 to US$ 6.8 billion due to the impact of COVID-19.

Its full subsidiary Booking.com generates a significant share of these revenues.130 Registered in
the Netherlands, Booking.com is an online rental company that focuses on the promotion and
rating of accommodations and the facilitation of travel service reservations covering over 220
countries and territories.131

42
Policy approach to human rights due diligence

Booking.com permits accommodation owners worldwide to register themselves on its website

“[…] provided it complies with legislation applicable to Booking.com and its operations. Where
clearly defined and applicable laws or sanctions prohibit us from offering our services, we fully
comply with such restrictions”.132

Following engagement around a critical shareholder initiative from 2019 which addressed the
company’s procedure for human rights due diligence, Booking Holdings’ 2020 Sustainability
Report states that “[i]n 2020, the company began developing a Booking Holdings Human Rights
Statement and is also in the process of formulating human rights – guiding principles, which aim
to align its brand on best practices”.133 It completed a human rights risk assessment, including a
review of internal policies, analysis of industry wide risks, and identification of high priority areas
for potential human rights impacts.

According to Booking Holdings’ Senior Vice President of Global Compliance and Ethics Officer
E. Andrade: “With our mission to make it easier for everyone to experience the world comes the
responsibility of respecting the human rights of all the parties and stakeholders that we serve.”134

In its Code of Conduct, Booking Holdings stresses its commitment to respecting and promoting
human rights, “[…] by seeking to avoid infringing on the rights of others and working to address
adverse human rights impacts with which we are involved. Our commitment to respect and pro-
mote human rights is based on internationally recognized standards and principles, including the
United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.”135 Booking Holdings re-
fers to its Human Rights Statement for further insights on this commitment. However, as of June
2021, this statement is still “[…] in the process of being drafted and approved.”136

Despite the years-long engagement by civil society, the risk of another shareholder resolution
as well as the inclusion of both Booking Holding and Booking.com in the UN database, both
companies have not yet managed to publish a meaningful policy on its human rights due dil-
igence, nor have they taken comprehensive steps to halt the promotion of services to illegal
settlements.

Overview of involvement in Israeli settlements

Booking.com provides booking services for a range of hotels, guesthouses, and holiday apart-
ments in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem.
While the information provided on the Booking.com site has become somewhat more detailed
than years prior, the types of location descriptions of settlement properties fail to sufficiently
inform potential visitors that an accommodation is situated in occupied Palestinian territory, or
explain that Palestinians cannot freely enter settlements due to access restrictions from the Wall,
and its associated regime including military checkpoints and permit system. More importantly,
given the illegality of the settlements, accommodations should not be listed that are located on
unlawfully expropriated, seized and appropriated land.137 By marketing and profiting from settle-
ment accommodations, which are established by grave violations of international humanitarian
law, Booking.com (and Booking Holdings) is essentially profiting from war crimes and crimes
against humanity, including apartheid, committed in the OPT.

At the time of writing, Booking.com listed, for example, accommodations in the Kfar Adumim,
Almog, Ovnat and Kalia settlements.138 Booking.com categorises these locations as “Palestinian

43
Territory, Israeli settlement” in the property descriptions (see Figure 3 as an example). No clear
reference to the occupied status of the location is made. Meanwhile, a homestay in the settle-
ment neighbourhood Pisgat Ze’ev, in the occupied part of Jerusalem is simply labelled as “Jeru-
salem”.139 The company believes that “[…] clearly describing the listing as an Israeli Settlement
in the Palestinian Territory, along with a link to a detailed map, gives full transparency as to the
nature and coordinates of its location in a manner likely to be read and understood. It also en-
ables any visitor to immediately assess the status of the property in relation to whether it is po-
tentially “situated on illegally occupied Palestinian land,” as the report states, and their comfort
level in staying there”.140 In other words, Booking.com finds no issue with offering, or facilitating
the offering, of accommodations that are located on land that has been acquired by virtue of the
Occupying Power’s extensive acts of unlawful appropriation and conveyance of that property,
which constitute a war crime, and forms a continuation of the Occupying Power’s unlawful acts
and maintenance of the situation resulting from its wrongful acts.

Figure 3: Example of Booking.com listings in occupied territories

Source: Booking.com, ‘Kalia Kibbutz Hotel’141 and ‘Gate Away B&B units’.142

44
For more than five years, Booking.com and its parent, Booking Holdings, have repeatedly been
identified for their involvement in the Israeli settlement enterprise. In February 2015, an article
highlighted Booking.com’s listings of properties in the occupied West Bank, repeatedly falsely
marked as located in “Israel”. Booking.com replied to the request for a statement at the time
by stating that “[w]e try to follow the demand of our customers and try to accommodate them
as best as possible across the globe. Generally for any property that’s located in the West Bank
area, we indicate clearly whether it is in Palestinian territory or part of Israel — whether or not you
call this illegal, disputed, unrecognized, which is not up to us”.143 In such a response, Booking.
com was clearly adamant to ignoring the status of the OPT as occupied territory under interna-
tional law, as recognised by the international community. It further undermines the associated
unlawful and wrongful acts being committed within this context, some of which Booking.com
has been involved in as part of its listings in Israeli settlements.

In addition, Who Profits has covered the listing of settlement properties on Booking.com’s web-
site and the lack of accurate labelling thereof.144 In a report from September 2017, Who Profits
presented findings on the involvement of tourism in settlement activities, also covering the role
of Booking.com.145

In reaction to research published by 11.11.11 and CNCD-11.11.11 in June 2018, highlighting Booking.
com’s listings in the OPT and the provision of misleading location information, Booking Holdings
stated that the label “Israeli settlement” would be added to listings in the eastern part of Jerusa-
lem. No statement in relation to a possible delisting of settlement properties was made.146

In November 2018, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Kerem Navot published a detailed report
on tourist listings in West Bank settlements by Airbnb, Booking.com and other providers, includ-
ing properties built on private Palestinian land. The research found that out of 25 properties in
the West Bank settlements listed on Booking.com at the time, 16 were on land that the Israeli
authorities declared to be “State land”, including areas that had previously been seized for mili-
tary purposes but later designated to be “State land”. Two properties were located on land that
the Israeli authorities expropriated for “public use” and where later, settlements were built for
the use of Israeli civilians only.147 As a follow-up to the report, HRW together with Kerem Navot
and Al-Haq sent a letter to Booking.com in December 2018, urging the company to respect its
responsibilities under the UNGPs to respect human rights in its operations.148

In response to a report published by Amnesty International in January 2019, Booking.com stated

that “[o]ur geographic labeling of properties gives full transparency to customers about where an
accommodation is located and we continuously update and optimise this information. By marking
properties concerned as being in ‘Israeli settlements’ we provide transparency to anybody looking
(or not looking) for accommodations in these territories”.149 However, Booking.com is essentially
listing properties that are intrinsically linked to a war crime, where acts of unlawful land appro-
priation have and continue to take place and which are profiting from services such as the ones
that are maintained by corporate actions such as that of Booking.com.

In 2019, the U.S. investment agency Wespath Institutional Investments filed a shareholder reso-
lution with Booking Holdings noting the company’s practice of hosting listings in conflict zones,
including the OPT. Wespath asked for information about the company’s policies and procedures
to address human rights-related business risks.150 Wespath withdrew the resolution in May 2019
upon Booking Holdings’ agreement to conduct a human rights risk assessment and continue the
dialogue.151

45
European creditors to Booking Holdings in the period from 2018 to May 2021 were Deutsche
Bank, BNP Paribas, HSBC, and Standard Chartered. In total, these four banks provided US$ 590
million in loans and US$ 1.6 billion in underwriting services:

Table 3: European creditors Booking Holdings (2018 to May 2021)

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Deutsche Bank Germany 175 807 982
BNP Paribas France 175 417 592
HSBC UK 120 197 317
Standard Char- UK 120 159 279
tered
Total European 590 1,581 2,171
creditors

Source: Bloomberg and Refinitiv, viewed in May 2021.

Table 4 lists the top-20 European investors of Booking Holdings identified in this research. The
three largest investors with holdings above one billion U.S. dollar are BPCE Group (France), Ja-
nus Henderson (UK), and Crédit Agricole (France). In total, the top-20 European investors own
or manage shares and bonds of Booking Holdings with a value of more than US$ 12 billion.

Table 4: Top-20 European investors Booking Holdings (May 2021, latest filing date)

Investor Country Shareholdings Bondholdings Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BPCE Group France 1,811 41 1,852
Janus Henderson UK 1,484 31 1,515
Crédit Agricole 152
France 1,069 17 1,086
Government Pen- Norway 902 - 902
sion Fund Global
Baillie Gifford UK 783 0.3 783
Independent UK 725 - 725
Franchise Part-
ners
AKO Capital UK 639 - 639
Legal & General UK 616 16 631
Deutsche Bank Germany 544 43 588
DZ Bank Germany 556 - 556
Allianz Germany 449 44 493
HSBC UK 481 1 481
Schroders UK 401 - 401
Assenagon Luxembourg 352 - 352
BNP Paribas France 250 35 285

46
 Marathon Asset UK 217 - 217
Management (UK)
Rothschild Group France 199 0.2 199
Société Générale France 168 0.2 168
KBC Group Belgium 166 - 166
Barclays UK 155 - 155
Total top-20 Euro- 11,966 229 12,195
pean investors

Source: Bloomberg and Refinitiv, viewed in May 2021.

4.2.3. HeidelbergCement AG

Company profile

Headquartered in Germany and publicly listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, Heidelberg-
Cement is one of the world’s largest building materials companies, operating in more than 40
countries. Key activities include the production and distribution of cement and aggregates as
raw materials for the manufacture of concrete, as well as downstream activities in ready-mixed
concrete and asphalt.153 For the financial year 2020, the company reported revenues of 17.6 bil-
lion euro and a loss of 2.1 billion euro.154

In 2007, HeidelbergCement Group (Germany) acquired the Hanson Group (Israel), with Hanson
Israel part of the acquisition. Hanson Israel produces aggregates, asphalt, and ready-mixed con-
crete in 25 concrete and two aggregates plants, as well as one asphalt plant.155 According to its
website, Hanson Israel provides more than 20% of the country's demand for aggregate and con-
crete products.156 With its acquisition, HeidelbergCement also acquired the Nahal Raba quarry
with an integrated asphalt plant, located in Al-Zawiya village in Salfit, classified as Area C of the
occupied West Bank. Two ready-mixed concrete plants (Modi’in Illit and Atarot) located in the
occupied West Bank were also part of the package but have been closed respectively in Quarter
4 (Q4) 2017 and Quarter 1 (Q1) 2018.157

Policy approach to human rights due diligence

In its 2018 Sustainability Report, HeidelbergCement discussed the operation of the Nahal Raba
Quarry by its subsidiary Hanson Israel. It referred to the dismissal by the Israeli Supreme Court
in 2011 of a lawsuit initiated by Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din in July 2009 as a con-
firmation that “[…] the quarrying of aggregates was thus deemed as being in compliance with
international law, since it offers advantages to the Palestinian population and makes hardly any
impact on local resources”.158

Yesh Din had filed a petition with the Israeli High Court to demand the overall cessation of aggre-
gates mining by foreign companies in the OPT, including the Nahal Raba Quarry. The High Court
of Justice, in contradiction of international law and principles, and in a widely criticised ruling159,
distorted the application of Article 43 along with Article 55 of the Hague Regulations, arguing
that the prolonged nature of the occupation, enabled the State and private Israeli enterprises to
exploit quarries in the occupied West Bank.160 The topic is not mentioned in the 2019 Sustainabil-
ity Report by HeidelbergCement.161

47
The company’s ‘Human Rights Position’, last updated in April 2020, applies to all companies
directly or indirectly controlled by HeidelbergCement. It commits the company to its responsi-
bility to respect human rights, including the UNGPs, as well as the OECD Guidelines. The position
stresses the group’s “special responsibility towards our neighbours.” Moreover, it points to its
separate Code of Business Conduct, which outlines ethical and legal standards.162 In this Code
of Conduct, the company states that “[…] we strive to prevent and mitigate negative impacts
on human rights that have a connection with our business through our business relationships. In
order to prevent and minimise the risks of adverse impacts on human rights in our surroundings,
we also maintain a continuous dialogue with the local community, organisations and government
agencies.”163

In its 2020 Annual Report, the company states that it applies “a zero tolerance policy to vio-
lations” of all its laws and internal guidelines relating to human rights. HeidelbergCement fur-
ther reports on a systematic assessment of human rights risks which continued in 2020. For its
country organisations, the only human rights cases reported referred to health and occupational
safety in 2020.164 In its 2020 Sustainability Report, HeidelbergCement repeated its commit-
ments to human rights and related norms and guidelines, and reports that “we intensified our
efforts to protect human rights at our own locations.”165 These statements ignore grave human
rights violations in the group’s operations in the OPT, as documented by various civil society
organisations.166

Overview of involvement in Israeli settlements

The land on which the Nahal Raba quarry is located belongs to the Palestinian village of Al-Za-
wiya. Nearby villages include Mas’ha to the north, Bidya to the east and Rafat to the south (see
Figure 4). The Israeli Civil Administration had unlawfully confiscated the land on which the Nahal
Raba quarry was established in the 1980s by declaring it “State land”.

According to Human Rights Watch, Israel declared the land on which the quarry is located as
“State land” by way of an “[…] aggressive interpretation of an Ottoman law whereby land, even
if privately owned, reverts to the state if not cultivated or otherwise used for three consecutive
years. Israel built its separation barrier to encompass the quarry from the east, unlawfully divert-
ing the route of the barrier into occupied territory from the pre-1967 armistice line. The barrier
seamlessly connects the quarry to Israeli territory and separates the nearby Palestinian village of
Zawiyah from its lands”.167

For the operation of the quarry, the local Palestinian population has been faced with the sys-
temic restrictions on access to their land and natural resources, including through land confis-
cation and the construction of the Separation Wall. As explained by SOMO and Al-Haq, “[l]and
confiscated from Al-Zawiya and Rafat villages has been used for the construction of the Wall, for
military and alleged security purposes, including those benefiting the quarry and its activities.
[…] Israel built part of the Wall to encompass the quarry from the east, annexing the land into
Israeli territory. The Wall has also separated Palestinian villages, including Al-Zawiya and Rafat,
from their lands and prevented owners and farmers from accessing their land”.168

As mentioned above, in July 2009, the Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din took legal ac-
tion against the illegal mining activities carried out by Israeli and multinational corporations un-
der Israel’s administration in quarries in Area C of the occupied West Bank. Following that, Hei-
delbergCement has used the Israeli High Court of Justice’s controversial ruling from December
2011, which enables the exploitation of quarries in the occupied West Bank, as a justification for
its activities.169 However, as mentioned earlier, the law of occupation clearly provides that an Oc-

48
cupying Power may not use the natural resources, especially the non-renewable resources, of the
occupied territory for its own economic purposes, and may only use the fruits of these resources
for the benefit of the local population or to defray the administrative costs of the occupation.

Figure 4: Location of HeidelbergCement’s Nahal Raba Quarry in the occupied West Bank

Note: In pink, the current quarrying area; in red, the requested expansion area; in blue, the Sepa-
ration Wall. Source: Al-Haq, ‘Virtual field visit to the Nahal Raba Quarry’.170

In 2013 and 2018, critical shareholders filed resolutions at HeidelbergCement’s Annual General
Meeting (AGM) to not grant discharge to the members of the board over the breach of inter-
national law in the occupied territories.171 HRW’s report “Occupation Inc.” from January 2016
highlighted the payment of royalties to Israel for the resources that Hanson Israel extracts from
the Nahal Raba quarry.172 Royalties proportionate to the volume of substances quarried are paid
by HeidelbergCement to the Israeli Civil Administration, the body established under military
order to administer the OPT.173 In 2019, the company paid “[…] approx. 1 million in royalties, ap-
prox. 50,000 for the land lease and approx. 1 million in municipality taxes” for the extraction of
resources in the OPT.174

In response to allegations by HRW of continued sale of goods from the quarry to Israeli settle-
ments, despite earlier claims of not selling building materials to Israeli settlements in the West
Bank or the construction of border protection systems175, HeidelbergCement replied in June
2020 that three alleged deliveries were investigated176. In response to a draft version of the cur-
rent research, HeidelbergCement clarified in July 2021 that for:

“[…]the delivery to Etz Efra‘im […] the truck must be a former contractual partner who
still has our logo on his truck […]. The delivery to Modi‘in Illit is a short-term rerouting
by the customer. The customer himself has his headquarters on the western side of the
“Green Line”. For this delivery, however, he supplied a construction site on the east side
in Modi‘in Illit. This was a commercial building. The delivery to Nokdim took place for a
customer in the greater Jerusalem area”.177

49
HRW’s research further found that most of the concrete and asphalt from the quarry was sold
on the Israeli market or exported abroad, instead of being used for the benefit of the local
population. Similar in reaction to other reports, the company stressed in a reply that taxes and
royalties paid by the quarry exclusively reach the Israeli Civil Administration, who uses them to
finance local projects, such as infrastructure developments.178 Palestinian residents in the village
of Al-Zawiya, on which the quarry has been established and operating, strongly refute this claim.
In fact, local residents from Al-Zawiya strongly deny that Israeli authorities provide any services
for their community, and state that they are prevented from building roads or other infrastruc-
ture for alleged security reasons.179

In the due hearing process for a June 2018 report by 11.11.11 and CNCD-11.11.11, HeidelbergCement
stated that “[p]roof of such projects of the past can be found in the Internet, e.g. “Projects in
area C 2012”; however, the company was not able to earmark specific projects benefiting from
royalties paid by the Nahal Raba quarry.180 If anything, Al-Haq and SOMO state that the royalties
paid to the settlement regional councils, from the exploitation of non-renewable finite quarried
resources in the West Bank, directly benefits the settlements, at the expense of Palestinians
(the protected population), and that that HeidelbergCement may be complicit in the crime of
pillage.181

In the due hearing process for this report, HeidelbergCement claimed that the quarry “was set
up in 1986 in accordance with the provisions of the Jordanian Planning Act No. 79 from 1966 in
compliance with international law rules enshrining validity of previously existing legal systems
in occupied areas”.182 The response went on to claim that “licensing took place after a detailed
examination of the ownership situation, an environmental impact assessment and a compre-
hensive approval and plan approval process, which gives the residents affected extensive rights
of objection and say”.183 However, a 2020 report by Al-Haq and SOMO reveals how the Israeli
military administration altered the entire planning regime in the OPT, in violation of the laws
governing occupation, in order to prevent Palestinian participation and objection to land zoned
for settlements:

“[I]n 1970–1971, Israel altered the Jordanian Planning Law by Military Orders No. 393 and
418, transferring the competence on such matters to the Israeli Civil Administration’s Lo-
cal Planning and Licensing Subcommittee. The illegal alteration and manipulation of the
Jordanian Planning Law by Israel, in breach of Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, has
since facilitated the construction of settlements and the denial of building permits for
Palestinians in the West Bank and removed Palestinian participation from the planning
process for the villages and cities”.184

It would be impossible for Palestinians to have their “rights of objection and say” heard in a
planning process, as HeidelbergCement claims. In 2018, the company confirmed that it started
a disposal process to sell the Nahal Raba Quarry and the adjacent asphalt and concrete plant.185

Nonetheless, in February 2019, the Israeli military confiscated around 10 hectares (98 dunums) of
privately-owned land from Rafat village and declared it “State land” for the expansion of the Na-
hal Raba Quarry operations.186 In January 2020, Hanson Israel submitted a request to the Central
Planning Bureau of the Israeli Civil Administration, within the Ministry of Defence, to expand the
area of the existing Nahal Raba quarry (No 52/14/2).187 Various civil society actors and residents
of the affected Palestinian communities from Al-Zawiya, Rafat, and Deir Balut submitted objec-
tions to those plans.188 Questioned about the expansion for a February 2020 report by SOMO
and Al-Haq, HeidelbergCement stated it does “not intend to extend [its] own quarrying busi-
ness” but rather that the permit extension is a “mere measure to ensure the sale of the quarry”. 189

50
In other words, the company is aiming to increase the market value of the quarry and the at-
tached operations, before disposing of it to another company, while requesting additional land
may result in additional unlawful expropriations and appropriations of Palestinian property,
which would continue the process of pillage and destruction of the natural resources therein.

Irrespectively, HeidelbergCement maintains that it upholds its responsibility under international

law within the context of its operations in the quarry, including by responsible disengagement
from the quarry and affording the appropriate remedy for all those affected. Moreover, Heidel-
bergCement apparently considers its human rights due diligence and responsibility fulfilled by
dissociating from the disputed operations. However, disengaging from an activity, while con-
tinuing to actively contribute to additional violations resulting from the unlawful appropriation
and expropriation of property, cannot replace comprehensive actions to prevent, mitigate and
remediate human rights violations.190

HeidelbergCement has repeatedly claimed its Nahal Raba Quarry operations are in-line with
international norms, pointing to the fact that the majority of quarry employees are Palestinians
from the West Bank, working under equal conditions as Israeli employees. It states that the quar-
ry “[…] provides significant advantages for the local Palestinian population in the West Bank and
[…] the impact on the overall reserve position in Palestine is very small.”191 However, in reality the
number of Palestinians employed by Hanson Israel, HeidelbergCement’s subsidiary, at the Nahal
Raba quarry amounts to a mere 38 workers in total.192

The alleged justifications to provide job opportunities and equal working conditions have been
challenged by different organisations, including workers’ statements collected and published by
Al-Haq in 2021.193 As outlined in a letter by HRW to the company from May 2020, HeidelbergCe-
ment’s employing Palestinian workers cannot in any case remedy any contributions to serious
violations of international humanitarian law. Even if the business enterprise in this context is
‘benefiting’ Palestinians in one way or another, it certainly does not exempt it of its responsibili-
ties under international law.194 According to the OHCHR:

“[T]he employment of Palestinians, even on favourable terms, does not exempt business-
es of their responsibilities under the Guiding Principles concerning their overall engage-
ment in or with the settlements. The Guiding Principles make clear that, while business
enterprises may undertake certain commitments or activities to  support and promote
human rights, these ‘do not offset a failure to respect human  rights throughout their
operations”.195

Moreover, it does not mitigate the harm that the Israeli settlements and related policies cause
to the Palestinian economy.196 The exploitation of natural resources means that the Palestinian
people are denied their right to self-determination and permanent sovereignty over their natu-
ral resources.197 By profiting from the depletion of Palestinian finite quarry resources individual
corporate actors may be held criminally liable for complicity in the crimes of appropriation, envi-
ronmental destruction and the pillage of natural resources.198 Losses to the Palestinian economy
from the exploitation of quarries in the occupied West Bank, including the Nahal Raba quarry,
have been estimated at US$ 900 million annually.199

Important European creditors to HeidelbergCement in the period from 2018 to May 2021 in-
cluded Deutsche Bank, Danske Bank, BNP Paribas, and Crédit Agricole (Table 5). In total, the 16
identified creditors provided loans with a value of US$ 5.7 billion and underwriting services for a
total of US$ 2.7 billion in the analysed period.

51
Table 5: European creditors HeidelbergCement (2018 to May 2021)

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Deutsche Bank Germany 354 493 846
Danske Bank Denmark 354 243 597
BNP Paribas France 354 243 597
Crédit Agricole France 354 229 582
ING Group Netherlands 354 229 582
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 354 197 551
Mediobanca Banca di Italy 354 155 509
Credito Finanziario
BayernLB Germany 354 155 509
Raiffeisen Bank Interna- Austria 354 140 494
tional
Landesbank Baden-Würt- Germany 354 140 494
temberg (LBBW)
Commerzbank Germany 354 109 463
Barclays UK 354 109 463
Svenska Handelsbanken Sweden 354 109 463
Landesbank Hes- Germany 354 109 463
sen-Thüringen
Standard Chartered UK 354 88 442
Skandinaviska Enskilda Sweden 354 - 354
Banken
Total 5,662 2,748 8,410

Source: Bloomberg and Refinitiv, viewed in May 2021.

Table 6 lists the top-20 European investors of HeidelbergCement that this research identified.
The three largest investors are Deutsche Bank (Germany), Deka Group (Germany) and Crédit
Agricole (France). In total, the top-20 European investors own or manage shares and bonds of
HeidelbergCement with a value of more than US$ 1.8 billion.

Table 6: Top-20 European investors HeidelbergCement (May 2021, latest filing date)

Investor Country Shareholdings Bondholdings Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Deutsche Bank Germany 443 39 481
Deka Group 200
Germany 177 20 197
Crédit Agricole France 67 98 165
Bestinver Spain 138 - 138
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 74 33 107
DZ Bank Germany 61 27 87

52
BNP Paribas France 22 60 82
Government Pen- Norway 74 - 74
sion Fund Global
HSBC UK 66 6 72
Allianz Germany 36 32 68
Landesbank Germany 49 13 62
Baden-Württem-
berg (LBBW)
Zadig Asset Man- UK 57 - 57
agement
Société Générale France 38 9 47
Standard Life Ab- UK 20 7 27
erdeen
Raiffeisen Bank Austria 1 26 27
International
Aegon Netherlands 2 23 25
Metropole Gestion France 23 - 23
Rothschild Group France 11 11 22
Skandinaviska Sweden 19 2 22
Enskilda Banken
Algemeen Burger- Netherlands 21 - 21
lijk Pensioenfonds
(ABP)
Total 405 1,400 1,805

Source: Bloomberg and Refinitiv, viewed in May 2021.

4.3. Relationships between listed business

enterprisesand European Financial Institutions

This section outlines the financial relationships including loans, underwriting services and share-
and bondholdings, between the 130 companies identified for the purpose of this report (see An-
nex 1) and European financial institutions. It is based on financial research conducted by Dutch
research and advice company Profundo. In total, 50 business enterprises (including Booking and
HeidelbergCement) were found to have financial relationships with European financial institu-
tions.

All data mentioned are valid until May 2021. Since then, two Norwegian financial institutions
(Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP), and Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG)) have
announced a decision to exclude several businesses that are actively involved with Israeli settle-
ments. More details on these decisions can be found in section 5.1.

ACS Group
ACS Group is a Spanish construction and infrastructure development company. Its wholly-owned
subsidiary SEMI is specialized in the maintenance and installation of electric power lines, railway
electrification, communications infrastructures, and industrial facilities.

53
SEMI won a tender of NIS 2 billion to execute the electrification of Israel’s railway network,
including the A1 Tel Aviv Jerusalem Fast Train. According to Who Profits, the route of this A1
Fast Train crosses the Green Line into the OPT in two areas, unlawfully using public and private
Palestinian land in the OPT to serve an Israeli transportation project aimed exclusively for
Israeli citizens, in violation of international law. Who Profits also states that the appropriation
of Palestinian land hinders the access of Palestinians to their agricultural lands and undermines
economic development.201

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to ACS Group in the period 2018- May
2021.

Creditor Country Loans (US$ mil- Underwriting Total (US$

lion) (US$ million) million)
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Spain 228 185 413
Argentaria (BBVA)
HSBC United Kingdom 89 279 368
Société Générale France 76 279 355
La Caixa Group Spain 122 231 352
BPCE Group France 76 185 261
UniCredit Italy 122 94 216
Santander Spain 111 94 205
BNP Paribas France 89 94 183
ING Group Netherlands 76 94 170
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 111 111
BayernLB Germany 111 111
Crédit Agricole France 111 111
Banco de Sabadell Spain 53 56 109
BFA Holding Spain 89 89
NatWest United Kingdom 89 89
Mediobanca Banca di Italy 72 72
Credito Finanziario
Kutxabank Spain 53 53
Instituto de Credito Spain 53 53
Oficial
Commerzbank Germany 39 39
Landesbank Hes- Germany 33 33
sen-Thüringen
Bankinter Spain 30 30
Caja Rural Spain 27 27
Abanca Spain 22 22
Crédit Mutuel CIC France 17 17
Group
Deutsche Bank Germany 16 16
Erste Group Austria 11 11

54
 Ibercaja Group Spain 8 8
Arquia Caja de Arqui- Spain 6 6
tectos
Unicaja Banco Spain 4 4
Banca March Spain 2 2
Liberbank Group Spain 2 2
Caja de Ingenieros Spain 2 2

The table below lists the top European investors in ACS Group. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Norway 152
Global
Santander Spain 100
Allianz Germany 59
HSBC United Kingdom 56
Deka Group Germany 42
Crédit Agricole France 37
Société Générale France 32
Deutsche Bank Germany 32
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentar- Spain 31
ia (BBVA)
BNP Paribas France 29

Airbnb
Airbnb is a globally operating digital tourism company headquartered in the U.S. It acts as a
broker for private individuals who want to rent out their accommodation for a short period of
time. Airbnb offers short-term rentals in various Israeli settlements on its website. The settlement
location is in most cases not clear from the descriptions of the properties. In their 2018 report
“Bed and Breakfast on Stolen Land”, HRW argues that the business activity that Airbnb conducts
on these sites helps make West Bank settlements more profitable and therefore sustainable, thus
facilitating Israel’s unlawful transfer of its citizens to the settlements.202 Airbnb is also one of the
112 business enterprises included in the UN Database.

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom,
and Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Airbnb in the period 2018 - May
2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Barclays United Kingdom 43 818 861
BNP Paribas France 67 385 451
Deutsche Bank Germany 218 218

55
The table below lists the top European investors in Airbnb. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Galileo United Kingdom 574
BPCE Group France 215
Apoletto United Kingdom 185
Polar Capital Holdings United Kingdom 82
Marshall Wace United Kingdom 68
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 30
Allianz Germany 25
Legal & General United Kingdom 14
Deutsche Bank Germany 14
Société Générale France 14

Alstom
Alstom is a French international energy and transportation company. The company is involved in
the Jerusalem Light Rail, which connects the illegal settlements in the occupied eastern part of
Jerusalem with the western part of the city. In 2019, Alstom withdrew from a tender after significant
pressure from civil society.203 However, job postings published by the Israeli government over the
past two years strongly suggest that Alstom continues to perform maintenance work on the
Jerusalem Light Rail. Moreover, in January 2021 Alstom purchased Bombardier Transportation.
According to Who Profits, Bombardier Transportation is collaborating with Israel Railways on
a train connection between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem that crosses the Green Line in two areas,
unlawfully using public and private Palestinian land in the OPT to serve an Israeli transportation
project aimed exclusively for Israeli citizens.204

Alstom is also one of the 112 business enterprises included in the UN Database.

In July 2021, Alstom was part of one of the consortia approved to bid on the Blue and Purple line
tender for the Jerusalem Light Rail, which will connect settlement neighbourhoods in the south
and north of the city.205

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Alstom in the period 2018 - May
2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 462 1,087 1,549
Société Générale France 536 545 1,081
Crédit Agricole France 352 378 730
HSBC United Kingdom 411 260 670
UniCredit Italy 521 132 653
BPCE Group France 352 260 611

56
Crédit Mutuel CIC Group France 336 132 468
Santander Spain 352 352
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Ar- Spain 352 352
gentaria (BBVA)
Commerzbank Germany 336 336
Deutsche Bank Germany 194 132 326
NatWest United Kingdom 194 132 326
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 120 120
Swedbank Sweden 105 105
Raiffeisen Bank Interna- Austria 105 105
tional
Erste Group Austria 105 105
BayernLB Germany 89 89

The table below lists the top European investors in Alstom. The data refers to shares and bonds
held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

BNP Paribas France 509
Crédit Agricole France 375
Oddo BHF France 348
BPCE Group France 268
Baillie Gifford United Kingdom 266
Aviva United Kingdom 257
Deutsche Bank Germany 188
HSBC United Kingdom 124
Moneta Asset Management France 124
Standard Life Aberdeen United Kingdom 110

Altice Europe
Altice Europe is a multinational company based in the Netherlands that is active in the field of
telecommunications. Through its Israeli subsidiary, Hot Telecommunication Systems, Altice holds
a special permit (valid until November 2023) from the Israeli Civil Administration (ICA) for the
provision of cable television and telecommunication services to Israeli settlements in the OPT.
According to Who Profits, another fully owned Israeli subsidiary, Hot Mobile, operates hundreds
of cellular antennas and telecommunication infrastructure facilities in the occupied West Bank,
including the eastern part of Jerusalem, some of which are located on confiscated private Pales-
tinian land, and pays royalties to Israeli settlements.206

Who Profits also states that both subsidiaries operate multiple sales and customer service cen-
tres in Israeli settlements, while Hot Mobile operates the communication network installed in the
Jerusalem Light Rail’s motor coaches and holds at least four cellular antennas in military check-
points across the OPT.207

57
The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom,
and Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Altice Europe in the period
2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans (US$ mil- Underwriting Total

lion) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Crédit Agricole France 91 231 322
BNP Paribas France 55 231 286
ING Group Netherlands 231 231
Société Générale France 231 231
Barclays United Kingdom 231 231
Deutsche Bank Germany 231 231

Ashtrom Group
Ashtrom is one of the largest Israeli construction and infrastructure companies. According to
Who Profits, it has been involved in the construction of various Israeli settlements in the OPT
since the early days of the Israeli occupation.208 In addition, Ashtrom operates the Adumit Quarry
in the Mishor Adumim settlement industrial zone in the West Bank and, via its subsidiary Isra-
Beton, it operates a concrete plant in the Atarot settlement industrial zone. The company has
also carried out several projects in three Israeli prisons, including Ofer prison situated in the OPT,
where Palestinian political prisoners are being detained. Until February 2020, Ashtrom was also
involved in the construction of the Jerusalem Light Rail, as part of the CityPass consortium.209

Ashtrom is one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Ashtrom. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 0.7
ACATIS Investment Germany 0.2
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.1
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.04

Atlas Copco210
Atlas Copco is a global, industrial company based in Stockholm, Sweden, with almost 40,000
employees and customers in more than 180 countries. It produces, among others, compressors,
vacuum solutions, generators, pumps, power tools and assembly systems.211

Research by Who Profits has documented Atlas Copco equipment at the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem
fast train line (A1) construction sites, which connects several Israeli settlements in the occupied
West Bank with Israel. According to Who Profits, in 2018 Atlas Copco won a tender to provide
equipment for the Israeli army, while in 2019 Atlas Copco equipment has been documented at
the infamous Qalandia checkpoint in the West Bank and the eastern part of Jerusalem.212

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and

58
Norway which provided loans and underwriting services to Atlas Copco in the period 2018- May
2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Nordea Finland 101 - 101
BNP Paribas France 101 - 101
Skandinaviska Sweden 101 - 101
Enskilda Banken
Danske Bank Denmark 101 - 101
Deutsche Bank Germany 101 - 101
Svenska Handels- Sweden 11 - 11
banken213

The table below lists the top European investors in Atlas Copco. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Investor AB Sweden 10,591
Alecta Sweden 2,364
Swedbank 214
Sweden 2,196
Baillie Gifford United Kingdom 1,858
Government Pension Fund Global 215
Norway 1,145
Svenska Handelsbanken Sweden 1,110
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken Sweden 785
Allianz Germany 742
Folksam Sweden 713
AMF Pensionsförsäkring Sweden 573

Bank Hapoalim
According to Who Profits and others, Bank Hapoalim provides financing for construction projects
in Israeli settlements in the occupied territory, provides loans to regional settlement authorities,
and provides financing for the Jerusalem Light Rail project. It also operates various branches in
settlements in the West Bank and the eastern part of Jerusalem.216 Bank Hapoalim is one of the
112 business enterprises included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Bank Hapoalim. The data refers to shares
and bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 56
BNP Paribas France 22
Deutsche Bank Germany 7

59
Legal & General217 United Kingdom 7
Schroders United Kingdom 4
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 3
NN Group Netherlands 3
Nykredit Group Denmark 2
Standard Life Aberdeen United Kingdom 2
HSBC United Kingdom 1

Bank Leumi
According to Who Profts and others, Bank Leumi provides financing for construction projects
in Israeli settlements in the OPT, provides loans to local authorities of settlements, and provides
financing for the Jerusalem Light Rail project. It also operates various branches in West Bank and
the occupied eastern Jerusalem settlements.218 Bank Leumi is one of the 112 business enterprises
included in the UN Database.

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Bank Leumi in the period 2018- May
2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
HSBC United Kingdom 188 188
BNP Paribas France 188 188

The table below lists the top European investors in Bank Leumi. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 68
M&G United Kingdom 17
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 13
Aviva United Kingdom 10
BNP Paribas France 9
Deutsche Bank Germany 8
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 8
Legal & General United Kingdom 6
HSBC United Kingdom 6
BankInvest Denmark 5
AXA France 5

60
Bezeq Group
According to Who Profits, the publicly listed Israeli telecommunication company Bezeq
provides telecommunication services to all Israeli settlements, army bases and checkpoints in
the occupied West Bank, and builds and maintains settlement infrastructure in the OPT.219 Who
Profits also argues that the company enjoys access to the Palestinian market as a captive market,
as it collects revenues from Palestinian operators for all international calls, all calls to the West
Bank, and many intra-Gaza calls, as well as internet traffic.220 Bezeq is also one of the 112 business
enterprises included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Bezeq. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 85
Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds (ABP) Netherlands 4
Schroders United Kingdom 2
Allianz Germany 2
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 2
Mediobanca Banca di Credito Finanziario Italy 1
Jupiter Fund Management United Kingdom 1
Standard Life Aberdeen United Kingdom 1
Janus Henderson United Kingdom 1
M&G United Kingdom 1

Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF)

CAF is a Spanish company that, according to Who Profits, is involved in the ongoing extension
of the Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR), an Israeli public tramway system that serves Israeli settlements
in the occupied and annexed eastern part of Jerusalem.221
In 2019, the Jerusalem Transportation Masterplan Team (the Israeli public entity managing the
public transport in Jerusalem, in conjunction with the Israeli Jerusalem municipality and the
Israeli Ministry of Transport), awarded a€1.8bn contract for the expansion of Israel’s JLR system
to the TransJerusalem J-Net Ltd, a consortium company established by the Israeli construction
company Shapir (listed in the February 2020 UN database), Superbus, and CAF. The project in-
cludes the extension of the existing ‘Red Line’ and the construction of a new ‘Green Line’ of the
JLR, as well as the supply of vehicles and technical services for the maintenance of the transpor-
tation network. The work on the new network started officially on 5 November 2020. The new
network is expected to be fully operational by 2025.222

In July 2021, CAF was part of one of the consortia approved to bid on the Blue and Purple line
tender for the Jerusalem Light Rail, which will connect settlement neighbourhoods in the south
and north of the city.223

The table below lists the top European investors in CAF. The data refers to shares held or man-
aged by these investors at the latest available filing date.

61
Investor Country Value (US$ million)
Kutxabank Spain 222
Santander Spain 50
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 40
EDM Group Spain 27
Bestinver Spain 17
Crédit Agricole France 16
NN Group Netherlands 15
BNP Paribas France 13
Fondbolaget Fondita AB224 Finland 13
La Caixa Group Spain 12

Caterpillar
According to Who Profits, U.S. company Caterpillar is a long-standing supplier of the Israeli
military and provides it with a variety of heavy engineering machinery, including different
wheel loaders, armoured excavators, mini loaders, and several models from the D9 armoured
bulldozer series (D9R, D9N, and D9L).225 Who Profits states that D9s have been used for unlawful
operations such as large-scale house demolitions,226 land-clearing missions in Palestinian towns,
and the arrest or killing of Palestinian persons (using the “pressure cooker procedure”).227 In
addition, Who Profits states that Caterpillar machines have also been used for the construction
of settlements and related infrastructure, the Separation Wall and roadblocks.228

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway which provided loans and underwriting services to Caterpillar in the period 2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Société Générale France 2,050 630 2,680
Barclays United Kingdom 1,550 423 1,973
BNP Paribas France 1,050 104 1,154
HSBC United Kingdom 1,050 101 1,151
Commerzbank Germany 1,033 73 1,106

Lloyds Banking Group United Kingdom 900 90 990

Deutsche Bank Germany 850 89 939
ING Group Netherlands 850 87 937
Standard Chartered United Kingdom 783 56 840
KBC Group 229
Belgium 583 18 602
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Spain 250 13 263
Argentaria (BBVA)

The table below lists the top European investors in Caterpillar. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

62
 Investor Country Value (US$ million)
Government Pension Fund Norway 879
Global
Legal & General United Kingdom 809
Crédit Agricole France 781
BPCE Group France 619
Allianz Germany 359
Deutsche Bank Germany 358
HSBC United Kingdom 189
Barclays United Kingdom 187
Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioen- Netherlands 180
fonds (ABP)
Prudential (UK) United Kingdom 147

Cellcom Israel
According to Who Profits, the Israeli telecommunications company Cellcom provides cellular, ISP,
ILD, landline and ‘network end point’ services to Israeli settlements in Area C under a non-exclu-
sive license from the Israeli Ministry of Communications230, while also providing services through
sales and customer service centres in the settlements of Ariel, Modi’in Illit, and Beitar Illit and in
occupied eastern part of Jerusalem. Who Profits argues that the company enjoys the structural
advantages of Israeli telecommunication operators over Palestinian competitors in the Palestin-
ian market.231
Cellcom Israel is also one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Cellcom. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 4.4
Barclays United Kingdom 0.04
Marshall Wace United Kingdom 0.04
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.02
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.01

Cemex
Cemex is a Mexican building materials company. It wholly owns the Israeli company, Readymix
Industries, which operates at least three concrete plants in the OPT, in the Mishor Adumim,
Mevoh Horon, and Atarot settlements.232 Who Profits states that the company has provided
concrete elements for the construction of illegal settlements and the Separation Wall.233 In a
2015 letter to the Business & Human Rights Resource Center (BHRRC), Cemex confirmed that it
indeed provides building materials to settlements, explaining that the plants were located in “[...]
legal settlements, approved by the Israeli government”.234

63
The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Cemex in the period 2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 496 662 1,158
Santander Spain 428 510 938
Crédit Agricole France 447 379 826
HSBC United Kingdom 487 304 791
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Ar- Spain 386 379 766
gentaria (BBVA)
ING Group Netherlands 447 304 750
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 319 397 716
NatWest United Kingdom 328 328
BayernLB Germany 316 316
Société Générale France 302 302
Crédit Mutuel CIC Group France 295 295
Banco de Sabadell 235
Spain 8 8

The table below lists the top European investors in Cemex. The data refers to shares and bonds
held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Baillie Gifford United Kingdom 271
BPCE Group France 181
Schroders United Kingdom 96
Universities Superannuation Scheme United Kingdom 66
Hosking Partners United Kingdom 48
RWC Partners United Kingdom 46
Deutsche Bank Germany 35
DJE Kapital Germany 21
Allianz Germany 21
Crédit Agricole France 18

CETCO Mineral Technology Group

According to Who Profits, U.S. company CETCO Mineral Technology Group is involved in the
construction of the Bypass Pipeline water project, which will transport water extracted from
Palestinian water sources to nearby settlements.236

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to CETCO Mineral Technology Group
in the period 2018- May 2021.

64
 Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total
(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Barclays United Kingdom 18 100 118

The table below lists the top European investors in CETCO Mineral Technology Group. The data
refers to shares and bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 29
AXA France 22
BPCE Group France 21
Standard Life Aberdeen United Kingdom 12
Legal & General United Kingdom 5
Argenta Belgium 4
Man Group United Kingdom 4
Assicurazioni Generali Italy 3
Barclays United Kingdom 2
Deutsche Bank Germany 2

Cisco Systems
Cisco Systems is a network solution provider headquartered in the U.S. According to Who Profits,
as part of the Digital Initiative launched in 2018 in collaboration with the Israeli government, its
subsidiary, Cisco Israel, is establishing technological hubs.237 The hub locations include the Sha’ar
Binyamin industrial zone in the regional council of the Mateh Binyamin settlement in the occupied
West Bank, with plans for additional hubs in the Modi’in Illit and Beitar Illit settlements.238 The
hubs aim to strengthen entrepreneurship and employment in the settlements.239

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom,
and Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Cisco Systems in the period
2018- May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Deutsche Bank Germany 659 - 659
Barclays United Kingdom 480 - 480
BNP Paribas France 310 - 310
HSBC United Kingdom 245 - 245

The table below lists the top European investors in Cisco Systems. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

65
Investor Country Value (US$ million)
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 2,027
Legal & General United Kingdom 1,569
Nordea Finland 1,481
BPCE Group France 1,330
Generation IM United Kingdom 1,202
Deutsche Bank Germany 1,032
Crédit Agricole France 819
Allianz Germany 650
DZ Bank Germany 640
Janus Henderson United Kingdom 607

CNH Industrial240

CNH Industrial is a multinational manufacturer of agricultural and construction equipment,

trucks, commercial vehicles and buses. It is incorporated in the Netherlands with executive offic-
es in the UK and public listings in Italy and the U.S.241 According to Who Profits, CNH industrial
heavy equipment has been used during the construction of Israeli settlements and outposts, in-
dustrial zones and related infrastructure in the OPT, and the construction of the Separation Wall
on Palestinian lands.242 Who Profits also states that CNH equipment has been used during dem-
olitions of Palestinian houses in the South Hebron Hills, and during the construction of a settler
bypass road near the Palestinian village of Nabi Elias expropriating 700 olive trees belonging to
Palestinian communities.243

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom,
and Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to CNH Industrial in the period
2018- May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Rabobank244 Netherlands 610 615 1,225
Société Générale France 610 596 1,206
Barclays United Kingdom 610 383 993
Santander Spain 610 299 909
BNP Paribas France 610 186 796
Crédit Agricole France 610 151 761
NatWest United Kingdom 610 77 687
BPCE Group France 610 - 610
Commerzbank Germany 610 - 610
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Spain 610 - 610
Argentaria (BBVA)
Deutsche Bank Germany 610 - 610
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 610 - 610

66
UniCredit Italy 534 - 534
Standard Chartered United Kingdom 94 66 160
Lloyds Banking Group United Kingdom 94 37 131
Mediobanca Banca di Italy 94 94
Credito Finanziario
ING Group Netherlands 94 - 94
Skandinaviska Enskilda Sweden 94 - 94
Banken

The table below lists the top European investors in CNH Industrial. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

BPCE Group France 2,357
Crédit Agricole France 728
Banca d'Italia Italy 300
Allianz Germany 166
Government Pension Fund Norway 146
Global
HSBC United Kingdom 104
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 102
Eleva Capital France 94
Deutsche Bank Germany 82
Barclays United Kingdom 67

Delek Group
Delek Group is an Israeli company which, according to Who Profits, is involved in the extraction
of natural gas from disputed maritime areas. In October 2020, it sold the majority of its stake in
Delek Israel Fuel, leaving it with a 33.34% share in the company.245 Who Profits also states that
Delek Israel Fuel operates various gas and service stations in and around Israeli settlements in
the West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem.246 The company is also one of the 112
business enterprises that are included in the UN Database.

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Delek Group in the period 2018 -
May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 371 547 918
HSBC United Kingdom 155 422 577
Barclays United Kingdom 317 75 392
ABN Amro247 Netherlands 154 188 342

67
Lloyds Banking Group United Kingdom 251 14 265
Deutsche Bank Germany 196 196
Skandinaviska Enskilda Sweden 154 154
Banken
NatWest United Kingdom 154 154
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Spain 116 116
Argentaria (BBVA)
BPCE Group France 110 110
DNB Norway 110 110
ING Group Netherlands 110 110

The table below lists the top European investors in Delek Group. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

BPCE Group France 55
Allianz Germany 35
Finisterre Capital United Kingdom 30
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 15
Deutsche Bank Germany 10
Legal & General United Kingdom 5
Ashmore Group United Kingdom 4
Colchester Global Investors United Kingdom 3
ABN Amro Netherlands 3
HSBC United Kingdom 1

Delta Galil Industries

Delta Galil Industries is an Israeli company that manufactures clothes. It has branches in several
Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem, and according to
Who Profits also operates a 1,680 m2 warehouse in an industrial zone in the West Bank.248 Delta
Galil Industries is one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Delta Galil Industries. The data refers to
shares held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 11
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.03
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.01

68
DXC Technology

According to Who Profits, U.S. company DCX Technology operates a Research and Develop-
ment centre in the Beitar Illit settlement.249 Who Profits also states that the company took over
several of the occupation-related operations from Hewlett Packard Company, including biomet-
ric IDs linked to the Israeli Population Registry, and supplied a computerised system to the Israeli
Civil Administration for tracking Palestinian construction deemed unauthorised by Israel, the
Occupying Power.250

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom,
and Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to DXC Technology in the period
2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Lloyds Banking Group United Kingdom 1,704 123 1,828
Standard Chartered United Kingdom 665 10 675
Commerzbank Germany 397 35 433
BayernLB Germany 345 345
Danske Bank Denmark 290 18 307
NatWest United Kingdom 266 35 301
BNP Paribas France 290 10 300
KBC Group Belgium 210 5 215
ING Group Netherlands 205 10 215
Barclays United Kingdom 125 48 173

The table below lists the top European investors in DXC Technology. The data refers to shares
and bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

BPCE Group France 401
Government Pension Fund Norway 82
Global
Deutsche Bank Germany 78
Assenagon Luxembourg 75
Allianz Germany 37
Aegon Netherlands 31
Nykredit Group Denmark 30
Société Générale France 27
Legal & General United Kingdom 25
M&G United Kingdom 23

69
eDreams ODIGEO

eDreams ODIGEO is a Spanish online travel company, with brands including eDreams, GO Voy-
ages, Opodo, and Travellink.251 Its websites advertise various properties located in Israeli set-
tlements in the occupied West Bank. It describes the location of settlements like Har Brakha,
Itamar, Kfar Adumim as “West Bank, Israeli settlement”.252 Consumers are not informed about
the settlements’ illegal status under international law.253 Reportedly, “illicit” listings are regularly
removed through manual checks, while these individual listings by private hosts are “in line with
applicable law”.254

The company is among the business enterprises in the UN database on business enterprises
involved in the Israeli settlements, which was published by the UN human rights office (OHCHR)
in February 2020.

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom,
and Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to eDreams ODIGEO in the period
2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
La Caixa Group Spain 6 63 68
Santander Spain 6 63 68
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Spain 6 63 68
Argentaria (BBVA)
Société Générale France 63 63
Barclays United Kingdom 63 63
Deutsche Bank Germany 63 63

The table below lists the top European investors in eDreams ODIGEO. The data refers to shares
and bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.
Investor Country Value (US$ million)
Permira255 United Kingdom 86
Ardian France 50
Banca March Spain 7.6
Deutsche Bank Germany 1.7
La Caixa Group Spain 1.3
Caja Rural Spain 0.8
Hermitage Gestion Privée France 0.6
GVC Gaesco Group Spain 0.6
Unicaja Banco Spain 0.5
Nykredit Group Denmark 0.5

70
Elbit Systems
According to Who Profits, Elbit Systems extensively supplies products and services to the
Israeli military, Ministry of Interior and police, including drones which are used during military
operations in the occupied West Bank.256 Who Profits also states that Elbit Systems supplies 85%
of the drones that are being used by the Israeli army. In 2018, Elbit Systems also acquired Israeli
Military Industries Ltd. (IMI), which is involved in the manufacturing of ammunition, weapons,
and military technology for the Israeli army. Finally, Who Profits writes that Elbit Systems is one
of the main providers of the electronic detection fence system in the Separation Wall.257

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom,
and Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Elbit Systems in the period
2018- May 2021.

Creditor Investor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 83 83

The table below lists the top European investors in Elbit Systems. The data refers to shares held
or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Deutsche Bank Germany 1.4
Standard Life Aberdeen United Kingdom 1.3
Barclays United Kingdom 0.7
Janus Henderson United Kingdom 0.7
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.5
HSBC United Kingdom 0.3
Squarepoint Capital United Kingdom 0.2
Assenagon Luxembourg 0.2
BNP Paribas France 0.1
GRAWE Group Austria 0.1

Electra Group
Electra Group is an Israeli company that is active in the fields of real estate, infrastructure devel-
opment, facility management, and electro-mechanical infrastructure. According to Who Profits,
in August 2020, Electra Infrastructure, a partially owned subsidiary of Electra (51%), won a NIS
470 million tender to build the major road infrastructure works and tunnels in French Hill, in the
occupied eastern part of Jerusalem.258 The project involves the construction of four tunnels ex-
tending for 3.5 kilometres, which will enable the free flow of traffic between Ramot settlement
neighbourhood to Pisgat Ze’ev settlement neighbourhood and Ma’ale Adumim settlement.

The company is also involved in a major waste management project, which will carry wastewa-
ter from the West Bank including the occupied eastern part of Jerusalem to the Og purification
plant in the Jordan Valley. The treated wastewater will be used for irrigation in agricultural set-
tlements in the Jordan Valley.259

71
Electra Infrastructure has also been contracted to build tunnel 3A in section D of the Tel Aviv-Je-
rusalem Fast Train (A1). According to Who Profits, the A1 train route crosses the Green Line into
the occupied West Bank in two areas, using public and private Palestinian land in the OPT, for
an Israeli transportation project aimed exclusively for Israeli citizens.260 Previously, in February
2015, Electra and Electra Infrastructure won a tender for the construction and maintenance of
the track and electronic systems of the A1 train. The project includes laying 46 kilometres of
track, setting up electromechanical systems that support railway operations, management and
integration. The maintenance services included in the contract will be provided by the consor-
tium for a period of 10 years.

Furthermore, Who Profits writes that Electra Construction, a fully owned subsidiary of Electra,
has been involved in the construction of housing units in several Israeli settlements in the West
Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem. In 2017, Electra Elevators, a fully owned subsid-
iary, won a tender to supply and maintain elevators for Ariel University. Through another fully
owned subsidiary, Ariel Properties, Electra also manages a shopping centre in Ramot, a settle-
ment neighbourhood in the occupied eastern part of Jerusalem.261

In January 2021, Electra bought a 51% controlling stake in Amnon Mesilot, which included Afikim
Public Transportation. Afikim was itself included in the UN Database. The company operates
buses that serve several settlements in the West Bank. According to Who Profits, the company
has a separation policy as it operates separate bus lines for Palestinians.262

In July 2021, Electra was part of one of the consortia approved to bid on the Blue and Purple line
tender for the Jerusalem Light Rail, which will connect settlement neighbourhoods in the south
and north of the city.263 Electra Group is one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in
the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Electra. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 7.8
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.20
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.04
Crédit Agricole France 0.03
Deutsche Bank Germany 0.02

Energix Renewable Energies

Energix is one of the largest renewable energy companies in Israel. According to Who Profits, the
company operates a 51%-ownership stake in a solar field in the Meitarim industrial zone, situated
in the South Hebron Hills.264 Energix is one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in
the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Energix. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

72
 Investor Country Value (US$ million)
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 11
ACATIS Investment Germany 0.2
Commerzbank Germany 0.2
Svenska Handelsbanken Sweden 0.1
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.1
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.03
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 0.01

Expedia Group
U.S.-based tourism company Expedia Group operates a range of online portals for travel book-
ings. Leading brands are Expedia, Hotels.com and Trivago. Expedia’s Hotels.com website lists
various accommodations in settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are described as “Pal-
estinian Territory, Israeli settlement”. Hotels.com, however, fails to consistently and unequivocally
inform consumers of the settlements’ illegal status under international law and their location in
the OPT, and the fact that the property on which the accommodations are located had been un-
lawfully appropriated and conveyed by Israel, the Occupying Power.265 The company is also one
of the 112 business enterprises included in the UN Database.

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Expedia in the period 2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 200 820 1,020
HSBC United Kingdom 200 820 1,020
Standard Chartered United Kingdom 150 81 231

The table below lists the top European investors in Expedia. The data refers to shares and bonds
held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Allianz Germany 859
BPCE Group France 348
Marshall Wace United Kingdom 179
Legal & General United Kingdom 174
Crédit Agricole France 157
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 106
Assenagon Luxembourg 85
Janus Henderson United Kingdom 73
Deutsche Bank Germany 64
Ardevora Asset Management United Kingdom 58

73
First International Bank of Israel (FIBI)
According to Who Profits, FIBI provides financing for construction and infrastructure projects in
Israeli settlements in the OPT, provides mortgages and loans to homebuyers and local councils
in the settlements, and operates various branches in settlements in the West Bank and the
eastern part of Jerusalem.266 FIBI is also the parent of Bank Otsar HaHayal, which operates in the
settlements.267

FIBI is one of the 112 business enterprises included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in FIBI. The data refers to shares held or man-
aged by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 42
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 0.7
Janus Henderson United Kingdom 0.5
Standard Life Aberdeen United Kingdom 0.4
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.3
Commerzbank Germany 0.3
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.1
HSBC United Kingdom 0.1
Aviva United Kingdom 0.02
Deutsche Bank Germany 0.01

General Mills
General Mills is a U.S.-based company manufacturing frozen dough products. According to Al-
Haq and Who Profits, Shalgal Food produces General Mills Pillsury brand products in a bakery
in the Atarot industrial zone,268 in the occupied West Bank.269 The company is also one of the 112
business enterprises included in the UN Database.

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to General Mills in the period January
2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Deutsche Bank Germany 216 2,366 2,582
Barclays United Kingdom 216 1,517 1,733
BNP Paribas France 216 529 745
Société Générale France 196 196
HSBC United Kingdom 196 196
Rabobank Netherlands 108 108

74
The table below lists the top European investors in General Mills. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Crédit Agricole France 761
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 386
Legal & General United Kingdom 280
Deutsche Bank Germany 226
Nordea Finland 171
Allianz Germany 123
BNP Paribas France 119
Janus Henderson United Kingdom 114
Deka Group Germany 97
AXA France 86

Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)

HPE is a U.S. based technology provider. According to Who Profits, it was contracted until at
least July 2020 to provide its Itanium servers and maintenance services for the computerization
system of Israel’s Population and Immigration Authority, linked among others to the control
systems at checkpoints and the registration of the Israeli settlers in the settlements.270
The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom and
Norway which provided loans and underwriting services to HPE in the period 2018- May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
HSBC United Kingdom 368 1,103 1,470
BNP Paribas France 368 893 1,260
Deutsche Bank Germany 182 420 602
Barclays United Kingdom 182 371 553
Santander Spain 182 335 517
NatWest United Kingdom 182 244 426
Société Générale France 182 221 403
ING Group Netherlands 182 204 386
Standard Chartered United Kingdom 182 164 346
Crédit Agricole France 182 86 268

75
The table below lists the top European investors in HPE. The data refers to shares and bonds
held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Allianz Germany 319
Deutsche Bank Germany 205
Legal & General United Kingdom 187
Crédit Agricole France 182
Oldfield Partners United Kingdom 104
Aegon Netherlands 88
BPCE Group France 80
AXA France 73
Prudential (UK) United Kingdom 73
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 51

Israel Discount Bank

According to Who Profits, Israel Discount Bank and its subsidiary Mercantile Discount Bank
provide financing for construction projects in Israeli settlements in the OPT and provide loans to
regional settlement councils.271 Who Profits also states that the bank operates various branches
in settlements in the occupied West Bank and the occupied eastern part of Jerusalem.272 Israel
Discount Bank is one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Israel Discount Bank. The data refers to
shares held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 52
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 4.8
Legal & General United Kingdom 3.6
Deutsche Bank Germany 3.0
Raiffeisen Bank International Austria 1.5
NN Group Netherlands 1.2
AXA France 1.2
HSBC United Kingdom 1.2
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.8
Crédit Agricole France 0.5
Janus Henderson United Kingdom 0.5

Magal Security Systems

Magal Security Systems is a U.S.-listed company with headquarters in Israel. It provides physical
security systems and services, including perimeter intrusion detection systems. According to
the company’s Annual Report, Israel’s Ministry of Defense (MOD) and the Israel Defense Forces

76
(IDF) accounted for 20.6% of the company’s revenues in 2020.273 According to Who Profits,
Magal Security Systems was involved in the construction of the Separation Wall and its electrical
deterrence fence and supplies security systems to various settlements.274

In July 2020, the company won a tender published by the development corporation of the
Ma’ale Adumim settlement municipality to supply, install, operate, maintain and connect to com-
mand-and-control centres, deploy a technological protection system and perimeter security
cameras in the settlement’s industrial zone.275

The table below lists the top European investors in Magal Security Systems. The data refers to
shares held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Barclays United Kingdom 0.004

MAN Group
MAN Group is a German multinational company, and according to Who Profits it supplies the
chassis for the cars that carries the “Skunk” – a crowd control weapon made by Odortec and
used by the Israeli occupation forces throughout the OPT.276

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom,
and Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to MAN Group in the period 2018
- May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Deutsche Bank Germany 211 1,055 1,265
UniCredit Italy 211 661 872
Commerzbank Germany 211 527 738
Société Générale France 211 527 738
Santander Spain 211 527 738
Skandinaviska Enskilda Sweden 211 281 492
Banken
Landesbank Baden-Würt- Germany 211 281 492
temberg (LBBW)
BNP Paribas France 211 211
Standard Chartered United Kingdom 211 211
Danske Bank Denmark 211 211
Nordea Finland 211 211
Swedbank Sweden 211 211
Barclays United Kingdom 211 211
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Ar- Spain 211 211
gentaria (BBVA)
Crédit Agricole France 211 211

77
The table below lists the top European investors in MAN Group. The data refers to shares held
or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 9.1
August von Finck Group Germany 5.0
Signal Iduna Group Germany 2.2
Aquila Capital Germany 1.3
Baader Bank Germany 1.2
TBF Global Asset Management Germany 0.8
Silvius Dornier Germany 0.6
Greiff Capital Management Germany 0.6
Montagu Private Equity United Kingdom 0.2
AHP Capital Management Germany 0.1

Manitou Group
Manitou is a publicly listed French heavy equipment manufacturer that makes forklifts, cherry
pickers, tele handlers, and other heavy equipment. According to Who Profits, Manitou cranes
have been used in the construction and maintenance of the Separation Wall in the OPT.277

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Manitou in the period 2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Société Générale France 59 59
Crédit Agricole France 59 59

The table below lists the top European investors in Manitou. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

La Financière de l'Echiquier France 28
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 17
Amiral Gestion 278
France 8
BPCE Group France 6
BNP Paribas France 6
Marlet France 5
Erasmus Gestion France 2
Crédit Agricole France 1
Oddo BHF France 1
AXA France 1

78
Matrix IT
Matrix IT is an Israeli IT group that, according to Who Profits, provides services for the Israeli
Ministry of Defence and Israeli army, especially in air and missile defence, command and control,
intelligence and cyber systems development.279 Who Profits states that, among others, it has
provided various services for Israel’s Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories
(COGAT), including a contract in 2017 to provide biometric equipment meant to identify
Palestinians in the West Bank.280

Matrix IT is one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Matrix IT. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 1.8
Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds (ABP) Netherlands 1.1
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.3
Allianz Germany 0.2
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.1

Mivne Group
Mivne Group is an Israeli real estate company that specializes in properties for industrial or
commercial use. According to Who Profits, Mivne companies own multiple industrial spaces
in the occupied West Bank.281 Mivne subsidiaries Jerusalem Economy, Industrial Buildings
Corporation (IBC), and Darban Investments are among the 112 business enterprises included in
the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Mivne Group. The data refers to shares held
or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Deutsche Bank Germany 0.64
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.46
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) 282
Norway 0.27
HSBC United Kingdom 0.10
Aviva United Kingdom 0.03

Mizrahi Tefahot Bank

According to Who Profits, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank provides financing for construction projects in
Israeli settlements in the OPT, and provides financing for homeowners in settlements as well as
to regional settlement councils.283 It also operates various branches in settlements located in
the West Bank and the eastern part of Jerusalem.284 Mizrahi Tefahot Bank is also one of the 112
business enterprises that are included in the UN Database.

79
The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Mizrahi Tefahot Bank in the period
2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 150 150

The table below lists the top European investors in Mizrahi Tefahot Bank. The data refers to
shares held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 62
Van Lanschot Kempen Netherlands 14
Deutsche Bank Germany 3.4
Standard Life Aberdeen United Kingdom 2.2
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 1.6
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 1.2
HSBC United Kingdom 1.0
Janus Henderson United Kingdom 0.7
Commerzbank Germany 0.6
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.5

Motorola Solutions
According to Who Profits, U.S.-based communications equipment provider Motorola Solutions,
through its subsidiary Motorola Solutions Israel, has been involved in Israel’s illegal settlements
for more than 10 years.285 Who Profits states that Motorola Solutions Israel cooperates with the
Israeli army, the Ministry of Defence and with settlement councils throughout the OPT.286 Who
Profits also writes that Motorola has designed and manufactured the surveillance system “Moto
Eagle”, which is used in dozens of illegal settlements in the West Bank, in the wall around Gaza
and in Israeli military bases.287 In some cases, Who Profits argues, the radar stations have been
erected on private Palestinian land, thereby preventing Palestinian movement.288 Finally, Who
Profits states that the company has developed a communications system and mobile phone
network for the Israeli army and police.

Motorola is also one of the 112 business enterprises included in the UN Database.

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom and
Norway which provided loans and underwriting services to Motorola Solutions in the period
2018- May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Deutsche Bank Germany 164 567 731
BNP Paribas France 79 55 135

80
HSBC United Kingdom 79 55 135
Santander Spain 79 44 123
Lloyds Banking Group United Kingdom 79 31 111
UniCredit Italy 79 79

The table below lists the top European investors in Motorola Solutions. The data refers to shares
and bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Crédit Agricole France 446
Deutsche Bank Germany 371
Janus Henderson United Kingdom 362
BPCE Group France 317
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 302
BNP Paribas France 252
Legal & General United Kingdom 228
Allianz Germany 175
Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds (ABP) Netherlands 159
Deka Group Germany 140

Partner Communications Company

Partner Communications is an Israeli company that provides telecommunication services to
settlements in Area C. According to Who Profits, it has more than 200 active antennas and other
infrastructure facilities throughout the OPT, several of which were constructed on privately-
owned Palestinian lands.289 Who Profits also states that Partner Communications operates
several sales and customer service centres in the occupied eastern part of Jerusalem, and has
also sponsored two Israeli military units through the provision of sports days, entertainment
activities, and training.290 The company is also one of the 112 business enterprises that are
included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Partner Communications. The data refers to
shares held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 15
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.08
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.03

81
Paz Oil Company

Paz Oil Company is Israel’s largest fuel company. According to Who Profits, it operates filling sta-
tions in various settlements in the occupied West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem,
and has been awarded an Israeli Ministry of Defence tender in 2016 for outsourcing refuelling
services in seven air force bases for a period of five years.291 Who Profits also states that Paz Oil
Company enjoys access to the captive Palestinian market and, as an important supplier to the
Palestinian Authority, holds the right to collect its payment from Palestinian tax revenues held
by the Israeli government.292

Paz Oil Company is also one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Paz Oil Company. The data refers to shares
held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 10
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 6.5
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.3
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.2
HSBC United Kingdom 0.1
Deutsche Bank Germany 0.03
Aviva United Kingdom 0.02

Rami Levy Chain Stores Hashikma Marketing 2006

According to Who Profits, Rami Levy Chain Stores Hashikma Marketing 2006 is an Israeli
supermarket chain that operates stores and shopping malls in various settlements in the
occupied West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem.293 According to Al-Haq, such stores
and malls, which have been built on appropriated Palestinian land and are benefiting from the
discriminatory planning regime, “represents an example of Palestinian economic and corporate
capture by the Israeli settlement economy.”294 The company is one of the 112 business enterprises
that are included in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Rami Levy Chain Stores Hashikma Market-
ing 2006. The data refers to shares held or managed by these investors at the latest available
filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 3.6
Standard Life Aberdeen United Kingdom 1.2
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.1
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.02

82
RE/MAX Holdings
RE/MAX Israel, the local franchise of U.S.-based RE/MAX Holdings, operates a sales office in
the West Bank settlement Ma’ale Adumim. According to Who Profits, RE/MAX Israel offers real
estate for sale and for rental in major settlements in the West Bank, including the eastern part
of Jerusalem.295 RE/MAX Israel is also one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in the
UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in RE/MAX Holdings. The data refers to shares
held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Punter Southall United Kingdom 5.0
Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds (ABP) Netherlands 3.5
Evli Bank Finland 2.1
Legal & General United Kingdom 2.0
Société Générale France 1.8
KBC Group Belgium 1.7
AXA France 1.1
Barclays United Kingdom 0.9
Deutsche Bank Germany 0.5
BPCE Group France 0.4

Shapir Engineering and Industry

According to Who Profits, Shapir Engineering and Industry operates the Natuf quarry, a concrete
plant in the occupied West Bank, and a concrete plant in the Atarot industrial zone settlement
in the occupied eastern part of Jerusalem.296 Who Profits also states that the company has been
involved in various housing and transport infrastructure projects in Israeli settlements, including
infrastructure work for the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem fast train (A1), which crosses into the OPT in
two areas, unlawfully using public and private Palestinian land to serve an Israeli transportation
project aimed exclusively for Israeli citizens. In 2019, Shapir and CAF won the tender for the
implementation of the second stage of the Jerusalem Light Rail, including the construction,
operation, and maintenance of two additional lines.297 In November 2020, despite Shapir
Engineering and Industry’s listing on the UN Database, the company, together with CAF, closed
a project financing deal to construct the Jerusalem Light Rail.298 In July 2021, Shapir Engineering
was part of one of the consortia approved to bid on the Blue and Purple line tender for the
Jerusalem Light Rail, which will connect settlement neighbourhoods in the south and north of
the city.299

Shapir Engineering and Industry is one of the 112 business enterprises that are included in the
UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Shapir Engineering and Industry. The data
refers to shares held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

83
Investor Country Value (US$ million)
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 0.4
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.2
HSBC United Kingdom 0.1
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.03
Crédit Agricole France 0.02

Shikun & Binui

Shikun & Binui is an Israeli infrastructure and real estate company that, according to Who Profits,
is involved in the construction and expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and occupation infra-
structure in the occupied West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem.300 Who Profits
states that, among others, in 2019, the company was awarded the contract for the construction
of the Tunnel Road (a section of Route 60 on which Palestinian vehicles are prohibited from
travelling). In the same year, according to Who Profits, its fully owned subsidiary Housing and
Construction – Solel Boneh Infrastructures was awarded a contract for construction work on the
green line of the Jerusalem Light Rail, which connects large Israeli settlement blocs in the occu-
pied eastern part of Jerusalem with the western part of the city, using appropriated Palestinian
private property in the OPT.301

In July 2021, Shikun & Binui was part of one of the consortia approved to bid on the Blue and
Purple line tender for the Jerusalem Light Rail, which will connect settlement neighbourhoods in
the south and north of the city.302

The table below lists the top European investors in Shikun & Binui. The data refers to shares held
or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Svenska Handelsbanken Sweden 0.1
HSBC United Kingdom 0.1
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.1
Crédit Agricole France 0.02

Shufersal
According to Who Profits, Shufersal is an Israeli company that operates branches of its
supermarkets and drugstores in various Israeli settlements in the OPT, and is also active in the
field of real estate.303 The company is also one of the 112 business enterprises that are included
in the UN Database.

The table below lists the top European investors in Shufersal. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

84
Investor Country Value (US$ million)
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 11
Standard Life Aberdeen United Kingdom 1.1
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken Sweden 0.8
Svenska Handelsbanken Sweden 0.4
Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) Norway 0.4
Mandarine Gestion France 0.2
ACATIS Investment Germany 0.2
Legal & General United Kingdom 0.1
HSBC United Kingdom 0.1
Deutsche Bank Germany 0.04

Siemens
Siemens is a German publicly-listed industrial manufacturing company with worldwide operations.
Research by Who Profits states that Siemens traffic control systems have been installed on Roads
5 and 443 in the occupied West Bank, as part of an Israeli road system on which Palestinians are
forbidden from travelling.304 Siemens traffic control systems were also installed on Road 1 at the
entrance to the Mishor Adumim settlement industrial zone.

In 2018, Siemens signed a NIS 3.8 billion contract with Israel Railways for the delivery of 60 De-
siro HC regional train set over a period of 10 years and maintenance over a period of 15 years, the
construction of a maintenance workshop in Ashkelon, and further options for maintenance. Ac-
cording to Who Profits, the trains will operate on the A1 Fast Train line, which crosses the Green
Line into the occupied West Bank in two areas, using appropriated Palestinian land – some of it
privately owned – for an Israeli transportation project, aimed exclusively for Israelis.305
The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Siemens in the period 2018 - May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 2,767 - 2,767
Santander Spain 734 - 734
ING Group Netherlands 734 - 734
Deutsche Bank Germany 265 - 265
Standard Chartered United Kingdom 265 - 265
HSBC United Kingdom 265 - 265
Commerzbank Germany 265 - 265
Barclays United Kingdom 265 - 265
Crédit Agricole France 265 - 265
Société Générale France 265 - 265
NatWest United Kingdom 191 - 191
BayernLB Germany 191 - 191
Nordea Finland 191 - 191
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken Sweden 191 - 191

85
 DZ Bank Germany 191 - 191
Lloyds Banking Group United Kingdom 191 - 191
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Spain 191 - 191
(BBVA)
UniCredit Italy 191 - 191
Landesbank Baden-Württemberg Germany 191 - 191
(LBBW)
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Germany 191 - 191

The table below lists the top European investors in Siemens. The data refers to shares held or
managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Government Pension Fund Global Norway 2,756
Deutsche Bank Germany 2,233
Deka Group Germany 1,147
Crédit Agricole France 1,129
Société Générale France 886
BNP Paribas France 822
Allianz Germany 561
DZ Bank Germany 386
Swedbank Sweden 313
HSBC United Kingdom 253

Solvay
Solvay is a Belgium-based multinational company that works in the chemicals and plastics
sectors. According to Who Profits, in 2019 Solvay products were recorded at the construction
site of a bypass pipeline in Bardala, which is designed to serve Israeli settlements in the northern
Jordan Valley.306 In a 2020 report, Who Profits states that the Bardala bypass project will
transport freshwater extracted from Palestinian water sources (in occupied territory) to nearby
Israeli settlements, bypassing Palestinian communities.307

In a 2013 publication, Al-Haq states that the project, advanced by Mekorot (Israel’s national
water company) is a mechanism for consolidating Israel’s hold over Palestinian land and natural
resources.308 According to Al-Haq, its route and raison d’être further entrench Israel’s occupation
and apartheid309, benefitting illegal settlements at the expense of Palestinian communities.310

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Solvay in the period 2018 - May 2021.

86
Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total
(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 252 250 503
HSBC United Kingdom 252 180 433
Crédit Agricole France 252 180 433
Commerzbank Germany 252 118 371
ING Group Netherlands 252 48 301
KBC Group Belgium 252 252

The table below lists the top European investors in Solvay. The data refers to shares and bonds
held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Crédit Agricole France 145
BNP Paribas France 98
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 89
Banque Degroof Petercam Belgium 65
Anima Italy 63
Allianz Germany 60
AXA France 58
Foyer Luxembourg 52
M&G United Kingdom 46
HSBC United Kingdom 43

Terex Corporation
Terex is a U.S. based producer of work platforms and other machinery. According to Who Profits,
Terex track excavators have been used in unlawful demolitions in the occupied eastern part of
Jerusalem, while Terex trucks have also been used during the construction of the Separation
Wall, military checkpoints, and the construction of the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem Fast Train (A1).311

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Terex in the period 2018- May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
Deutsche Bank Germany 129 129
HSBC United Kingdom 10 75 85
Barclays United Kingdom 10 75 85
BNP Paribas France 75 75
Santander Spain 75 75
Commerzbank Germany 10 10
Crédit Agricole France 10 10

87
The table below lists the top European investors in Terex. The data refers to shares and bonds
held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Allianz Germany 95
Nykredit Group Denmark 36
Jupiter Fund Management 312
United Kingdom 24
Prudential (UK) United Kingdom 18
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 17
Legal & General United Kingdom 9
Nordea Finland 7
AXA France 7
Varma Finland 6
BNP Paribas France 5

Tripadvisor
Tripadvisor is a U.S.-based digital tourism company that operates
online travel brands and websites, including tripadvisor.com.

On its website, Tripadvisor promotes accommodations and attractions in settlements in the OPT.
Tripadvisor describes settlements in the West Bank as “Israeli settlement, Palestinian Territories”,
but fails to consistently and comprehensively inform consumers of the settlements’ illegal status
under international law and their location in occupied territory.313

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Tripadvisor in the period 2018 - May
2021.

Creditor Investor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 60 115 175
Barclays United Kingdom 33 63 96

The table below lists the top European investors in Tripadvisor. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Allianz Germany 226
Polar Capital Holdings United Kingdom 180
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 31
Assenagon Luxembourg 22
Azimut Italy 15

88
Legal & General United Kingdom 13
Van Lanschot Kempen Netherlands 12
BPCE Group France 11
Schroders United Kingdom 7
Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) Netherlands 7

Volvo Group314
Volvo Group is a Swedish multinational company which manufactures trucks, buses, construc-
tion equipment, and marine and industrial engines. Based on its research Who Profits wrote that
the Volvo Group provides heavy machinery that is being used for the demolition of Palestinian
houses in the occupied West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem, and inside the Green
Line, the construction of Israeli settlements, the construction of the Separation Wall, the con-
struction of military checkpoints, and the construction of Road 443 (a West Bank road that only
Israeli settlers are allowed to use).315

In addition, Who Profits states that the company has supplied maintenance trucks to the Jerusa-
lem Light Rail project, which connects settlements in the occupied eastern part of Jerusalem to
one another and to the western part of the city.316 Who Profits also argues that Volvo equipment
has been used by the Israeli Civil Administration in the confiscation of solar panels belonging
to Palestinian communities in Khirbet Jebnah and Khan al-Ahmar.317 According to Al Haq, Volvo
machinery is used regularly during unlawful demolitions of Palestinian structures where 88 in-
stances were documented for the period 2019-2020.318

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to Volvo Group in the period 2018-
May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
BNP Paribas France 94 1,268 1,361
Skandinaviska Enskilda Sweden 94 1,255 1,349
Banken
Nordea Finland 94 1,193 1,287
Deutsche Bank Germany 94 1,179 1,273
Danske Bank Denmark 94 1,176 1,269
UniCredit 319
Italy 94 945 1,038
Svenska Handelsbanken Sweden 94 930 1,024
Crédit Agricole France 94 879 973
Swedbank Sweden 94 660 753
Société Générale France 94 529 622
HSBC United Kingdom 94 354 448
NatWest 320
United Kingdom 94 322 416
DNB 321
Norway 94 124 218

89
ING Group Netherlands 94 94
Standard Chartered United Kingdom 94 94
Santander Spain 94 94

The table below lists the top European investors in Volvo Group. The data refers to shares and
bonds held or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

AB Industrivärden322 Sweden 4,057
Alecta Sweden 1,875
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 1,694
AMF Pensionsförsäkring Sweden 1,621
Swedbank Sweden 1,563
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken Sweden 1,319
Svenska Handelsbanken Sweden 1,288
Nordea Finland 967
Skandia Sweden 557
BPCE Group France 514

WSP Global
WSP Global (formerly WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff) is a Canadian engineering company that ac-
cording to Who Profits, provided technical expertise for the A1 fast train.323

WSP Global’s team is also responsible for the electrification of the A1 train line and plans and
designs the Jerusalem Light Rail train.324 Who Profits has previously stated: “The Jerusalem light
rail connects large Israeli settlement blocs in the occupied eastern part of Jerusalem with the
western part of the city, expropriating occupied Palestinian land and promoting increased terri-
torial contiguity for settlements alongside growing territorial fragmentation for East Jerusalem’s
Palestinian neighbourhoods”.325

The table below presents an overview of financial institutions in the EU, the United Kingdom,
and Norway, which provided loans and underwriting services to WSP Global in the period 2018
- May 2021.

Creditor Country Loans Underwriting Total

(US$ million) (US$ million) (US$ million)
HSBC United Kingdom 346 17 363
Swedbank Sweden 346 346
BNP Paribas France 215 17 233

90
The table below lists the top European investors in WSP Global. The data refers to shares held
or managed by these investors at the latest available filing date.

Investor Country Value (US$ million)

Swedbank Sweden 138
Government Pension Fund Global Norway 108
Didner & Gerge Fonder Sweden 31
Deka Group Germany 15
Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds (ABP) Netherlands 12
Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 11
Deutsche Bank Germany 7
Storebrand Norway 7
Rothschild Group France 6
HSBC United Kingdom 5

91
5. The way forward
5.1. Examples of Financial Institutions that have recently withdrawn
from business enterprises linked to Israeli settlements

For years, civil society actors in Palestine, Europe, and across the world – as well as the UN
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory326–
have called for concrete action to be taken by States and corporate actors in response to Israeli
settlements, occupation, oppression, and apartheid. In this respect, civil society groups and UN
experts have been urging financial institutions to divest from businesses, activities, and relation-
ships that are linked to Israeli violations of international law, including those attributed to Israel’s
illegal settlements.

The following table provides a list of non-exhaustive examples of financial institutions that
have divested from certain business enterprises involved in activities related to the Israeli settle-
ments, starting with the most recent divestments in 2021 and until 2010:

Financial Institution Business Enterprise/s divested from, Country; Divestment Reason / Remarks
that divested, Scope of Involvement in Violations linked to Set- Year
Country. tlements & the Occupation

Government Pension 1. Ashtrom Group September “The Executive Board has de-
Fund Global, Nor- 2. Electra 2021 cided to exclude the compa-
way.327 nies Elco Ltd, Ashtrom Group
Ltd and Electra Ltd due to un-
acceptable risk that the com-
panies contribute to systematic
violations of individuals’ rights
in situations of war or conflict
(…)”

“The Executive Board has also

decided to exclude the com-
3. Shapir Engineering and Industry Ltd., Israel; panies Shapir Engineering and
Quarry and concrete plant in the occupied May 2021. Industry Ltd and Mivne Real
West Bank, ‘development’ projects in settle- Estate KD Ltd. due to unac-
ments. ceptable risk that the compa-
4. Mivne Real Estate KD Ltd., Israel; Real estate nies contribute to systematic
in settlements. violations of individuals’ rights
in situations or war or conflict
(...) The Council on Ethics has
recommended Norges Bank to
exclude the companies based
on the companies’ activities
associated with Israeli settle-
ments on the West Bank.”

92
Kommunal Land- 1. Alstom SA, France; involved in light rail infra- June 2021. “Effective from June 2021, KLP
spensjonskasse (KLP), structure projects. and KLP Funds (KLP) have
Norway’s largest pen- 2. Ashtrom Group Ltd, Israel; engages in build- decided to exclude 16 com-
sion company.328 ing and property activities. Provides building panies from their investment
products and owns and manages offices, portfolios as part of a due dil-
commercial buildings, hotels and industrial igence-based divestment. In
facilities. KLP’s assessment, there is an
unacceptable risk that the ex-
3. Electra LTD, Israel; Engages in the develop- cluded companies are contrib-
ment of property and infrastructure. uting to the abuse of human
4. Bank Hapoalim BM, Israel; offers banking and rights in situations of war and
financial services to both the consumer and conflict through their links with
business markets. the Israeli settlements in the
5. Bank Leumi Le-Israel, Israel; offers banking occupied West Bank. KLP has
and financial services to both the consumer also previously excluded com-
and business markets. panies with links to the West
Bank Barrier or the Israeli set-
6. First International Bank Israel, Israel; offers tlements. KLP has had invest-
banking and financial services to both the ments in the companies that
consumer and business markets. have been excluded from June
7. Israel Discount Bank, Israel; offers banking 2021.”
and financial services to both the consumer
and business markets.
8. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank LTD, Israel; offers bank-
ing and financial services to both the consum-
er and business markets.
9. Altice Europe NV, the Netherlands; Provides
telecommunications services, including sta-
tionary and mobile broadband internet con-
nections.
10. Bezeq the Israeli Telecom Co, Israel; provides
domestic and international landline and mo-
bile phone services, multichannel satellite TV
broadcasts and internet infrastructure.
11. Cellcom Israel LTD, Israel; Provides landline
and mobile phone services.
12. Partner Communications Co, Israel; supplies a
complete range of landline and mobile phone
services.
13. Delek Group LTD, Israel; controls a number
of companies and investments in the field of
energy, infrastructure, financial services and
the automotive industry, among others.
14. Energix Renewable Energies, Israel; engages
in the alternative energy sector and invests in
wind power projects.
15. Paz Oil Co LTD, Israel; engages in refining,
production, storage, importation and market-
ing of oil and refined products, as well as op-
erating filling stations. Its customers include
the Israeli military.
16. Motorola Solutions INC, United States; Pro-
vides communication services, command
centre software, video security and analysis.
Storebrand, 1. DXC Technology Co., United States (Israeli 2020. “During 2020, Storebrand is
subsidiary is EntServ Israel); Hi-tech sector, carrying out a screening to
Norway. 329
services to settlements, home demolitions. identify companies with oper-
2. First Solar, Inc., United States; Provides solar ations in occupied Palestinian
panels for solar farms in settlements; exploita- territories and occupied West-
tion of natural resources. ern Sahara. These companies
may contribute and profit from
3. General Electric Co., United States; Military the occupation by supplying
supplies to Israel. security and surveillance ser-
4. Israel Discount Bank, Israel; Financing settle- vices and equipment. They
ments. may also profit from the main-
tenance, development and ex-
pansion of settlements by pro-
viding construction materials
and services or directly financ-
ing the construction of settle-
ments or by being involved in
the exploitation of natural re-
sources without the consent of
the occupied people.”

93
ABP, the Nether- 1. Bank Leumi, Israel; financing settle- 2020.
lands.330 ments.
2. Bank Hapoalim, Israel; financing set-
tlements.
Quakers in Britain November Announcement made to de-
Church, the UK.331 2018. clare that it would not invest
any of its centrally-held funds
in companies profiting from
the occupation of Palestine.
The Falkirk Pension Bank Hapoalim, Israel; Financing settlements. July 2018.
Fund, Scotland.332
Europcar Groupe S.A. Albar Mimunit Services Ltd. (Albar), Israel; July 2018.
(Europcar), France.333 Car rental branches in illegal settlements.
Sampension, Den- Motorola Solutions, United States; Settle- 2018. “Due to its activities in a con-
mark.334 ments enterprise, Separation Wall and check- flict zone”.
points, weapons and military equipment,
others.
Dexia Crédit Local, Dexia Israel Bank (Dexia Israel), Israel; Financ- Decision “With this sale, Dexia has suc-
France.335 ing settlement activities in the OPT. made in cessfully completed the pro-
2011; sale gram of compulsory disposal of
concluded its main commercial franchises,
in 2018. forming part of the commit-
ments made by the Belgian,
French and Luxembourg States
within the framework of the or-
derly resolution plan approved
by the European Commission
in December 2012”.
Sampension, Den- 1. Bank Hapoalim, Israel; financing settlements. 2017. “Due to their role in “the fi-
mark.336 2. Bank Leumi, Israel; financing settlements. nancing of settlements, the
extraction of natural resources
3. HeidelbergCement, Germany; Management of and [the] establishment of in-
a quarry in the occupied West Bank; exploita- frastructure for telecommuni-
tion of natural resources. cations in occupied territory.”
4. Bezeq the Israeli Telecommunications Corp
Ltd, Israel; Infrastructure in occupied territory;
services to all settlements, military bases and
checkpoints.
United Method- 1. Bank Hapoalim; 2016.
ist Church, United 2. Bank Leumi;
States.337
3. First International Bank of Israel;
4. Discount Bank,
5. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, all Israel; all financing
settlements.
Kommunal Land- 1. Cemex, Mexico; 2015. “The companies’ operations
spensjonskasse (KLP), 2. HeidelbergCement, Germany; both for the are associated with violations
Norway’s largest pen- involvement in the management of quarries of fundamental ethical norms”.
sion company.338 and unlawful exploitation of natural resources
in the West Bank.
PGGM, the Nether- 1. Bank Hapoalim, 2014. These banks have branches in
lands.339 2. Bank Leumi, the West Bank settlements, or
finance construction there. In
3. First International Bank of Israel, its public statement, the fund
4. Israel Discount Bank, stated that it had commenced
5. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, all Israel; financing set- a dialogue with the five banks
tlements. because of concerns about
business activities in the set-
tlements “as the settlements
in the Palestinian territories
are considered illegal under in-
ternational humanitarian law”.
PGGM said it had decided to
withdraw after concluding that
“engagement as a tool to bring
about change will not be effec-
tive in this case”.

94
Danske Bank, Den- Bank Hapoalim, Israel; financing settlements. 2014. “Involved in activities in conflict
mark.340 with international humanitarian
law”.

However, Danske Bank re-

moved Bank Hapoalim from
the exclusion list in February
2016.
Deutsche Bank, Ger- Elbit Systems Ltd., Israel; An Israeli arms com- 2010. “Because of its commitment
many.341 pany and drone manufacturer that supplies to voluntary codes of conduct
the Israeli military with weapons, tools and such as the UN Global Com-
equipment, including for the Separation Wall. pact”.

95
5.2. Normative and Practical Developments in
the Field of Business and Human Rights

While corporate-related human rights abuses and violations of international law have continued
and heightened in Palestine, and around the world especially in conflict-affected and high-risk
areas, some positive developments have taken place at the international and European levels
that could potentially help regulate corporate conduct, ensure effective accountability for busi-
ness enterprises, as well as guarantee redress and remedy for all those affected.

5.2.1. The UN Binding Treaty on Business & Human Rights

In 2014, the UN Human Rights Council passed Resolution 26/9, which established an open-end-
ed intergovernmental working group (IGWG), with a mandate to develop an international legally
binding human rights treaty to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other
business enterprises (internationally binding instrument or “UN Binding Treaty”). The UN Bind-
ing Treaty, still being negotiated at the UN and currently in its third revised draft,342 is necessary
to promote accountability and protect human and environmental rights, including in situations
of conflict and occupation for which it has called for special attention and appropriate action
to identify, prevent, and mitigate human-rights related risks of such activities and relationships.

The current draft of the UN Binding Treaty requires that State Parties should ensure enhanced
human rights due diligence measures to be undertaken by business enterprises “to prevent hu-
man rights abuses in occupied or conflict-affected areas, including situations of occupation”. It
also lists financial institutions and investment funds as part of business activities throughout the
text of the draft Treaty.

5.2.2. Mandatory Due Diligence in Europe

In May 2020, the European Commission promised that in the course of 2021, the Commission
would propose a legislative initiative on mandatory human rights and environmental due dili-
gence. The legislative proposal, which has not been published at the time of writing, is set to
promote sustainable corporate governance and to develop a legislation that would establish a
corporate duty to respect human rights and the environment by carrying out human rights due
diligence procedures, to prevent and mitigate corporate human rights abuses and hold perpetra-
tors to account, via relevant domestic, regional and international avenues. While the announce-
ment on the part of the European Commission, echoed by efforts at the European Parliament,
have been welcomed by civil society, including those beyond the EU and Europe343, it remains
to be seen to what it extent it will bind business enterprises in their activities and relationships
extraterritorially, notably in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, and if it will require business
enterprises to carry out enhanced human rights due diligence within such contexts, in accor-
dance with the UNGPs and other applicable international frameworks.

On 10 March 2021, the European Parliament, adopted with a large majority, a report on corpo-
rate due diligence and corporate accountability with recommendations for the European Com-
mission, demonstrating strong support for the Commission’s legislative initiative. It advocated
adopting mandatory corporate due diligence to prevent and address adverse impacts on hu-
man rights and the environment, and good governance in business operations and relationships
across the value chains.344

The report of the European Parliament reaffirmed the need for “appropriate human rights, envi-
ronmental and governance due diligence, respect [for] international humanitarian law obligations
[and] existing international standards and guidance including the Geneva Conventions and its

96
additional protocols” in conflict-affected areas, where business risks on human rights and the
environment “can be specific and more salient”.The European Parliament further encouraged
Member States to “monitor the undertakings under their jurisdictions with operations or business
relationships in conflict-affected areas, and accordingly take the necessary actions to protect hu-
man rights, the environment and good governance in line with their legal obligations”.345

Moreover, in the past few years, several European countries have already passed laws and initi-
ated reforms to make human rights due diligence mandatory. In 2017, in France the “French Law
on the Corporate Duty of Vigilance” was adopted, which establishes a legally binding obligation
for large companies and parent companies to identify and prevent risks to human rights and the
environment resulting from their business activities, operations and relationships.346 In 2021, the
German Parliament adopted a new law on human rights in supply chains, requiring large compa-
nies to “regularly and systematically identify and address human rights and environmental risks
in their direct supply chains”.347 In Norway, in 2021, the Parliament passed the Transparency Act,
on the basis of various international frameworks including the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines,
which aims to promote companies’ respect for human rights.348

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, there has been an ongoing campaign since 2020 for manda-
tory due diligence. In the Dutch parliament, four political parties have submitted the “Dutch
Bill on Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct”, in order to protect human
rights and the environment around the world.349 In Belgium, the Federal Parliament is currently
discussing a legal proposal that, referencing the UNGPs, would create a duty of vigilance and
duty of remediation concerned with human rights, labour rights, and environmental standards.350
Similar efforts have been undertaken at the Austrian Parliament since 20218 towards mandatory
human rights due diligence.351

97
6. Recommendations
Based on the analysis and findings presented, the relevant applicable international law frame-
work, and the jurisprudence of various international instruments, the report provides a set of
recommendations for financial institutions, business enterprises, European governments and in-
stitutions, and local authorities across Europe:

Financial institutions should:

1. Conduct enhanced human rights due diligence (EHRDD) – including through human rights
impact assessments – at all stages of the decision making process, on all business relation-
ships with enterprises that are in the financial institution’s lending, underwriting and invest-
ment portfolios and which are known to be involved in activities linked to the settlements
in the OPT.
2. Establish mechanisms to take time-bound and effective action on the findings of impact
assessments and create appropriate tools to publicly communicate how negative human
rights impacts are being addressed.
3. Exercise leverage on business enterprises known to be involved in activities linked to the
settlements in the OPT in order to have the company cease these activities and relationships.
In cases where exercising leverage is not an available course of action, or where investors are
unable to use existing leverage to ensure compliance with international law, including human
rights standards and international humanitarian law, responsibly terminate the financial rela-
tionship with the enterprise in question.
4. Engage in dialogue with local stakeholders, i.e., the protected Palestinian population, in
order to provide effective remedy for any harm caused or contributed to by the financial
institution’s investments and relationships.
5. Develop clear guidelines and policy statements which state that involvement with illegal
Israeli settlements is an exclusion criterion in the financial institution’s investment portfolio.
6. Use their leverage with industry associations, regulators, policy makers and standard setting
bodies to promote and ensure adherence to international human rights and humanitarian
law, and EHRDD, as the industry standard.

98
Business enterprises should:

7. Responsibly cease all activities and relationships with, as well as responsibly disengage
from, illegal Israeli settlements, in line with the UNGPs, OECD guidelines and all relevant re-
sponsibilities under international human rights and humanitarian law.
8. Respect applicable provisions of international law in all activities and relationships linked
to the OPT and Israel.
9. Introduce appropriate reparations and remedial processes for all those affected by vio-
lations and adverse impacts of its activities and relationships linked to Israel’s settlement
enterprise, in consultation with those directly affected, as part of the business’ grievance
mechanism in order to ensure redress and accountability for all those negatively affected by
its activities and operations.
10. Introduce strong and enhanced human rights due diligence procedures within the entire
supply chain to ensure that operations and activities abroad and through subsidiaries fully
respect international law, including international humanitarian law where relevant. In addi-
tion, business enterprises should ensure that their corporate social responsibility framework
considers IHL.

European governments and institutions should:

11. Provide political and financial support to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) to fulfil its mandate to annually update and publish the UN database of
business enterprises involved in certain activities relating to settlements in the OPT.
12. Ensure that business enterprises operating within their jurisdiction undertake enhanced
human rights due diligence procedures to prevent involvement in violations of human
rights in occupied territories and conflict-affected areas, in line with the UNGPs and OECD
Guidelines and relevant responsibilities and obligations under international human rights
and humanitarian law, and that businesses introduce urgent and immediate preventive mea-
sures, divestment and disengagement policies to curb corporate involvement in violations
throughout their activities and relationships in such contexts.
13. Publish updated business advisories on direct and indirect financial investments, activities
and relationships with the Israeli settlement enterprise, warning about the associated legal
risks and consequences; and put in place a proactive dissemination strategy towards busi-
ness enterprises. Actively encourage the European Union (EU) to publish a joint EU business
advisory on financial investments linked to Israel’s settlement enterprise, and develop a pro-
active dissemination strategy for such advisory.
14. In cases where an individual European government is a shareholder in a financial institu-
tion that is involved in one or more of the “listed activities”, take appropriate measures to
ensure that the financial institution, through processes of engagement and exclusion, ter-
minates its involvement and develops a formal policy that prevents any such future invest-
ments linked to violations.
15. Apply public procurement law in line with obligations and responsibilities as state bodies un-
der international law, the UNGPs and OECD guidelines, which entails avoiding the awarding
of public contracts to companies involved in grave violations of international law.
16. Make explicit in procurement guidelines that the State and local authorities are expected
to apply public procurement law consistently in line with the State’s obligations under in-
ternational law and ensure companies’ respect of the standards of conduct provided by the
UNGPs and OECD guidelines.
17. Report periodically and publicly on the country’s efforts to implement UN Security Coun-
cil resolution 2334 (2016), as well as planned activities and efforts to further operationalise
the resolution.

99
18. Prohibit the import of illegal settlement products and services from entering European mar-
kets, and ban trade with and economic support for illegal Israeli settlements, as part of rele-
vant positive and customary obligations of third States under international humanitarian law.
19. Support and play a positive and constructive role in the negotiations to progress the adop-
tion of a draft legally binding instrument to regulate in international human rights law the
activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises (UN Binding Treaty).
20. Address conflict-affected areas and occupied territories in the business and human rights
frameworks that are being developed at national, EU and UN levels, such as in National
Action Plans (NAPs), the UN Binding Treaty, national and EU mandatory due diligence legis-
lation, and other relevant tools and mechanisms.
21. Incorporate legislation to give effect to the principle of universal jurisdiction at a domestic
level, for the prosecution of corporate-related grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions
and international crimes committed in the OPT, to ensure accountability.
22. Fully cooperate with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
in line with relevant obligations set forth in the Rome Statue and the Geneva Conventions,
as well as express public support for the independence of the Court in its investigation into
the Situation in Palestine.
23. Include corporate-related grave breaches and international crimes committed in the OPT,
namely those linked to illegal Israeli settlements, in the implementation of the EU Global
Human Rights Sanctions Regime, as well as human rights violations, including those perpe-
trated by corporate entities.

Local authorities across Europe should:

24. In cases where a local municipality has its own pension funds, undertake a review of invest-
ments in any of the “listed activities” for involvement in the Israeli settlement enterprise, as
outlined by the UN. In these cases, begin the process of divestment from companies listed
by the OHCHR in the UN database, in view of the rigorous and extensive engagement un-
dertaken by the OHCHR prior to the database’s publication.
25. Ensure local authority pension funds implement adequate investment screening and due
diligence procedures to comply with obligations not to be complicit in violations of inter-
national law.
26. Apply public procurement law in line with obligations and responsibilities as state bodies un-
der international law, the UNGPs and OECD guidelines, which entails avoiding the awarding
of public contracts to companies involved in grave violations of international law.

100
ANNEX 1: List of companies considered for this research

Name (parent) Home State Listed Already Links with

activities included European
in the UN FIs?
database?
1. ACS Group Spain No Yes

2. Afikim – Public Transportation (Electra Israel e Yes Yes

Group)

3. Airbnb United States e Yes Yes

4. Alon Blue Square Israel Israel e, g Yes No

5. Alstom France e, g Yes Yes

6. Altice Europe Netherlands e Yes Yes

7. Amir Marketing and Investment in Ag- Israel g Yes No

riculture

8. American Israeli Gas Corporation Israel e, g Yes No

9. Amos Hadar Properties and Invest- Israel g Yes No

ments (Hadar Group)

10. Amnon Mesilot (Electra Group) Israel e Yes Yes

11. Angel Bakeries Israel e, g Yes No

12. Archivists (Villar International) Israel g Yes No

13. Ariel Properties Group (Electra Group) Israel e Yes Yes

14. Ashtrom Group Israel g Yes Yes

15. Ashtrom Industries (Ashtrom Group) Israel g Yes Yes

101
16. Ashtrom Properties (Ashtrom Group) Israel g Yes Yes

17. Atlas Copco Sweden No Yes

18. Bank Hapoalim Israel e, f Yes Yes

19. Bank Leumi Israel e, f Yes Yes

20. Bank Otsar HaHayal (First International Israel e, f Yes Yes

Bank of Israel)

21. Beit Haarchiv Israel g Yes No

22. Bezeq Group Israel e, g, i Yes Yes

23. Booking.com (Booking Holdings) Netherlands e Yes Yes

24. Booking Holdings United States e Yes Yes

25. Brand Industries Israel g Yes No

26. C. Mer Group Israel b Yes No

27. Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocar- Spain No Yes

riles (CAF)

28. Cafe Café Israel e, g Yes No

29. Caliber 3 Israel d, g Yes No

30. Caterpillar United States No Yes

31. Cellcom Israel Israel e, g, i Yes Yes

32. Cemex Mexico No Yes

102
33. CETCO Mineral Technology Group United States No Yes

34. Cherriessa Israel g Yes No

35. Chish Nofei Israel Israel g Yes No

36. Cisco Systems United States No Yes

37. CNH Industrial Netherlands No Yes

38. Comasco Israel a Yes No

39. Darban Investments (Mivne Group) Israel g Yes Yes

40. Delek Group Israel e, g Yes Yes

41. Delta Galil Industries Israel g Yes Yes

42. Delta Israel (Delta Galil Industries) Israel g Yes Yes

43. Dor Alon Energy in Israel (Alon Blue Israel e, g Yes No

Square Israel)

44. DXC Technology United States No Yes

45. eDreams ODIGEO Luxembourg e Yes Yes

46. Egged Israel Transport Cooperative Israel e Yes No

Society

47. Egis France France e Yes No

48. Egis Rail (Egis France) France e Yes No

49. Elbit Systems Israel No Yes

103
50. Electra Group Israel e Yes Yes

51. Energix Renewable Energies Israel g Yes Yes

52. EPR Systems Israel e, g Yes No

53. Expedia Group United States e Yes Yes

54. Export Investment Company Israel e, f Yes No

55. Extal Israel g Yes No

56. Field Produce Israel g Yes No

57. Field Produce Marketing (Field Pro- Israel g Yes No

duce/Tnuvot Field)

58. First International Bank of Israel Israel e, f Yes Yes

59. Galshan Shvakim Israel d, e Yes No

60. General Mills United States g Yes Yes

61. General Mills Israel (General Mills) Israel g Yes Yes

62. Greenkote (Summet Hitech Coatings) United Kingdom g Yes No

63. Hadar Group Israel g Yes No

64. Hadiklaim – Israel Date Growers Coop- Israel g Yes No

erative

65. Hamat Group Israel g Yes No

66. HeidelbergCement Germany No Yes

104
67. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) United States No Yes

68. Hot Mobile (Altice) Israel e Yes Yes

69. Hot Telecommunication Systems (Al- Israel e Yes Yes

tice)

70. Housing and Construction Holding Co. Israel No Yes

(Shikun & Binui Group)

71. Industrial Buildings Corporation (Mivne Israel g Yes Yes

Group)

72. Israel Discount Bank Israel e, f Yes Yes

73. Israel Railways Corporation Israel g, h Yes No

74. Italek Israel e, g Yes No

75. JC Bamford (JCB) Excavators United Kingdom a Yes No

76. Jerusalem Bank (Export Investment Israel e, f Yes No

Company)

77. Jerusalem Economy (Mivne Group) Israel g Yes Yes

78. Kardan Netherlands e Yes No

79. Kavim Public Transportation Israel e Yes No

80. Lipski Installation and Sanitation (Ha- Israel g Yes No

mat Group)

81. Magal Security Systems Israel No Yes

82. MAN Group Germany No Yes

83. Manitou France No Yes

105
84. Matrix IT Israel e, g Yes Yes

85. Mayer Davidov Garages (Meir Davidov) Israel e, g Yes No

86. Mayer's Cars and Trucks Israel e Yes No

87. Mekorot Water Company Israel g, i Yes No

88. Mercantile Discount Bank (Israel Dis- Israel e, f Yes Yes

count Bank)

89. Merkavim Transportation Technologies Israel e Yes No

90. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Israel e, f Yes Yes

91. Modechai Aviv Taasiot Beniyah 1973 Israel g Yes No

92. Modi’in Ezrachi Israel d, e Yes No

93. Motorola Solutions United States b Yes Yes

94. Motorola Solutions Israel (Motorola Israel b Yes Yes

Solutions)

95. Municipal Bank Israel f Yes No

96. Naaman Group (Alon Blue Square Is- Israel e, g Yes No

rael)

97. Natoon Group Israel d, e Yes No

98. Nof Yam Security (Natoon Group) Israel d, e Yes No

99. Ofertex Industries Israel g Yes No

100. Opodo (eDreams ODIGEO) United Kingdom e Yes Yes

106
101. Partner Communications Israel e, g, i Yes Yes

102. Paz Oil Company Israel e, g, i Yes Yes

103. Pelegas (Brand Industries) Israel g Yes No

104. Pelephone Communications (Bezeq Israel e, g Yes Yes

Group)

105. ProffiMat Israel g Yes No

106. Rami Levy Chain Stores Hashikma Mar- Israel e, g Yes Yes
keting 2006

107. Rami Levy Hashikma Marketing Com- Israel e, g Yes Yes

munications (Rami Levy Hashikma Mar-
keting)
108. RE/MAX Holdings United States e Yes Yes

109. Shalgal Food (General Mills licensee) Israel g Yes Yes

110. Shapir Engineering and Industry Israel e, g Yes Yes

111. Shufersal Israel e, g Yes Yes

112. Siemens Germany No Yes

113. Solvay Belgium No Yes

114. Sonol Israel Israel e, g Yes No

115. Superbus Israel e Yes No

116. Supergum Industries Israel g Yes No

117. Tahal Group International (Kardan) Netherlands e Yes No

118. Terex Corporation United States No Yes

107
119. Tripadvisor United States e Yes Yes

120. Twitoplast Israel g Yes No

121. Unikowsky Maoz Israel g Yes No

122. Villar International Israel g Yes No

123. Volvo Group Sweden No Yes

124. WSP Global Canada No Yes

125. YES (Bezeq Group) Israel e Yes Yes

126. Zakai Agricultural Know-how and In- Israel g Yes No

puts

127. ZF Development and Construction Israel g Yes No

128. Z.M.H. Hammerman Israel g Yes No

129. Zorganika Israel g Yes No

130. Zriha Hlavin Industries Israel g Yes No

108
ANNEX 2: Creditors (2018-May 2021, US$ mln)

Investor Parent Investor Parent Loans Underwriting Total

Country
1. BNP Paribas France
8,974 8,326 17,300
2. Deutsche Bank Germany
4,416 7,618 12,034
3. HSBC United Kingdom
4,171 4,550 8,721
4. Barclays United Kingdom
4,414 4,275 8,689
5. Société Générale France
4,326 3,875 8,202
6. Crédit Agricole France
2,978 2,574 5,551
7. Santander Spain
2,805 1,948 4,752
8. ING Group Netherlands
3,398 1,206 4,604
9. Commerzbank Germany
3,508 863 4,371
10. UniCredit Italy
1,752 1,832 3,584
11. Standard Chartered United Kingdom
2,918 625 3,543
12. Lloyds Banking Group United Kingdom
3,220 296 3,516
13. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) Spain
2,349 640 2,989
14. NatWest United Kingdom
2,107 811 2,918
15. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken Sweden
1,199 1,537 2,735
16. Danske Bank Denmark
1,048 1,436 2,485
17. Intesa Sanpaolo Italy
1,514 595 2,109
18. Nordea Finland
596 1,193 1,789
19. BPCE Group France
1,148 444 1,592
20. BayernLB Germany
1,406 155 1,561
21. Svenska Handelsbanken Sweden
459 1,039 1,498
22. Swedbank Sweden
756 660 1,415
23. Rabobank Netherlands
718 615 1,333
24. Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (LBBW) Germany
755 422 1,177

109
25. KBC Group Belgium
1,046 23 1,069
26. Crédit Mutuel CIC Group France
648 132 780
27. Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Germany
578 109 687
28. Mediobanca Banca di Credito Finanziario Italy
520 155 675
29. Raiffeisen Bank International Austria
459 140 600
30. La Caixa Group Spain
127 293 420
31. ABN Amro Netherlands
154 188 342
32. DNB Norway
204 124 328
33. DZ Bank Germany
191 191
34. Banco de Sabadell Spain
61 56 117
35. Erste Group Austria
116 116
36. BFA Holding Spain
89 89
37. Instituto de Credito Oficial Spain
53 53
38. Kutxabank Spain
53 53
39. Bankinter Spain
30 30
40. Caja Rural Spain
27 27
41. Abanca Spain
22 22
42. Ibercaja Group Spain
8 8
43. Arquia Caja de Arquitectos Spain
6 6
44. Unicaja Banco Spain
4 4
45. Banca March Spain
2 2
46. Caja de Ingenieros Spain
2 2
47. Liberbank Group Spain
2 2

110
Endnotes
1. Article 49, Fourth Geneva Convention (1949).
2. For example, Articles 46, 52, 53, 55 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
(1949).
3. 1) the supply of equipment and materials facilitating the construction and the expansion of settlements and the wall,
and associated infrastructures; 2) the supply of surveillance and identification equipment for settlements, the wall and
checkpoints directly linked with settlements; 3) the supply of equipment for the demolition of housing and property,
the destruction of agricultural farms, greenhouses, olive groves and crops; 4) the supply of security services, equip-
ment and materials to enterprises operating in settlements; 5) the provision of services and utilities supporting the
maintenance and existence of settlements, including transport; 6) banking and financial operations helping to develop,
expand or maintain settlements and their activities, including loans for housing and the development of businesses; 7)
the use of natural resources, in particular water and land, for business purposes; 8) pollution, and the dumping of waste
in or its transfer to Palestinian villages; 9) captivity of the Palestinian financial and economic markets, as well as practices
that disadvantage Palestinian enterprises, including through restrictions on movement, administrative and legal con-
straints; and 10) use of benefits and reinvestments of enterprises owned totally or partially by settlers for developing,
expanding and maintaining the settlements. See UN OHCHR, ‘UN rights office issues report on business activities related
to settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/
DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25542>.
4. These case studies exemplify different types of involvement in the Israeli settlement enterprise: one European financial
institution (BNP Paribas) and two multinationals domiciled in the EU (Booking.com and HeidelbergCement). The case
studies were selected to present a cross-sample based on the following selection criteria: the type and level of involve-
ment, the scope of their financial involvement, and the impact of their activities on Palestinians – on both their individ-
ual and collective rights – as protected persons. The case studies illustrate a broader phenomenon, and do not suggest
that they are the only business enterprises involved in activities related to the settlements that should merit attention.
5. See OHCHR, ‘UN rights office issues report on business activities related to settlements in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory’, 12 February 2020, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?News-
ID=25542>.
6. These case studies were selected using a number of selection criteria, including: type and level of involvement, the
scope of their financial involvement, and the impact of their activities on Palestinian communities. Their listing as “case
study” should be understood as a way to illustrate a broader phenomenon, not as a suggestion that they are the only
business enterprises involved in activities related to the settlements that should merit attention.
7. See OHCHR, ‘UN rights office issues report on business activities related to settlements in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory’, 12 February 2020, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?News-
ID=25542>.
8. WhoProfits, ‘Database’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/>.
9. The UN database published in February 2020 included a total of 112 companies, including 21 parent companies.
10. The lease agreement of the plant expired in December 2020. Indorama Ventures, ‘Relocation of one manufactur-
ing facility of Avgol Industries 1953 Ltd.’, 14 February 2020, Notice to the Stock Exchange of Thailand, Ref. No.
IVL002/02/2020; Levy, A, ‘Avgol is shifting production from Israel to India’, Globes, 20 October 2020, available at:
<https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-avgol-shifting-production-from-israel-to-india-1001346418>.
11. Fender, K., ‘New consortium takes up Jerusalem light rail concession’, International Rail Journal, 25 April 2021, available
at: <https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/light-rail/new-consortium-takes-up-jerusalem-light-rail-concession/>.
12. Alstom, ‘A transformational step for Alstom: competition of the acquisition of Bombardier Transportation’, 29 Janu-
ary 2021, available at: <https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2021/1/transformational-step-alstom-comple-
tion-acquisition-bombardier>.
13. Not separately counted are responses by FIs who only stated that they do not comment on their financial relationships.
14. Article 42, Hague Regulations (1907).
15. Article 47, Fourth Geneva Convention (1949); Article 2(4), Charter of the United Nations (1945).
16. International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of the Wall in the Oc-
cupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, para. 120; United Nations Security Council resolutions 2334 (2016) and 465
(1980); United Nations General Assembly resolution 70/89; ‘Declaration of the Conference of High Contracting Parties
to the Fourth Geneva Convention’, 5 December 2001; ‘Declaration of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to
the Fourth Geneva Convention’, 17 December 2014. See also the July 2021 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk: A/HRC/47/57, pp. 17-18.
17. ‘Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaf-
firms’, para 1, 23 December 2016, United Nations.
18. SC/RES/2334 (2016), para. 5.
19. Article 4, Fourth Geneva Convention (1949).
20. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Commentary of
1958, available at: <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documen-
tId=523BA38706C71588C12563CD0042C407>.
21. Article 49 and Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949); See also Rule 129 of Customary International Law,
International Committee of the Red Cross; Article 85(4)(a) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions
(1977).

111
22. Article 46, Hague Regulations (1907).
23. Articles 43, 55 Hague Regulations (1907); articles 53 and 64 Fourth Geneva Convention (1949).
24. Article 55 Hague Regulations (1907).
25. See International Court of Justice, Judgment, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of
the Congo v. Uganda), 19 December 2005, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168, para. 249.
26. See United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, United States v. Friedrich Flick et al., in ‘Law Reports of Trials of War
Criminals’, 1949, Volume IX, at p. 24 (“State-owned property of this character may be seized and operated for the ben-
efit of the belligerent occupant for the duration of the occupancy. […] Title was not acquired nor could it be conveyed
by the German Government. The occupant, however, had a usufructuary privilege”.); United States Military Tribunal
at Nuremberg, United States v. Alfried Felix Alwyn Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach et al., ‘Law Reports of Trials of War
Criminals’, 1949, Volume X at p. 134 (“The economy of the belligerently occupied territory is to be kept intact, except
for the carefully defined permissions given to the occupying authority – permissions which all refer to the army of
occupation”).
27. See Article 52-53, Hague Regulations (1907).
28. Article 47 Hague Regulations (1907); Article 33 Fourth Geneva Convention (1949); Article 8(2)(b)(xvi) Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court.
29. Articles 8(2)(a)(iv) and 8(2)(b)(xiii) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
30. Article 147, Fourth Geneva Convention (1949).
31. ‘Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, respecting an investigation of the Situation in Palestine’, 3 March 2021,
available at: <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=210303-prosecutor-statement-investigation-palestine>.
32. International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, 2004 ICJ Reports, pp. 47-49.
33. ‘International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid’ (adopted 30 November
1973, entry into force 18 July 1976), A/RES/34/27, Art. II, available at: <https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/
documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.10_International%20Convention%20on%20the%20Suppression%20and%20Punish-
ment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Apartheid.pdf>.
34. ‘Concluding observations on the combined seventeenth to nineteenth reports of Israel’, CERD/C/ISR/CO/17-19, 27
January 2020, para 22-23, available at: <https://www.un.org/unispal/document/concluding-observations-on-the-com-
bined-seventeenth-to-nineteenth-reports-of-israel-advance-unedited-version-cerd-c-isr-co-17-19>.
35. Susan Power, ‘The Legal Architecture of Apartheid – by Dr Susan Power, Al-Haq’, 2 April 2021, available at: <https://
aardi.org/2021/04/02/the-legal-architecture-of-apartheid-by-dr-susan-powers-al-haq/>.
36. Susan Power, op cit., sections 2 and 6.
37. Al-Haq, ‘Palestinian, regional, and international groups submit report on Israeli apartheid to UN Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination’, 12 November 2019, available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/16183.html>
; HSCR, ‘Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian terri-
tories under international law’, 2009, available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/7207.html>; Karine Mac Allister,
‘Applicability of the Crime of Apartheid to Israel, Badil, 2008, available at: <https://www.badil.org/en/publication/pe-
riodicals/al-majdal/item/72-applicability-of-the-crime-of-apartheid-to-israel.html>; State of Palestine, ‘It is Apartheid:
The Reality of Israel’s Colonial Occupation of Palestine’, June 2021, available at: <https://www.nad.ps/sites/default/
files/20201230.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3zFb4Tj0Cy0lznsNYcgygG402HVfxTlRtMKjmu4tNE-rkYgqLU1FTPth0>.
38. See Richard Falk, Virginia Tilly, ‘Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid’, E/ES-
CWA/ECRI/2017/1, available at: <https://aardi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ESCWA-2017-Richard-Falk-Apart-
heid.pdf>.
39. See Human Rights Watch, ‘A Threshold Crossed. Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecu-
tion’, 27 April 2021, available at: <https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authori-
ties-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution>; B’Tselem, ‘A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid’, 12 January 2021, available at: <https://www.btselem.org/publications/full-
text/202101_this_is_apartheid>; Yesh Din, available at: <https://www.yesh-din.org/en/the-occupation-of-the-west-
bank-and-the-crime-of-apartheid-legal-opinion/>.
40. Al-Haq, et al., ‘Joint Parallel Report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on Isra-
el’s Seventeenth to Nineteenth Periodic Reports’, 10 November 2019, available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/cached_up-
loads/download/2019/11/12/joint-parallel-report-to-cerd-on-israel-s-17th-19th-periodicreports-10-november-2019-
final-1573563352.pdf>.
41. Defined as four legal domains that Israel established to exercise control over the rights of the Palestinian people, name-
ly, 1) civil law, governing Palestinians who lives as citizens of Israel; 2) Permanent residency law governing Palestinians
living in Jerusalem; 3) Military law governing Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; 4) Policy to preclude the return
of Palestinian exiles and refugees, living outside territory under Israel’s control. R. Falk, V. Tilly, op. cit., p. 4.
42. Al-Haq, et al., ‘Joint Parallel Report …’, op. cit., p. 21.
43. Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State of the Jewish People, 2018, available at: <https://knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/
BasicLawNationState.pdf>.
44. See Human Rights Watch, ‘Occupation Inc.: How Settlement Businesses Contribute to Israel’s Violations of Palestinian
Rights’, 19 January 2016; Amnesty International, ‘Destination Occupation: Digital Tourism and Israel’s Illegal Settlements
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories’, 30 January 2019.

112
45. OHCHR, A/HRC/22/63, 7 February 2013, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/Reg-
ularSession/Session22/A-HRC-22-63_en.pdf>.
46. See GLAN and Al-Haq, ‘Business and Human Rights in Occupied Territory. Guidance for upholding human rights’, 2020,
available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/2020/04/27/business-and-human-rights-in-the-opt-
interactive-1587981596.pdf>.
47. ICRC, ‘Business and international humanitarian law’, 30 November 2006, available at: <https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/
resources/documents/misc/business-ihl-150806.htm#a6>.
48. ICRC, ‘Business and international humanitarian law’, op. cit.
49. Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Statement on the implications of the Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights in the context of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
50. ICRC, ‘Business and international humanitarian law’, 30 November 2006, available at: <https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/
resources/documents/misc/business-ihl-150806.htm#a6>.
51. ICRC, ‘Business and international humanitarian law’, op. cit.
52. See Al-Haq, ‘Pillage of the Dead Sea. Israel’s unlawful exploitation of natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Ter-
ritory’, 2012, available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/alhaq_files/publications/Dead-sea-web.
pdf>.
53. Article 33, 53, Fourth Geneva Convention; Article 46 Hague Regulations.
54. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2011): ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights. Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework’.
55. UNGP, 13 a.
56. UNGP, 13 b.
57. UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 1 and 14.
58. UN Human Rights Council (2011), Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations
“Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, A/HRC/17/31, pp. 14-15.
59. See in this regard also UN Human Rights Council (2013): ‘Report of the independent international fact-finding mission
to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the
Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem’, A/HRC/22/63, para 117,
which calls on business to consider terminating their business interests in the settlements to ensure that they do not
have an adverse impact on the human rights of the Palestinian people.
60. ‘Statement on the implications of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the context of Israeli settle-
ments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’, 6 June 2014, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, p. 11.
61. OHCHR, ‘UN rights office issues report on business and human rights in settlements in the occupied Palestinian ter-
ritory’, 31 January 2018, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?News-
ID=22617&LangID=E>; HRW (2016): Occupation Inc., op. cit., p. 2; HRW ‘Israel: Businesses Should End Settlement Activity’,
19 January 2016.
62. OHCHR, ‘Statement on the implications of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the context of Israeli
settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’, 6 June 2014, p. 8; See UN Guiding Principle 22.
63. ‘Statement on the implications…’, op. cit., p. 12.
64. ‘Statement on the implications…’, op. cit., pp. 9-10.
65. See ESCR-Net Position Paper on the Revised Draft of Treaty on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enter-
prises with Respect to Human Rights, ESCR-Net, October 2019, available at: <https://www.escr-net.org/sites/default/
files/escrnet_cawg_position_un_treaty_october_2019_0.pdf>; Al-Haq, ‘Al-Haq Submits Additional Textual Sugges-
tions on the Revised Draft Legally Binding Instrument (LBI)’, March 2020, available at: <http://www.alhaq.org/advoca-
cy/16546.html>; Al-Haq, ‘Al-Haq’s Comments and Proposals on the Zero Draft Treaty’, March 2019, available at: <http://
www.alhaq.org/advocacy/6089.html>.
66. Principle 1 of the UNGPs provides that States must protect against human rights abuses within their territory and/or
jurisdiction and “should consider the full range of permissible preventative and remedial measures, including policies,
legislation, regulations and adjudication. States also have the duty to protect and promote the rule of law, including by
taking measures to ensure equality before the law, fairness in its application, and by providing for adequate account-
ability, legal certainty, and procedural and legal transparency”.
67. ‘Statement on the implications…’, op. cit., p. 11; See also Guiding Principle 11.
68. ‘Statement on the implications…’, op. cit., p. 3, See also Guiding Principle 5.
69. ‘Statement on the implications…’, op. cit., p. 4; See also Guiding Principle 4.
70. OECD (2011): ‘OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’, pp. 31-34.
71. UN Global Compact, ‘Human Rights’, available at: <https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/our-work/social/hu-
man-rights>.
72. See UN Global Compact, ‘Principle 1’, available at: <https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles/
principle-1>; UN Global Compact, ‘Principle 2’, available at: <https://www. unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/
principles/principle-2>.
73. UN Global Compact, ‘Our Integrity Measures’, available at: <https://www.unglobalcompact.org/about/integrity-mea-
sures> and <https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/1831>.
74. See for example: <https://www.nzsuperfund.nz/assets/documents/responsible-investment/R-GNZS-IC-Paper-Exclu-
sion-of-Israeli-Banks-January-2021.pdf>.
75. Essex Business and Human Rights Project ,‘Investor Obligations in Occupied Territories: A Report on the Norwe-
gian Government Pension Fund – Global’, April 2019, pp. 8, 9, 10, available at: <https://www.fagforbundet.no/
file/3e969128a0862f2236e25d01eac44640/Investor+Obligations+in+Occupied+Territories+ A+Report+on+the+Gov-
ernment+Pension+Fund+Global.pdf>.

113
76. See Letter from OHCHR to SOMO, ‘The Issue of the Applicability of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
to Minority Shareholdings’, p.6, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/LetterSOMO.pdf>;
See also OHCHR, ‘The Issue of the Applicability of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to Minority
Shareholdings – Letter to SOMO’, 26 April 2013, pp. 3, 4, 6.
77. OHCHR, ‘OHCHR Response to Request from BankTrack for Advice Regarding the Application of the UN Guiding Principles
on Business and Human Rights in the Context of the Banking Sector’, 12 June 2017; Brightwell, R., Frijns, J. and A. Miss-
bach,‘How Banks Contribute to Human Rights Violations’, 2017.
78. OECD, ‘Responsible business conduct for institutional investors’, available at: <https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/
RBC-for-Institutional-Investors.pdf>; and OECD, ‘Due Diligence for Responsible Corporate Lending and Securities Un-
derwriting’, 29 October 2019, available at: <https://www.oecd.org/investment/due-diligence-for-responsible-corpo-
rate-lending-and-securities-underwriting.htm>.
79. See Principles for Responsible Investment, ‘What are the Principles for Responsible Investment?’, available at: <https://
www.unpri.org/pri/what-are-the-principles-for-responsible-investment>.
80. UN Human Rights Special Procedures, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights at 10: Taking Stock of the First
Decade’ A/HRC/47/39, June 2021, p. 5, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/UNGPs10/
Stocktaking-reader-friendly.pdf>.
81. UN Human Rights Special Procedures, ‘Taking stock of investor implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights’, A/HRC/47/39/Add.2, June 2021, p. 6, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/
Business/UNGPs10/Stocktaking-investor-implementation.pdf>. In the Dutch Responsible Business Conduct Agreement
on responsible investment by Pension Funds, a thematic framework was published on how investors can incorporate
a conflict-sensitive approach in their own ESG due diligence. See: ‘Investing in conflict and post-conflict areas’, available
at: <imvoconvenanten.nl>.
82. UN Human Rights Special Procedures, ‘Taking stock of investor implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights’, A/HRC/47/39/Add.2, June 2021, pp. 6-8, 23, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/
Issues/Business/UNGPs10/Stocktaking-investor-implementation.pdf>.
83. “As the Guiding Principles make clear, the more severe the abuse, the more quickly the enterprise will need to see
change (....) Investor efforts to mitigate human rights abuses by helping to shift corporate conduct should not be an in-
definite process (...) Investors should also publicly disclose their human rights efforts, not only in relation to transactional
due diligence at the pre- investment stage, but throughout each stage of the investment lifecycle and across their
full investment portfolios”, UN Human Rights Special Procedures, ‘Taking stock of investor implementation of the UN
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights., A/HRC/47/39/Add.2, June 2021, pp. 6-8, 23, available at: <https://
documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/151/67/PDF/G2115167.pdf?OpenElement>.
84. See: OECD (2017), ‘Responsible business conduct for institutional investors: Key considerations for due diligence under
the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’, para. 1.1 and 2.3.
85. International Law Commission (2001): ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Wrongful Acts, Articles 40-42.
86. Valentina Azarova, ‘The Secret Life of Non-Recognition: EU-Israel relations and the obligation of non-recognition in
international law’, 22 August 2018.
87. United Nations Security Council resolution 465, para 7. The same demand was reiterated in UN Security Council resolu-
tion 471 (1980), para 5.
88. ‘Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaf-
firms’, 23 December 2016, United Nations, para 5.
89. International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of the Wall in the Oc-
cupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, at para. 159.
90. United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 (2004).
91. Pictet, J.S. (ed), ‘Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War’, 1958,
p. 16.
92. International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘Commentary of 2016. Article 1: Respect for the Convention’, para. 153-163,
available at: <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCI-commentaryArt1>.
93. See Principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the UNGPs on the State duty to protect, including in relation to extraterritorial
activities of businesses domiciled in their territory, state-owned enterprises, state commercial transactions with com-
panies, conflict-affected areas, and on domestic policy space and bilateral agreements.
94. Principle 2.
95. UN Economic and Social Council, Statement on the obligations of States parties regarding the corporate sector and
economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/2011/1, 12 July 2011, available at: <http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfSer-
vices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=4slQ6QSmlBEDzFEovLCuW1AVC1NkPsgUedPlF1vfPMKOgNxs%2FCpnVM8K6XpeNimFvr-
j%2F4tQZvhH%2BXM9vEaJmHSX3FSXAcTmJ%2BWc3iPSLafnoFpGQ9KIHCXooWHCPCpQt>.
96. Economic and Social Council, General comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities, available at: <https://docstore.ohchr.org/Self-
Services/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=4slQ6QSmlBEDzFEovLCuW1a0Szab0oXTdImnsJZZVQcIMOuuG4TpS9jwIhCJcXiuZ1yrkM-
D%2FSj8YF%2BSXo4mYx7Y%2F3L3zvM2zSUbw6ujlnCawQrJx3hlK8Odka6DUwG3Y>.
97. Principle 4.
98. ‘The ICESCR as a Legal Constraint on State Regulation of Business, Trade, and Investment: Notes from CESCR General
Comment No. 24’, August 2017, available at: <https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-icescr-as-a-legal-constraint-on-state-regula-
tion-of-business-trade-and-investment-notes-from-cescr-general-comment-no-24-august-2017/>.
99. E/C.12/NOR/CO/6, para 6, available at: <https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.as-
px?symbolno=E%2fC.12%2fNOR%2fCO%2f6&Lang=en>.

114
100. E/C.12/NOR/CO/6, para 7.
101. Principle 7.
102. Working Group on business and human rights, Statement on the implications of the Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights in the context of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, p. 4.
103. Principle 3 and 25 + commentary.
104. Principle 7.
105. Principle 7, Commentary, p. 9.
106. See OHCHR, ‘International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’, 22 March
2012, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/regularsessions/session19/pages/israelisettlementsin-
theopt.aspx>.
107. The full text is as follows: “Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in close consultation with
the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, in fol-
low-up to the report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli
settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and as a necessary step for the implementation of the recommendation
contained in paragraph 117 thereof, to produce a database of all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed
in paragraph 96 of the afore-mentioned report, to be updated annually, and to transmit the data therein in the form
of a report to the Council at its thirty-fourth session”.
108. OHCHR identified as “involved”, substantial and material business activity that had a clear and direct link to one or more
of the listed activities, encompassing the following business forms: A business enterprise itself engaged in a listed
activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; A parent company owning a majority share of a subsidiary engaged in a
listed activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Where a business enterprise owns a minority share in a subsidiary
that business enterprise is not considered to be “involved” for the purposes of this report; and a business enterprise
granting a relevant franchise or license to a franchisee or licensee engaged in a listed activity in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory. See OHCHR, ‘UN rights office issues report on business activities related to settlements in the Occupied Pal-
estinian Territory’, 12 February 2020, p. 3, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.
aspx?NewsID=25542>.
109. See Al-Haq, ‘Al-Haq and CIHRS Welcome Publication of UN Database on Settlement Business Activities’, 13 February
2020, available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/16449.html>; HRW, ‘Israel: New Database Will Aid Corporate Ac-
countability’, available at: <https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/02/13/israel-new-database-will-aid-corporate-account-
ability>; Amnesty International, ‘UN list of settlement businesses offers new hope for accountability’, 13 February
2020, available at: <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/israelopt-un-list-of-settlement-business-
es-offers-new-hope-for-accountability/>; 11.11.11, ‘11.11.11 verwelkomt publicatie VN-database Israëlische neder-
zettingenindustrie’ 12 February 2020, available at: <https://11.be/verhalen/111111-verwelkomt-publicatie-vn-data-
base-israelische-nederzettingenindustrie>;
110. Who Profits Research Centre, ‘UN Releases List of Companies Involved in the Israeli Occupation A Positive Yet Partial Step’,
February 2020, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/updates/un-releases-list-of-companies-involved-in-the-is-
raeli-occupation/>.
111. A/HRC/47/57, p. 7.
112. See for example, CIHRS, ‘CIHRS and Partners Advocate for Palestinian Rights at 47th Regular Session of the Human Rights
Council’, 29 June 2021, available at: <https://cihrs.org/cihrs-and-partners-advocate-for-palestinian-rights-at-47th-reg-
ular-session-of-the-human-rights-council/?lang=en>; ‘Powerful states’ blocking data on firms in Israeli settlements’,
Al-Jazeera, 20 September 2019, available at: <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/9/20/powerful-states-block-
ing-data-on-firms-in-israeli-settlements>.
113. BNP Paribas, ‘Consolidated Balance Statements – Year Ended 31 December 2020’, p. 6 and 60; S&P Global, ‘Europe’s 50
largest banks by assets, 2021’, 23 April 2021, available at: <https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-in-
sights/research/europes-50-largest-banks-by-assets-2021>.
114. BNP Paribas, ‘About the group’, June 2021, available at: <https://group.bnpparibas/en/group>.
115. BNP Paribas, ‘Share ownership’, 31 December 2020, available at: <https://invest.bnpparibas.com/en/shareownership>
116. BNP Paribas, ‘Goods and Activities on Exclusion List: Group Public Disclosure’, March 2018.
117. BNP Paribas, ‘Responsible Business Principles’, December 2018.
118. EDH, ‘Who we are’, available at: <https://www.e-dh.org/home.php>.
119. BNP Paribas (2012), Statement of BNP Paribas on Human Rights, available at: <https://group.bnpparibas/uploads/file/
uk_declaration_bnp_sur_droit_de_l_homme.pdf>; See <https://www.banktrack.org/hrbenchmark>.
120. BNP Paribas, ‘Code of Conduct’, 2018, p. 26.
121. OHCHR, (2013, April 26), The Issue of the Applicability of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to Minori-
ty Shareholdings – Letter to SOMO, 26 April 2013, p. 3, 4, 6; OHCHR, ‘OHCHR Response to Request from BankTrack for
Advice Regarding the Application of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the Context of the Bank-
ing Sector’,12 June 2017; BankTrac,‘How Banks Contribute to Human Rights Violations. Briefing Paper’, December 2017,
available at: <https://www.banktrack.org/download/how_banks_contribute_to_human_rights_abuses/180416_how_
banks_contribute_human_rights_1.pdf>.
122. BNP Paribas, ‘BNP Paribas Corporate Governance’, March/April 2021, p. 22.
123. BNP Paribas, BNP Paribas and Human Rights: Lasting Commitment’, September 2020, pp. 6-7, available at: <https://www.
bnpparibasfortis.com/docs/default-source/pdf-(en)/csr/bnp-12000-15-607782084-csr-humain-rights_en_v01.pdf>.
124. BankTrack, ‘4 out of 5 banks failing on human rights, new BankTrack Human Rights Benchmark shows’, 26 November
2019, available at: <https://www.banktrack.org/article/4_out_of_5_banks_failing_on_human_rights_report_shows>.

115
125. Al-Haq et al., ‘French Banks Dangerous Liaisons with the Israeli Settlement Enterprise’, March 2017, available at: <https://
www.banktrack.org/download/french_banks_with_the_israeli_settlement_enterprise/french_banks_dangerous_liai-
sons_with_the_israeli_settlement_enterprise.pdf>.
126. Al-Haq et al., ‘French Banks Dangerous Liaisons with the Israeli Settlement Enterprise’, March 2017, p.8.
127. 11.11.11 et al., ‘Financing Occup’Annexation: How Financial Institutions in Belgium are involved in the Israeli Settlement
Industry’, May 2018, p. 13, available at: <https://fairfinanceguide.org/media/494221/2018-05-financing-occupannex-
ation-be.pdf>.
128. 11.11.11 et al., ‘Financing Occup’Annexation: How Financial Institutions in Belgium are involved in the Israeli Settlement
Industry’, May 2018, p. 11.
129. 11.11.11 et al., ‘Doing Business with the Occupation Economic and Financial Relationships of Foreign Companies with
Israel’s Settlement Enterprise’, June 2018, available at: <https://www.banktrack.org/download/doing_business_with_
the_occupation/doing_business_with_the_occupation.pdf>.
130. In financial year 2018, Booking.com accounted for around 75% of total revenues of Booking Holdings. Booking Holdings,
Form 10-K Annual Report to the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission, 2021, p. 126; Booking.com, Annual Accounts
2018, December 2019, p. 9.
131. Booking Holdings, ‘Form 10-K Annual Report to the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission’, 2021, pp.12, 55.
132. Booking Holdings response to DBIO due hearing process, August 2021.
133. Booking Holdings, 2020 Sustainability Report, March 2021, p. 23.
134. Booking Holdings, 2020 Sustainability Report, March 2021, p. 24.
135. Booking Holdings, Code of Conduct, November 2020, updated May 2021, p. 18.
136. Booking Holdings, Human Rights Statement, January 2021.
137. Human Rights Watch and Kerem Navot, ‘Bed and Breakfast on Stolen Land – Tourist Rental Listings in West Bank Settle-
ments’, November 2018, p. 4.
138. See Booking.com, ‘Kalia Kibbutz Hotel’, available at: <https://www.booking.com/hotel/il/kalia-kibbutz.html>; Booking.
com, ‘Panoramic Dead Sea View’, available at: <https://www.booking.com/hotel/il/panoramic- dead-sea-view.html>.
Booking.com, ‘Almog Kibbutz Hotel’, available at: https://www.booking.com/hotel/il/almog-kibbutz.html.
139. Booking.com, ‘Cozy & comfy room’, available at: <https://www.booking.com/hotel/il/cozy-amp-comfy-room.en-gb.
html>.
140. Booking Holdings response to DBIO due hearing process, August 2021.
141. Booking.com, ‘Kalia Kibbutz Hotel’, available at: <https://www.booking.com/hotel/il/kalia-kibbutz.html>.
142. Booking.com, ‘Gate Away B&B units’, available at: <https://www.booking.com/hotel/il/gate-away-b-amp-b-units.en-gb.
htmlhttps://www.booking.com/hotel/il/gate-away-b-amp-b-units.en-gb.html>.
143. Mieke Zagt, ‘Booking.com offers hotel rooms in Israel’s illegal settlements’, The Electronic Intifada, 24 February
2015, available at: <https://electronicintifada.net/content/bookingcom-offers-hotel-rooms-israels-illegal-settle-
ments/14300>.
144. Who Profits, ‘Booking.com’, 14 June 2017, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/booking-com>.
145. Who Profits, ‘Touring Israeli Settlements: Business and Pleasure for the Economy of Occupation, Flash Report’, Septem-
ber 2017.
146. Barbara Kuepper and Ward Warmerdam, ‘Doing Business with the Occupation -Economic and Financial Relationships of
Foreign Companies with the Settlement Enterprise’, June 2018, Profundo, p. 57.
147. Human Rights Watch and Kerem Navot, op. cit., pp. 17-20.
148. Al-Haq, ‘Al-Haq and others send letter to Booking.com’, 26 January 2019, available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/advo-
cacy/6111.html>.
149. ‘Booking.com response to report by Amnesty International’, 15 February 2019.
150. Proxy Review, ‘Conflict Zones’, available at: <https://www.proxypreview.org/2019/report/social-issues/human-rights/
conflict-zones>.
151. Wespath Institutional Investments (8 May 2019), ‘Update: Wespath withdraws 2019 resolutions at Entegris and Booking
Holdings’, available at: <https://www.wespath.com/News/Update-Wespath-Withdraws-2019-Resolutions-at-Enteg#!/
page:1>.
152. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process, acknowledging that settlements in occupied terri-
tory are illegal under international law, in accordance with the position of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which
“carry legal and economic risks”. It further noted that “the Crédit Agricole Group entities have exclusion policies as part
of the Group’s policy, regarding to their ESG policy, international conventions and internationally recognized frame-
works, or national regulatory frameworks”.
153. HeidelbergCement, ‘Company’, available at: <http://www.heidelbergcement.com/en/company>.
154. HeidelbergCement, Annual Report 2020, 2021, p. 105.
155. HeidelbergCement, ‘Israel’, 2021, available at: <https://www.heidelbergcement.com/en/israel>.
156. HeidelbergCement, ‘Israel – Overview’, available at: <http://www.heidelbergcement.com/en/israel>; Hanson Israel, ‘Han-
son – Your first choice [Hebrew]’, available at: <http://www.hanson-israel.com/about>.
157. Email by A. Schaller, then Director Group Communication & IR, HeidelbergCement in reply to due hearing on report, 10
June 2018, 11.11.11 and CNCD-11.11.11.
158. HeidelbergCement, Sustainability Report 2018, 2019, p. 62.
159. Iain Scobbie and Alon Margalit, ‘The Israeli Military Commander’s Powers under the Law of Occupation in relation to
Quarrying Activity in Area C’, 4 July 2012, available at: <https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/download/download/expert-opin-

116
 ion-israeli-military-commanders-powers-under-the-law-of-occupation/>; Dr. Guy Harpaz (member of the Faculty of Law
and the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Prof. Yuval Shany (member of
the Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Prof. Eyal Benvenisti (member of the Faculty of Law at Tel
Aviv University), Dr. Amichai Cohen (of the Ono Academic College), Dr. Yael Ronen (of the Shaarey Mishpat Academic
College and the Minerva Center for Human Rights, Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Prof. Barak
Medina (Dean of the Faculty of Law, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Prof. Orna Ben-Naftali (of the Law School,
The College of Management), HCJ 2164/09, ‘Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights v Commander of IDF Forces in
West Bank et al.’, 26 December 2011.
160. B’Tselem (2021, January 16), ‘High Court sanctions looting: Israeli quarries in the West Bank’, 16 January 2021, available
at: <https://www.btselem.org/settlements/20120116_hcj_ruling_on_quarries_in_wb>.
161. HeidelbergCement, ‘Sustainability Report 2018’, 2019.
162. HeidelbergCement, ‘Human Rights Position’, April 2020.
163. HeidelbergCement, Code of Business Conduct, February 2021, p. 12.
164. HeidelbergCement, Annual Report 2020, 2021, pp. 58-59.
165. HeidelbergCement, Sustainability Report 2020, 2021, p. 37.
166. Maha Abdallah and Lydia de Leeuw, ‘Violations Set in Stone: HeidelbergCement in the Occupied Palestinian Territo-
ry’, February 2020, Al-Haq and SOMO, available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/publications/16408.html>; HRW, “Letter
to HeidelbergCement Regarding Nahal Raba Quarry Expansion” (29 May 2020), available at: </https://www.hrw.org/
news/2020/05/29/letter-heidelbergcement-regarding-nahal-raba-quarry-expansion>.
167. Human Rights Watch (2016, November 21), ‘Letter to Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, High Commissioner Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the subject: Human Rights Watch recommendations on the
implementation of Human Rights Council Resolution 31/36 Business activities in Israeli settlements’, 21 November
2021, available at: <https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/2708CF521E854F6B85258072004FAD33>.
168. Maha Abdallah and Lydia de Leeuw, op. cit., p. 33.
169. B’Tselem, ‘High Court sanctions looting: Israeli quarries in the West Bank’, 16 January 2021, available at: <https://www.
btselem.org/settlements/20120116_hcj_ruling_on_quarries_in_wb>.
170. Al-Haq, ‘Virtual field visit to the Nahal Raba Quarry’, available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/media/15786.html>.
171. Dachverband der Kritischen Aktionärinnen und Aktionäre, ‘Counter Proposals to items 3 and 4 of the agenda for the An-
nual General Meeting of HeidelbergCement AG on May 9, 2018’; 19 April 2018, Dachverband der Kritischen Aktionärin-
nen und Aktionäre, ‘Counterproposal to items 3 of the agenda for the Annual General Meeting of HeidelbergCement
AG’, 23 April 2013.
172. HRW, ‘Occupation Inc., op. cit.
173. Yesh Din, ‘The Great Drain’, September 2017, p. 9.
174. Christoph Beumelburg, C., ‘Reply to letter by A. Ganesan and E. Goldstein from Human Rights Watch (May 2020)’, 10
June 2020.
175. HeidelbergCement, Reply to Business & Human Rights Centre in response to concerns raised by Electronic Intifada’,
October 2017.
176. Christoph Beumelburg, ‘Reply to letter…’, op. cit.
177. Christoph Beumelburg, ‘Reply to draft version of this report’, 30 July 2021.
178. HRW, Occupation Inc., op. cit., p. 133; Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2017, October 2), ‘OPT: Rights groups
accuse HeidelbergCement of IHL violations; HeidelbergCement response scrutinized’, 2 October 2017, available at:
<https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/opt-rights-groups-accuse-heidelbergcement-of-ihl-viola-
tions-heidelbergcement-response-scrutinized/>.
179. Maha Abdallah and Lydia de Leeuw, op. cit., p. 43.
180. Barbara Kuepper. And Ward Warmerdam(2018, June), op. cit., p. 23.
181. Maha Abdallah and Lydia de Leeuw, op. cit.
182. Response available on file with the DBIO coalition.
183. Response available on file with the DBIO coalition.
184. Maha Abdallah and Lydia de Leeuw, op. cit., p. 29.
185. Confirmed by HeidelbergCement in the due hearing process for this report, “the disposal process of Nahal Raba quarry
is meanwhile ongoing, as the concerned authorities are currently finalizing their decision”.
186. ‘Letter by the Civil Administration’, 6 February 2020, available at: <https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/
german-firm-escalates-its-war-crimes-against-palestinians>.
187. Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, ‘Notice of the deposit of a detailed outline plan No. 52/14/2 for the expan-
sion of the Nahal Rabba quarry [Hebrew]’, 4 June 2020, available at: <https://www.gov.il/he/departments/publica-
tions/reports/t52142>.
188. Submissions to the hearings by the Central Planning Bureau of the Israeli Civil Administration on the expansion of the
Nahal Rabba Quarry (2021, February).
189. Maha Abdallah and Lydia de Leeuw, op. cit., p. 25.
190. Maha Abdallah and Lydia de Leeuw, op. cit., pp. 48-49.
191. Email by A. Schaller, then Director Group Communication & IR, HeidelbergCement (10 June 2018), in reply to due hearing
on report by 11.11.11 and CNCD-11.11.11; HeidelbergCement (2019), Sustainability Report 2018, p. 62.
192. Maha Abdallah and Lydia de Leeuw, op. cit., p 44.
193. Mark Samander, ‘Captive Markets, Captive Lives – Palestinian Workers in Israeli Settlements’, 2021, Al-Haq, pp. 19-20,
available at: <https://www.alhaq.org/publications/18265.html>.

117
194. See Maha Abdallah and Lydia de Leeuw, op. cit.
195. OHCHR, ‘Database of all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed in paragraph 96 of the report of the
independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including
East Jerusalem, 1 February 2018, A/HRC/37/39, paras. 52–57.
196. HRW, ‘Letter to HeidelbergCement regarding Nahal Raba quarry expansion’, 29 May 2020, available at: <https://www.
hrw.org/news/2020/05/29/letter-heidelbergcement-regarding-nahal-raba-quarry-expansion>.
197. UN Human Rights Council, ‘Right of Palestinian people to self-determination – HRC 28th session – Resolution’, 3 April
2020, available at: <https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-183387/>.
198. Mark Samander, op. cit., p. 18-19; Conflict and Environment Observatory (COEOBS) and Al-Haq, ‘Strengthening the In-
ternational Law Commission’s draft principles on environmental protection in situations of occupation’, October 2018,
available at: <https://ceobs.org/ceobs-al-haq-strengthening-the-international-law-commissions-draft-principles-on-en-
vironmentalprotection-in-situations-of-occupation/>.
199. Walid Mustafa, ‘Palestine’s Natural Resources: Potentials and Limitations on Exploitations’, 2016, Palestine Economic
Policy Research Institute (MAS), p. 1.
200. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process. Deka Group claims that it could not detect any
breaches of human rights with the instruments it uses based on the UN Global Compact.
201. Who Profits, ‘Semi’, 22 May 2017, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/semi>; Who Profits, Crossing
the Line The Tel Aviv Jerusalem Fast Train (A1), October 2010, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2018/06/old/Train%20A1.pdf >.
202. HRW, ‘Israel: Airbnb to End Settlement Rentals’, 20 November 2018, available at: <https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/20/
israel-airbnb-end-settlement-rentals>; Airbnb (n.d.), ‘Stays in selected map area - Ma’ale Adumim/Kfar Adumim’, available at:
<https://www.airbnb.com/s/Beit-Horon/homes?tab_id=home_tab&refinement_paths%5B%5D=%2Fhomes&flexible_
trip_dates%5B%5D=june&flexible_trip_dates%5B%5D=may&flexible_trip_lengths%5B%5D=weekend_trip&date_picker_
type=flexible_dates&checkin=2021-06-22&checkout=2021-06-23&source=structured_search_input_header&search_
type=unknown&ne_lat=31.862584486623323&ne_lng=35.39823658613628&sw_lat=31.757114576215447&sw_
lng=35.26382572798198&zoom=13&search_by_map=true&place_id=ChIJawlzIIHTAhURdBKcLCKFDhM>.
203. See in this regard also FIDH et al., ‘3 French companies involved in light-rail construction’, 10 June 2018, available at:
<https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/report_israeli_settlements_in_east_jerusalem.pdf>.
204. Who Profits, ‘Alstom’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/alstom/>, accessed in June 2021; <https://www.
whoprofits.org/company/bombardier/>; See Alstom, ‘A transformational step for Alstom: completion of the acquisition
of Bombardier Transportation’, 29 January 2021, available at: <https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2021/1/
transformational-step-alstom-completion-acquisition-bombardier#_ftn4>; and Bombardier to overhaul 143 TWINDEXX
double-deck coaches for Israel Railways’, 15 January 2021, available at: <https://www.globenewswire.com/news-re-
lease/2021/01/15/2159325/0/en/Bombardier-to-overhaul-143-TWINDEXX-double-deck-coaches-for-Israel-Railways.
html>.
205. Israeli Ministry of Finance, ‘The tenders for the construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the blue and
purple rail lines in Jerusalem have been published’, 3 August 2021.
206. Who Profits, ‘Altice’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/altice/>.
207. Who Profits, ‘Altice’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/altice/>.
208. Who Profits, ‘Ashtrom Group’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/ashtrom-group/>.
209. Who Profits, ‘Ashtrom Group’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/ashtrom-group/>; Israbeton, ‘Fac-
tory deployment (Hebrew)’, available at: <http://www.israbeton.co.il/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7
%9E%D7%A4%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D>.
210. The DBIO received a response in the due hearing process.
211. See Atlas Copco, ‘Great ideas drive development’, available at: <https://www.atlascopcogroup.com/en/about-us>.
212. Who Profits, ‘Atlas Copco’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/atlas-copco/>.
213. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process. Among others, Svenska Handelsbanken noted that
international norms and conventions, namely the UNGPs and Universal Declaration, are the foundations for sustainable
work in the asset management sphere, and that controversial sectors, such as weapons, fossil fuels and tobacco, are
excluded when there are verified violations of international norms and conventions. In relation to its credit policy, the
Bank’s lending must be responsible and meet high demands for sound ethical standards. In lending, the Bank must
assess and evaluate each customer’s stance on the principles and guidelines that the Bank follows. Svenska confirmed
that dialogues with the relevant companies listed in this report did take place but without results. It further noted that
their ISS ESG does not consider the UN report as a source of verification of violations in some cases, something that
Svenska is trying to understand and engage in discussions about, while it analyses companies and potential action that
can be taken.
214. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process. Swedbank claims to act with due diligence to avoid
infringing on rights in their business activities and operations.
215. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process. The Government Pension Fund Global – Norway
confirmed the exclusion of Shapir Engineering and Industry Ltd. in May 2021. It also referred to their “Expectation
Document on Human Rights”, which lays out their expectations of companies in this regard. This includes conducting
human rights due diligence based on the perspectives of those who may be negatively impacted and in line with inter-
national standards such as the OECD Guidelines and the UNGPs. The Pension Fund also noted that the UNGPs include an

118
 expectation that companies respect international humanitarian law, and that “enhanced human rights due diligence” is
required when companies are operating in conflict areas.
216. Who Profits, ‘Hapoalim Bank’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/hapoalim-bank> ; Banks in Israel,
Bank Hapoalim branches, available at: <https://banks-in-israel.co.il/Bank-Hapoalim/branches.asp?bankURL=%D7%A1%D
7%A0%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%99+Bank+Hapoalim&bank_code=12>; 11.11.11 et al., ‘Financing Occup’annexation’, p. 14,
available at: <https://www.fairfin.be/sites/default/files/2020-05/Financing%20Occup%27annexation_0.pdf>.
217. The DBIO received a response in the due hearing process.
218. Who Profits, ‘Leumi Bank’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/leumi-bank>; Banks in Israel, ‘Bank Leumi’ avail-
able at: <https://banks-in-israel.co.il/Bank-Leumi/branches.asp?bankURL=Bank+Leumi+Le%2DIsrael++branches&bank_
code=10> ; 11.11.11 et. al., ‘Financing Occup’annexation’, op. cit., p. 14; See Who Profits, ‘Financing Land Grab: The
Direct Involvement of Israeli Banks in the Israeli Settlement Enterprise’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/report/
financing-land-grab-the-direct-involvement-of-israeli-banks-in-the-israeli-settlement-enterprise/>.
219. Who Profits, ‘Bezeq’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/bezeq-the-israeli-telecommunication-corpo-
ration/>.
220. Who Profits, ‘Bezeq’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/bezeq-the-israeli-telecommunication-corpo-
ration/>.
221. Who Profits, CAF- Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/
caf-construcciones-y-auxiliar-de-ferrocarriles/>. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process.
222. NGO Coalition (2020, December 18), ‘The Case of CAF in Occupied and Annexed Jerusalem, Submission to the UN Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’, 18 December 2020; ‘CAF and Shapir awarded Jerusalem light project
contract’ International Railway Journal, 8 August 2019, available at: <https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/light-rail/
caf-and-shapir-awarded-jerusalem-light-rail-project-contract/>; Who Profits, CAF- Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferro-
carriles, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/caf-construcciones-y-auxiliar-de-ferrocarriles/>.
223. Israeli Ministry of Finance, ‘The tenders for the construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the blue and
purple rail lines in Jerusalem have been published’, 3 August 2021, available at: <https://www.gov.il/en/departments/
news/press_03082021>.
224. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process. Fondbolaget Fondita AB claims that it does not in-
vest in companies that violate the UN Global Compact principles, and that they conduct screenings on a monthly basis.
According to the June 2021 screening, only Siemens is on the UN Global Compact watch list, which is allowed according
to Fondbolaget’s policy.
225. Who Profits, ‘Caterpillar’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/caterpillar/>.
226. Al-Haq has documented 57 instances of using Caterpillar machinery in demolitions of Palestinian structures (2019-
2020).
227. According to Who Profits, “military engineering machinery is an essential component in a notorious technique for
the arrest and sometimes extrajudicial killing of Palestinian suspects, known as the ‘pressure cooker procedure’. This
procedure was initially developed in order to handle hostage takers barricaded inside a building, but during the Second
Intifada it was modified and used against Palestinian suspects entrenched inside a house with no hostages. The proce-
dure’s objective is the surrender or killing of the suspect, preferably without injuring other civilians while minimizing risk
to the Israeli soldiers”. For more details, see: Who Profits,’ Heavy Engineering Machinery and the Israeli Occupation’, July
2014, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/old/facts_on_the_ground_-_heavy_engi-
neering_machinery_and_the_israeli_occupation.pdf>.
228. Who Profits, ‘Caterpillar’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/caterpillar/>; See Areeb Ullah, ‘Bulldoz-
ing Palestinian villages: The global firms aiding Israeli demolitions’, available at: <https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/
bulldozing-palestinian-villages-global-firms-aiding-israeli-demolitions>.
229. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process. Among others, KBC Group points out that it is a
signatory to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, included in its Sustainability Framework, which includes policies
related to human rights and ‘controversial’ activities such as weapons, tobacco and gambling. KBC Group has another
separate policy framework on human rights, applicable to all their core business activities as a financial institution and
to their proprietary investments. A KBC Blacklist, updated at least twice a year, includes companies linked to controver-
sial weapon systems or those that commit serious violations of the UN Global Compact principles, as well as “the most
controversial regimes” including those that commit “fundamental violations of human rights”.
230. Who Profits, ‘Cellcom Israel’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/cellcom-israel>.
231. Who Profits, ‘Cellcom Israel’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/cellcom-israel>.
232. Cemex, ‘Our Neighbours’, available at: https://www.cemex.com/sustainability/stakeholder-engagement/our-neighbors.
233. Who Profits, ‘Cemex’ available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/cemex/>; Mind The Gap, ‘Case Study: Cemex’s
exploitation of unlawful Israeli Occupation’, available at: <https://www.mindthegap.ngo/harmful-strategies/utilis-
ing-state-power/aligning-with-suppressive-state-institutions/example-cemexs-exploitation-of-unlawful-israeli-occupa-
tion/#_ftn4>.
234. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘Mexican firm distorts law to justify plunder of Palestinian resources’, 14
December 2015, <https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/mexican-firm-distorts-law-to-justify-plun-
der-of-palestinian-resources/>.
235. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process, claiming that Banco Sabadell “supports, respects and
protects internationally recognised fundamental human rights in all the territories in which it operates, in accordance
with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines”.
236. Who Profits, ‘CETCO’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/cetco-mineral-technology-group>. WhoProf-
its, ‘In the Pipeline: Israeli Bypass Water Project in the Jordan Valley’, February 2020.

119
237. Who Profits, ‘Cisco’s Involvement in the Israeli Occupation’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/updates/cis-
cos-involvement-in-the-israeli-occupation/>. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process.
238. Who Profits, ‘Cisco Systems’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/cisco-systems/>.
239. Minister for the Development of the Negev and Galilee Periphery (2021, July 15), ‘Klika - the joint work complexes
of the Ministry for the Development of the Periphery, the Negev and the Galilee [Hebrew]’, available at: <https://ne-
gev-galil.gov.il/economicdevelopment/klika/>; Facebook, ‘Klika Binyamin’, (2019, November 24), available at: <https://
www.facebook.com/KlikaBinyamin/> Who Profits, ‘Cisco Systems’, available at:. <https://www.whoprofits.org/compa-
ny/cisco-systems/>.
240. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process?
241. CNH Industrial, available at: <http://www.cnhindustrial.com/en-us/Pages/homepage.aspx>.
242. Who Profits, ‘CNH Industrial (Formerly CNH Global)’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/cnh-industrial-for-
merly-cnh-global/>.
243. Who Profits, ‘CNH Industrial (Formerly CNH Global)’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/cnh-industrial-for-
merly-cnh-global/>.
244. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process. Rabobank stated that they “have internally shared
the data analysis and encouraged relationship managers to engage the relevant clients for verification and follow-up
action where relevant”, and that they “take the UN OHCHR’s concerns seriously and are making sure to apply our KYC
processes including compliance with anti-money-laundering and sanctions procedures”. Rabobank’s policy framework
is in the process of being updated and newly approved texts on human rights, land governance and the armaments
sector should be expected soon.
245. Delek Group, ‘Annual Report 2020’, 2021, pp. A-11.
246. Who Profits, ‘Delek Group’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/delek-israel-fuel>; Delek Israel Fuel, ‘Stations
around the country (Hebrew)’, available at: <https://www.delek.co.il/stations?combine_1=&dropdown_first=All&drop-
down_second=All>.
247. In response to the DBIO coalition, ABN Amro stated that they do not have a specific policy regarding activities in con-
flict areas and rather refer to the Bank’s Human Rights Statement, applicable to the bank in general. The statement
in question highlights, among others, in a footnote, that human rights “are expressed in various international human
rights declarations and conventions. This includes the standards of the International Labour Organization and the rules
of international humanitarian law that apply in situations of armed conflict”. The statement also notes that in addition
to the state duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights,
and that where domestic and international standards conflict, business enterprises should make an effort to respect
international law, specifically noting ABN Amro’s commitment “to working to meet the expectations set by these stan-
dards and expects the same from its clients, suppliers and other business relationships”. Full statement available at:
<https://assets.ctfassets.net/1u811bvgvthc/38r2nwkymCHC5gtFhkVXRL/10f4406654d3f72ba3ce083285371945/
ABN_AMRO_Human_Rights_Statement_2020.pdf>. In addition, with regards to their private banking activities, ABN
Amro referred to the 2020 annual report of EOS Federated Hermes, recently appointed by ABN Amro. The report
highlights that in 2020, the methodology towards high-risk contexts, including occupied territories and disputed areas,
was developed, based on clients’ demands and increasing regulation at national and international levels. It further notes
that the engagement is apolitical, “while distinguishing between those situations that contravene international law and
those that do not”. An example is provided, where 10 companies engaged in activities linked to the OPT and settlements
were analysed. According to the report: “The companies provided us with information about how their due diligence
and investigations had been strengthened to reflect the high-risk region and an overview of the grievance mechanisms
in place. One company confirmed a cessation of activities linked to the construction of illegal or contested settlements”.
Full report, available at: <https://www.hermes-investment.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/eos-2020-annual-re-
view_spreads.pdf>.
248. Who Profits, ‘Delta Galil Industries’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/delta-galil-industries/>.
249. Who Profits, ‘DXC Technology’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/dxc-technology/>.
250. Who Profits, ‘DXC Technology’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/dxc-technology/>.
251. eDreams Odigeo, ‘Investors Overview’, available at: <https://www.edreamsodigeo.com/investors/>.
252. Opodo, ‘Kfar Adumim’, available at: <https://hotels.opodo.co.uk/>.
253. Opodo, ‘Kfar Adumim’, available at: <https://hotels.opodo.co.uk/>.
254. Email by Permira, 12 July 2021.
255. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process. Permira states that eDream Odigeo does not have
offices in the OPT and claims that eDreams does not offer accommodation listings in Israeli settlements since the release
of the UN Database. It notes that some listings can be done on an individual basis via external providers of accommo-
dation and that Permira has “regular manual checks and can delist accommodations or make them unavailable when we
find that they are illicit”.
256. Who Profits, ‘Elbit’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/elbit-systems/>.
257. Who Profits, ‘Elbit’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/elbit-systems/>; Corporate Watch, ‘Elbit Sys-
tem: Company Profile’, available at: <https://corporatewatch.org/elbit-systems-company-profile-2/>.
258. Who Profits, ‘Electra’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/electra/>.
259. Who Profits, ‘Electra’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/electra/>.
260. Who Profits, ‘Electra’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/electra/>.
261. Who Profits, ‘Electra’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/electra/>.

120
262. ‘Electra Afikim has bought the Egged-Ta’avura bus company for NIS 200 million’, Globes, 5 May 2021, available at:
<https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-egged-taavura-acquisition-makes-afikim-third-largest-bus-co-1001370042>. Who
Profits (12 February 2019), ‘Afikim – Public Transportation’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/afikim-pub-
lic-transportation/>.
263. Israeli Ministry of Finance, ‘The tenders for the construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the blue and
purple rail lines in Jerusalem have been published’, 3 August 2021, available at: https://www.gov.il/en/departments/
news/press_03082021.
264. Who Profits, ‘Energix Group’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/energix-group-0/>; Energix Group,
‘Meitarim’, available at: <https://www.energix-group.com/Meitarim/>; See Who Profits, ‘Greenwashing the Occupation’,
available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/old/greenwashing_the_occupation_web.
pdf>.
265. Hotels.com, available at: <hotels.com/search/searchmap.html>.
266. Who Profits, ‘First International Bank of Israel’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/first-internation-
al-bank-of-israel>.
267. Who Profits, ‘First International Bank of Israel’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/first-internation-
al-bank-of-israel>; 11.11.11. et al., op. cit., p. 15.
268. Al-Haq, ‘Atarot Settlement: The Industrial Key in Israel’s Plan to Permanently Erase Palestine’, 25 August 2021, available
at: <https://www.alhaq.org/publications/16929.html>.
269. Who Profits, ‘General Mills (former Pillsbury)’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/general-mills-pillsbury/>.
270. Who Profits, ‘Hewlett Packard Enterprise’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/hewlett-packard-enter-
prise-hpe/>. The current status of contracting is unclear.
271. Who Profits, ‘Discount Bank’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/discount-bank/>.
272. Who Profits, ‘Discount Bank’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/discount-bank/>; 11.11.11 et al.,
op. cit., p. 14; Banks in Israel, ‘Israel Discount Bank branches’, available at: <https://banks-in-israel.co.il/Bank-Discount/
branches.asp?bankURL=Israel+Discount+Bank+branches&bank_code=11>.
273. Magal Security Systems, ‘Annual Report Form 20-F to the Security and Exchange Commission’, 2021, p. 4.
274. Who Profits, ‘Magal Security Systems’, December 2017, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/magal-se-
curity-systems/>.
275. Yifat, ‘Tender database’, 2021;
276. Who Profits, ‘Man Group’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/man-group>.
277. Who Profits, ‘Manitou’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/manitou/>.
278. The DBIO received a response in the due hearing process.
279. Who Profits, ‘Matrix IT’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/matrix-it/>.
280. Who Profits, ‘Matrix IT’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/matrix-it/>.
281. Mivne Group, ‘Industry and Logistics (Hebrew)’, available at: <https://www.mivnegroup.co.il/logistics>; Who Profits, ‘Je-
rusalem Economy’, 28 June 2018, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/jerusalem-economy/>.
282. The DBIO received a response in the due hearing process. Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) issued a new exclusion
decision in June 2021 involving 16 companies. More details available in Section 5.1. of this report.
283. Who Profits, ‘Mizrahi Tefahot Bank’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/mizrahi-tefahot-bank>.
284. Who Profits, ‘Mizrahi Tefahot Bank’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/mizrahi-tefahot-bank>. Banks
in Israel, ‘Mizrahi Tefahot Bank branches’, available at: <https://banks-in-israel.co.il/Bank-Mizrahi-Tefahot/branches.as-
p?bankURL=Mizrahi+Tefahot+Bank++branches&bank_code=20>; 11.11.11 et al., op. cit., p. 14.
285. Who Profits, ‘Motorola Solutions’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/motorola-solutions/>.
286. Who Profits, ‘Motorola Solutions’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/motorola-solutions/>.
287. Who Profits, ‘Motorola Solutions’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/motorola-solutions/>.
288. Who Profits, ‘Motorola Solutions’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/motorola-solutions/>.
289. Who Profits, ‘Partner (former Orange)’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/partner-communica-
tions-orange/>.
290. Who Profits, ‘Partner (former Orange)’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/partner-communica-
tions-orange/>.
291. Who Profits, ‘Paz Oil Company’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/paz-oil-company/>; Paz Oil Compa-
ny, ‘Locate gas station (Hebrew)’, available at: <https://www.paz.co.il/he-IL/paz-stations?searchTerm=&>.
292. Who Profits, ‘Paz Oil Company’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/paz-oil-company/>
293. Who Profits, ‘Rami Levy Chain Stores’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/rami-levy-chain-stores-ha-
shikma-marketing-2006/>.
294. Al-Haq, ‘Atarot Settlement: The Industrial Key in Israel’s Plan to Permanently Erase Palestine’, 2 June 2020, p. 35, avail-
able at: <https://www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/2021/06/10/atarot-unlocked-1623310412.pdf>.
295. Who Profits, Re-Max Holdings’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/re-max-holdings>; RE/Max, ‘RE/
Max Ma’ale Adumim’, available at: <https://global.remax.com/en/offices/israel/maaleh-adumim/%D7%A8%D7%99%D7
%9E%D7%A7%D7%A1-%D7%A2%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%93-remax-atid/83181>.
296. Who Profits, ‘Shapir’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/shapir-civil-and-marine-engineering/>.
297. Who Profits, ‘Shapir’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/shapir-civil-and-marine-engineering/>; Sha-
pir, ‘Quarries, available at: <https://www.shapir.co.il/en/industry/quarries/>; Shapur, ‘Concrete plants’, available at:
<https://www.shapir.co.il/en/industry/concrete-plants/>.
298. Kobi Yeshayahou, ‘Shapir closes NIS 3.7b Jerusalem light rail financing’, Globes, 8 November 2020, available at: <https://
en.globes.co.il/en/article-shapir-closes-nis-37b-jerusalem-light-rail-financing-1001348678>.

121
299. Israeli Ministry of Finance, ‘The tenders for the construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the blue and
purple rail lines in Jerusalem have been published’, 3 August 2021, available at: <https://www.gov.il/en/departments/
news/press_03082021>.
300. Who Profits, ‘Housing and Construction Holding Co. (Shikun & Binui Group), available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/
company/housing-and-construction-holding-co/>.
301. Who Profits, ‘Housing and Construction Holding Co. (Shikun & Binui Group), available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/
company/housing-and-construction-holding-co/>; Who Profits, ‘Infrastructures of Dispossession and Control…’, op. cit.
302. Israeli Ministry of Finance, ‘The tenders for the construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the blue and
purple rail lines in Jerusalem have been published’, 3 August 2021, available at: <https://www.gov.il/en/departments/
news/press_03082021>.
303. Who Profits, ‘Shufersal’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/shufersal/>; Shufersal, ‘Corporate
branches (Hebrew)’, available at: <https://www.shufersal.co.il/online/he/iframe-container/corporateBranches>.
304. WhoProfits, ‘Siemens’, 1 November 2020, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/siemens/>.
305. RailwayPro, ‘Desiro HC train for Israel presented’, 4 December 2020, available at: <https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/
desiro-hc-train-for-israel-presented/>; WhoProfits, ‘Siemens’, 1 November 2020, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.
org/company/siemens/>.
306. Who Profits, ‘Solvay’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/solvay/>.
307. Who Profits, ‘In the Pipeline: Israeli Bypass Water Project in the Jordan Valley’, February 2020, available at: <https://
whoprofits.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Bardala-for-Website.pdf>.
308. Al-Haq, ‘Water for One People Only: Discriminatory Access and Water Apartheid in the OPT’, 2013, available at: <https://
www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/alhaq_files/publications/Water-For-One-People-Only.pdf>.
309. Al-Haq, ‘Water for One People Only: Discriminatory Access and Water Apartheid in the OPT’, 2013, available at: <https://
www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/alhaq_files/publications/Water-For-One-People-Only.pdf>.
310. Who Profits, ‘Solvay’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/solvay/>; Who Profits, ‘In the Pipeline: Israe-
li Bypass Water Project in the Jordan Valley’, February 2020, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2020/02/Bardala-for-Website.pdf>.
311. Who Profits, ‘Terex Corporation’, available at: <https://whoprofits.org/company/terex-corporation/>.
312. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process.
313. Tripadvisor, ‘Nof Canaan’, available at: <https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g3238517-d7648446-Reviews-
Nof_Canaan-Kfar_Adumim_Binyamin_Region_West_Bank.html>.
314. The DBIO received a response in the due hearing process, in which Volvo Group stated that “In Israel, we do not have any
own operations or own employees, and we sell our products and services through private business partners and have
done so for a long time. Volvo products have a long-life span, may be leased/rented, and may change ownership several
times. We are thus limited in our possibilities to influence how Volvo products are used throughout their entire life cycle.
The sale of these products is not targeted towards any specific areas (...) Unfortunately, we are unable to comment on
financial transactions with specific banks.”
315. Who Profits, ‘Volvo Group’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/volvo-group-ab-volvo/>.
316. Who Profits, ‘Volvo Group’, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/volvo-group-ab-volvo/>.
317. Who Profits, Volvo Group, available at: <https://www.whoprofits.org/company/volvo-group-ab-volvo/>.
318. Al-Haq, ‘Special Focus: Sharp High Rate of Property Demolitions since the Second Half of 2020’, 22 October 2020, avail-
able at: <https://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/17468.html>.
319. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process.
320. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process.
321. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process. Among others, DNB noted that “breaches of inter-
national laws and human rights are something DNB Asset Management (DAM) as a responsible investor takes seriously”.
More specific to the OPT, it mentioned that it “excluded several companies in the region and held engagements through
dialogues with multiple companies”. It further noted the importance “to distinguish between politics and international
norms/standards” including the Fourth Geneva Convention and indeed acknowledged that some companies are in-
volved in breaches in the OPT and should be assessed. DNB also noted that exclusion is one of the tools it uses to ensure
responsible investment. For example, it is no longer invested in Hapoalim Bank, HeidelbergCement, Bank Leumi, Mizrahi
Tefahot Bank, and TripAdvisor.
322. The DBIO coalition received a response in the due hearing process.
323. Who Profits, ‘WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff (Formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff International Inc.)’, available at: <https://www.
whoprofits.org/company/wsp-parsons-brinckerhoff-formerly-parsons-brinckerhoff-international-inc/>.
324. Who Profits, ‘WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff (Formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff International Inc.)’, available at: <https://www.
whoprofits.org/company/wsp-parsons-brinckerhoff-formerly-parsons-brinckerhoff-international-inc/>; Global Mass
Transit Report, ‘Railway projects in Israel ‘Progress and opportunities’, 1 September 2018, available at: <https://www.
globalmasstransit.net/archive.php?id=31508>.
325. Who Profits, ‘Tracking Annexation: the Jerusalem Light Rail and the Israeli Occupation’, July 2017, available at: <https://
www.whoprofits.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/old/tracking_annexation_-_the_jerusalem_light_rail_and_the_
israeli_occupation.pdf>.
326. See OHCHR, ‘Situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967’, A/75/532, 22 October 2020,
available at: <https://undocs.org/A/75/532>; OHCHR, ‘Situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied
since 1967’, A/74/507, 21 October 2019, available at: <https://undocs.org/A/74/507>.

122
327. Norges Bank, ‘Government Pension Fund Global: Decisions on exclusions’, 19 May 2021, available at: <https://www.
norges-bank.no/en/news-events/news-publications/News-items/2021/2021-05-19-gpfg/>; Lars Erik Taraldsen,
‘Norway wealth fund excludes firms linked to West Bank settlements’, Al-Jazeera, 20 May 2021, available at: https://
www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/5/20/norway-wealth-fund-excludes-firms-linked-to-west-bank-settlemen; Norges
Bank, ‘Decisions on exclusion’, 2 September 2021, available at https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/news-list/2021/de-
cisions-on-exclusion/
328. KLP, ‘Decision to exclude companies with links to Israeli settlements in the West Bank’, June 2021, <https://www.klp.
no/en/corporate-responsibility-and-responsible-investments/exclusion-and-dialogue/Decision%20to%20exclude%20
companies%20with%20links%20to%20Israeli%20settlements%20in%20the%20West%20Bank.pdf>, Gwladys Fouche
and Simon Jessop, ‘Nordic fund KLP excludes 16 companies over links with occupied West Bank’, Reuters, 5 July 2021,
available at: <https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/nordic-fund-klp-excludes-16-companies-over-links-with-oc-
cupied-west-bank-2021-07-05/>.
329. See Storebrand, ‘Velkommen til Storebrand Asset Management’, available at: <https://www.storebrand.no/asset-man-
agement/barekraftige-investeringer/aktivt-eierskap/konfliktomrader>; AFSC, ‘First Solar Inc’, 1 September 2020, avail-
able at: <https://investigate.afsc.org/company/first-solar>.
330. BDS, ‘Biggest Dutch Pension Fund ABP Divests from Israeli Banks’, July 2020, available at: <https://bdsmovement.net/
news/biggest-dutch-pension-fund-abp-divests-from-israeli-banks>.
331. Quakers in Britain, Quakers will not profit from the occupation of Palestine, 19 November 2018, available at: <https://
www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quakers-will-not-profit-from-the-occupation-of-palestine>.
332. Yvonne Ridley, ‘Scotland’s ‘Braveheart’ pension fund divests from Israeli bank’, 31 July, 2018, available at: <https://www.
middleeastmonitor.com/20180731-scotlands-braveheart-pension-fund-divests-from-israeli-bank/>.
333. AFSC, ‘EUROPCAR divests from the Israeli Occupation, 20 June 2018, available at: <https://investigate.afsc.org/up-
dates/europcar-divests-israeli-occupation>; and ‘Europcar divests from the Israel occupation’, 2 July 2018, available at:
<https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180702-europcar-divests-from-the-israel-occupation/>.
334. Sampension, ‘Investing responsibly – active ownership and dialogue’, 2018, available at: <https://www.sampension.dk/
media/7bd93383-ad44-4174-94d5-a5dce6ab8f83/47cmbw/PDF%20dokumenter%202018/Finansielle%20rapport-
er/11038_ESG_RAPPORT%202018_UK_final.pdf>; ‘Danish pension giant divests from Motorola over ties to Israeli set-
tlements’, 7 March 2018, available at: <https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180307-danish-pension-giant-divests-
from-motorola-over-ties-to-israeli-settlements/>.
335. Association Belgo-Palestininienne, ‘Stop au financement illégal de la colonisation israélienne’, 22 July 2009, available at:
<https://www.association-belgo-palestinienne.be/palestine-occupee-dexia-impliquee/>; ‘Dexia vend sa dernière fran-
chise commerciale: Israël’, 18 March 2018, available at: <https://www.lecho.be/entreprises/banques/dexia-vend-sa-
filiale-en-israel/9993366.html>.
336. Max Schindler, ‘Danish pension fund bans four firms over West Bank settlement activity’, 13 October 2017, available at:
<https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/danish-pension-fund-bans-four-firms-over-west-bank-settlement-
activity-507315>.
337. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘US church pension fund puts 5 Israeli banks on an investment blacklist over
links to settlement building’, 12 January 2016, available at: <https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/
us-church-pension-fund-puts-5-israeli-banks-on-an-investment-blacklist-over-links-to-settlement-building/>.
338. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘Decision to exclude from investment HeidelbergCement and Cemex’, 1 June
2015, available at: <https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/decision-to-exclude-from-investment-hei-
delbergcement-and-cemex/>; Amnesty International UK Section, ‘Think Twice: Can companies do business with Israeli
settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories while respecting human rights?’, 2019, available at: <https://www.
amnesty.org.uk/files/2019-03/Think%20Twice%20report.pdf?BrN9N0VX3RkzTJROuKYC46LE43hCPtTu>.
339. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘PGGM – Statement regarding exclusion of Israeli banks’, 8 January 2014, avail-
able at: <https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/pdf-pggm-statement-regarding-exclusion-of-israe-
li-banks-israel-palestine/>; Noah Browning, Major Dutch pension firm divests from Israeli banks over settlements’, 8 Jan-
uary 2014, available at: <https://www.reuters.com/article/netherlands-israel-divestment-idUSL6N0KI1N220140108>.
340. Søren Henriksen, ‘It made headlines around the world when Danske Bank in early 2014 excluded Israeli Bank Hapoalim
from its investment portfolio over Hapoalim’s ties to Israeli settlements. Now, two years later, Danske Bank is ready to
invest in Bank Hapoalim again. Danwatch has tried to find out why’, Danwatch, 12 February 2016, available at: <https://
old.danwatch.dk/en/nyhed/danske-bank-dropper-eksklusion-af-bank-hapoalim/#:~:text=It%20made%20headlines%20
around%20the,invest%20in%20Bank%20Hapoalim%20again>.
341. AFSC, ‘Elbit Systems Ltd.’, 22 January 2019, available at: <https://investigate.afsc.org/company/elbit-systems>; Bank-
track, ‘Deutsche Bank announces divestment from Elbit’, 27 May 2010, available at: <https://www.banktrack.org/
article/deutsche_bank_announces_divestment_from_elbit>; BankTrack, ‘Deutsche Bank announces divestment from
Elbit’, 27 May 2010, available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session6/
LBI3rdDRAFT.pdf>.
342. ‘Legally Binding Instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations
and other business enterprises’ (Third Revised Draft), 17 August 2021, Article 6.4 (g), available at: <https://www.ohchr.
org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session6/LBI3rdDRAFT.pdf>.
343. ECCJ, ‘Strong signal from European Parliament, but the Commission will have to go further’, 11 March 2021, available
at: <https://corporatejustice.org/news/strong-signal-from-european-parliament-but-the-commission-will-have-to-go-
further/>.

123
344. European Parliament (2019-2024), ‘Corporate due diligence and corporate accountability’ (text adopted), para. 26,
available at: <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0073_EN.pdf>.
345. European Parliament (2019-2024), ‘Corporate due diligence…’, para. 27.
346. ECCJ, ‘French Corporate Duty Of Vigilance Law’, 23 February 2017, available at: <http://corporatejustice.org/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2021/04/french-corporate-duty-of-vigilance-law-faq-1.pdf>; FIDH, ‘France must ensure implementation
of Duty of Vigilance Law to protect human rights defenders’, 29 January 2021, available at: <https://www.fidh.org/en/
region/europe-central-asia/france/france-must-ensure-implementation-of-duty-of-vigilance-law-to-protect>.
347. HRW, ‘Germany: New Supply Chain Law a Step in the Right Direction’, 11 June 2021, available at: <https://www.hrw.org/
news/2021/06/11/germany-new-supply-chain-law-step-right-direction>.
348. ‘New Act regarding transparency of companies compliance to fundamental human rights and working conditions’, 29
June 2021, available at: <https://norway.dlapiper.com/en/news/new-act-regarding-transparency-companies-compli-
ance-fundamental-human-rights-and-working>.
349. ‘Dutch bill on Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct a major step towards protecting human rights
and the environment worldwide’, 11 March 2021, available at: <https://www.mvoplatform.nl/en/dutch-bill-on-respon-
sible-and-sustainable-international-business-conduct-a-major-step-towards-protecting-human-rights-and-the-environ-
ment-worldwide/>.
350. Triponel Consulting, ‘What is the latest environmental and human rights due diligence legal development in Belgium?’,
26 April 2021, available at: <https://triponelconsulting.com/2021/04/26/what-is-the-latest-environmental-and-hu-
man-rights-due-diligence-legal-development-in-belgium/>.
351. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘Austrian movement for mandatory human rights due diligence’, 4 March
2021, available at: <https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/austrian-movement-for-mandatory-hu-
man-rights-due-diligence/>.

124
 The ‘Don’t Buy into Occupation’ (DBIO) coalition is a joint initiative between
25 Palestinian, regional and European organisations based in Belgium, France,
Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK).

DBIO member organisations are:

11.11.11- Koepel van de Internationale Solidariteit; Al-Haq; Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS); Banktrack;
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS); Centrale Nationale des Employés (CNE); Centre National de Coopération au
Développement (CNCD-11.11.11); European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP); European
Legal Support Center (ELSC); European Trade Union Network for Justice in Palestine (ETUN); Fagforbundet- Norwegian
Union of Municipal and General Employees; Fairfin; Handel og Kontor i Norge (HK Norway); Intersindical Alternativa de
Catalunya (IAC); Intal; International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH); Landsorganisasjonen i Norge (LO); Norwegian
People’s Aid (NPA); NOVACT - Institut Internacional per l’Acció Noviolenta; Palestinian Institute for Public Diplomacy (PIPD);
Palestine Solidarity Campaign; PAX; The Rights Forum; SUDS- Internacionalismo, Solidaritat i Feminismes; and Trócaire.

www.dontbuyintooccupation.org
125