The Four Pillars of Material Risk
What a company risks by supplying Israel's military and occupation, in the four terms a board already uses, with real cases for each. Attach it to letters, leave it behind after meetings, or use it to brief colleagues.
On 26 January 2024 the International Court of Justice found a real and imminent risk to the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide, and ordered Israel to prevent them. On 19 July 2024 it held Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory unlawful. In November 2024 the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister and former defence minister, and in September 2025 the UN Commission of Inquiry found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Every company that supplies the military, the settlements or the state behind them now carries risk on four fronts. Each one is a reason a board can act on without taking a political position.
Pillar 1
Legal & Regulatory risk
-
Complicity in international crimes. Company officers can be held personally liable for aiding war crimes or crimes against humanity, whether or not a court has ruled on genocide.
-
Settlement business. The International Court of Justice held on 19 July 2024 that settlements and their associated economic activity are contrary to international law, and that every state must prevent trade and investment that help maintain the occupation.
-
Due diligence laws. France's duty of vigilance law lets affected people take a company to court, Germany's supply chain law is enforced by a regulator, and the EU's due diligence directive, adopted in 2024 and narrowed in 2026, is due to apply from 2029.
-
Directors' duties. UK directors must have regard to the company's reputation for high standards of business conduct; Delaware boards must oversee legal compliance risk.
-
Contracts. A contract that requires a company to assist serious violations of international law may be open to challenge on public policy grounds.
Pillar 2
Financial & Investment risk
-
Investor exclusions. Sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and fund managers have excluded companies over their Israeli business, and each published exclusion makes the next easier.
-
ESG ratings. Rating providers flag serious human rights controversies, which can remove a company from the indices and funds that follow those ratings.
-
Stranded assets. Property and plant in the occupied territory sit on land the International Court of Justice has said Israel must leave.
-
Insurance. Insurers are reviewing who they cover. A company that loses cover pays more to replace it, or cannot.
Pillar 3
Operational & Supply Chain risk
-
Workforce. Engineers and other skilled staff have refused, protested and organised against military contracts, and dismissing them has its own legal and recruitment cost.
-
Public buyers. Public bodies publish their contracts and their renewal dates, and some have chosen not to renew.
-
Trade rules. The EU Court of Justice ruled in November 2019 that food from Israeli settlements must be labelled with its settlement origin, not as "Made in Israel".
-
Partner reliability. Mass reservist call-ups and the war economy have disrupted Israeli suppliers' staffing and delivery.
Pillar 4
Reputational & Brand risk
-
Association with genocide. The UN Commission of Inquiry found in September 2025 that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Every supplier to its military is now asked about it.
-
Association with apartheid. B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have each concluded that Israel commits apartheid against Palestinians, and the International Court of Justice found its measures in breach of the treaty article that prohibits racial segregation and apartheid.
-
Named in UN reports. The UN Special Rapporteur's report of June 2025 named companies across arms, technology, finance and construction as part of what it called an economy of genocide.
-
Public pressure. Companies named by the boycott movement face protests at offices, annual meetings and conferences.
Summary for directors
These risks are documented, not theoretical, and each has already cost a company a contract, an investor, an insurer or staff. Directors' duties require boards to consider them.
Companies Act 2006, section 172: regard to the company's reputation for high standards of business conduct.
National due diligence laws in France and Germany, and the EU due diligence directive as it is written into national law.
Delaware boards' duty to oversee the company's legal compliance risk.
Last updated: October 2026. This is campaign guidance, not legal advice. Sources for each case are on the linked company profiles and the authoritative determinations page.