Maersk’s Dilemma over UN Report on Gaza Conflict reflects Need for Supply Chain Accountability

OPINION

Read Time: 8 minutes [Updated 17 August 2025 20:36 BST]

The global shipping firm A-P Moller Maersk (‘Maersk’) has been named by Ms. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as being potentially complicit as one of the ‘global logistics giants’ under joint criminal enterprise in the unfolding forced starvation and emerging genocide in Gaza.

“Business continues as usual, but nothing about this system, in which businesses are integral, is neutral. The enduring ideological, political and economic engine of racial capitalism has transformed the Israeli displacement-replacement economy of occupation into an economy of genocide. This is a “joint criminal enterprise”, where the acts of one ultimately contribute to a whole economy that drives, supplies and enables this genocide.”

A/HRC/59/23 Advance edited version Page 26, Para 9 [Accessed 17 August 2025]

The naming of Maersk by Ms. Albanese in her 30 June 2025 report submitted to the 59^th Human Rights Council session under the sub-heading of ‘Trading the fruits of illegality’, Para 66; alongside many other enabler commercial entities across the business environment should be a wake up call for the shipping industry.

This is an ongoing dilemma for Maersk.

The wider shipping industry may argue that they are just the ‘middleman’ in global supply chains delivering essential goods globally, but does this legally and morally include the justification of the active enabling of transport of war materials to be used against civilians in breach of the 1945 Geneva Conventions, International Humanitarian and International Human Rights Law?

It is not simply about weapons and ammunition, but component parts and dual use materials initially intended for civilian use, if they are serving a military purpose in the specific case.

Maersk's Position

Human Rights at Sea has engaged with Maersk on these concerns with open dialogue.

Maersk issued their response online (updated 1 July 2025) in which they deny the allegations, take issue with the UN Special Rapporteurs’ findings and identify their ongoing commercial due diligence processes against supplying war materials to conflict zones.

"Maersk upholds a strict policy of not shipping weapons or ammunition to active conflict zones, ensuring compliance with international regulations and alignment with our company values." [Maersk Statement. Updated 1 July 2025. Accessed 17 August 2025].

Further, Maersk raise the issue of deliberate activist campaigns, the credibility of the evidence against them, and the lack of independent review to support the Rapporteur’s findings.

“That said, it is a known and common tactic among some activist groups to attribute fabricated actions or viewpoints to an opponent or institutions and to use these misrepresentations to garner public attention and further support for their cause. This is what we are seeing unfold in the specific activist campaign currently targeting Maersk. The campaign is spreading inaccurate allegations and has in some instances involved assumptions presented as documented facts and what looks like misleading information through twisting of publicly available data.” [Maersk Statement. Updated 1 July 2025. Accessed 17 August 2025].

Matters-of-Concern

Besides normal reputation concerns stemming from allegations against any company, in the current complex global geo-political context with Israeli governing elements demanding the continued right of self-defence against Hamas and other regional states, this means the requirement for sustained logistical resupply.

In terms of the Gaza conflict, this means continuous shipping of goods by sea facilitated through the global supply chain with the requisite insurance coverage, flag State oversight and constructive knowledge by shippers and lawyers of consignment contents under bills of lading.

Further, it assumes lawful business conduct at first instance underpinned by mandatory and enhanced human rights due diligence (mHRDD / eHRDD) if commercial business standards are to be honestly claimed as being strictly upheld, and not just as an advocacy response on a website.

But who is actually going to hold those entities engaged in the active movement of war materials, accountable?

This is pertinent when the appropriate agencies cannot control flag State impunity for basic issues such as assuring the welfare of abandoned seafarers, can not prevent bullying, harassment and exploitation of workers, and fail to prosecute those who abuse persons living, working and transiting at sea?

Perspective

On one side of the argument, ready access to materials via sea is essential for logistical reinforcement in the preservation of not just reserve capabilities but for state-level defence and the maintenance of war-fighting activity.

On the other hand, it means Palestinian civilians continue to be killed daily, are subject to forced starvation, forced displacement, lack of basic medical and sanitation supplies, and the denial of access to basic human rights’ protections.

The Dilemma

The dilemma, not just for Maersk, but for other responsible shipping companies and related professional supporting entities involved in the transport of goods by sea, are the consequences of their engagement in a process which ultimately ends in the unlawful targeting and killing of civilians, civilian infrastructure destruction, and the lasting detrimental generational impact on health, personal security and livelihoods.

Geo-strategically, it includes effective sustainment and reinforcement of polarised regional relationships and related armed conflict.

This dilemma includes, but is not limited to, the degree of constructive knowledge and related commercial activities of lawyers, insurers, shipping associations and financial institutions underpinning the supply of war materials during times of armed conflict.

‘Just doing one’s job’ from a remote location is no defence when there is demonstrable knowledge of the ultimate consequences of commercial decisions. These are not unforeseeable consequences, nor can they be later claimed as such. Importantly, these decisions may well later become disclosable in international investigation proceedings.

Further, when international war crimes tribunals are established one can be sure that all those identified by the prosecution as being both directly and/or indirectly complicit in the enabling of the unlawful killing of civilians will be called to account.

So What?

This means commercial entities cannot rely on an ESG, CSR, mHRDD policy, or written advice from lawyers and counsel for their defence. They have go deeper and be transparently accountable.

It means that publicly stating compliance with customary business and human rights principles, and initiatives, will not be sufficient.

It means that publicly stating compliance with International Humanitarian Law, and International Human Rights Law in the absence of demonstrable and detailed remediation actions will not be sufficient.

Shipping and related supply chain entities will instead need to demonstrate, detail and account for their actions and related activities which have directly removed them entirely from the war materials supply chain.

These activities must be transparent and accountable not just to judicial authorities and UN agencies, but to civil society, including those victims and survivors impacted by their decisions however remote from the zone of conflict.

ENDS.

READ: Maersk statement on military-related cargo shipments

Updated 1 July 2025

“Maersk’s business operations are guided by international standards for responsible business conduct, including the UN Global Compact and OECD guidelines.

Maersk upholds a strict policy of not shipping weapons or ammunition to active conflict zones, ensuring compliance with international regulations and alignment with our company values. We conduct heightened due diligence, particularly in regions affected by active conflicts, including Israel and Gaza, and regularly adapt this due diligence to the changing context. From the outset of the current conflict between Hamas and Israel and as it escalated, we have enhanced our cargo review and acceptance procedures as well as implemented additional compliance measures to reinforce our commitment to responsible operations within the framework of international standards. We draw the line between what we accept to transport and what we don’t after careful consideration of the recommendations, laws and regulations. While we realise that our line may not coincide with the wishes of everybody, it does ensure that we are within the frameworks that define responsible business practice and uphold our values.

As a global company, we serve all types of customers, including companies, institutions and states. We also have contracts with the U.S. government through the inclusion of our U.S. flag subsidiary, Maersk Line, Limited (MLL), in the Maritime Security Program. In support of official U.S. policy, these contracts include the transportation of cargo to over 180 countries under security cooperation programs, including also the transportation of civilian and military-related cargo to Israel, and follow a consistent approach across countries.

Furthermore, the cargo shipped by MLL on behalf of the U.S. government to Israel has always had an overall, clear restriction. The U.S. security cooperation program prohibits transporting classified or sensitive cargo, which includes weapons and ammunition, without a Transportation Plan submitted by the transporter and approved by the U.S. government. MLL has never submitted a Transportation Plan for approval of these types of shipments, which confirms that MLL has never transported classified or sensitive equipment under this program.

The Middle East conflict has geopolitical, security and tragic humanitarian consequences across the region. It is extraordinarily complex, with decades of tension often provoking activism and tense polarized public debate with little room for nuances.

As a global corporation, we work with a diverse range of stakeholders from all parts of the world. We choose to build a company with a culture that accommodates and embraces profound differences in values, opinions and perspectives. Our core values encompass mutual respect, attentiveness and open-mindedness. These values and a firm stance against being pressured into a singular worldview are essential to navigating and collaborating across complex, diverse - and sometimes conflicting - perspectives.

We firmly believe in patient dialogue within the political system to address the root causes of major global conflicts. We also fully respect the democratic right to peacefully protest and the important role the civil society plays in democracy, and we of course support a society where everyone can debate and disagree.

That said, it is a known and common tactic among some activist groups to attribute fabricated actions or viewpoints to an opponent or institutions and to use these misrepresentations to garner public attention and further support for their cause. This is what we are seeing unfold in the specific activist campaign currently targeting Maersk. The campaign is spreading inaccurate allegations and has in some instances involved assumptions presented as documented facts and what looks like misleading information through twisting of publicly available data. Unfortunately, we have also experienced vandalism and illegal, aggressive demonstrations on our premises and against our employees. This will not change our position or our business practice, guided by international standards.

Like so many others, we hope for progress in the peace process. We are convinced that there are no shortcuts to meaningful political dialogue, and we share a common belief that a politically negotiated agreement is the only viable path forward, with the responsibility naturally resting in the hands of international institutions, nations and political leaders.

We fully recognize our responsibility as a global logistics provider and that it is on us to always reinforce the internationally agreed responsible business practices – even more so when operating in areas of active conflict. We will continue to align our actions with the expectations outlined in these agreed principles and any applicable law and regulation.”