COMPREHENSIVE GOVERNANCE AUDIT: POLITICAL COMPLICITY AND GEOPOLITICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF WALKERS SNACK FOODS (PEPSICO INC.)
Date: December 2, 2025
Subject: Audit of Political and Ideological Footprint regarding Israel/Palestine
Target Audience: Governance Committee / Ethical Investment Oversight Board
Analyst Role: Senior Political Risk Analyst
1. Executive Summary
This Comprehensive Governance Audit provides an exhaustive examination of Walkers Snack Foods Limited (“Walkers”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc. (“PepsiCo”), regarding its political complicity and ideological footprint in the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict. In an era where Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks are increasingly scrutinized for geopolitical consistency, this report evaluates whether Walkers and its parent entity adhere to international human rights norms or whether their operational and strategic decisions constitute material support for state-sanctioned violence and occupation.
The audit was precipitated by a confluence of factors: rising stakeholder demand for transparency regarding corporate ties to the Israeli military apparatus; the divergence in corporate policy regarding the conflicts in Ukraine versus Gaza; and the escalating operational risks within the United Kingdom, specifically in Leicester, where Walkers’ primary production facilities are co-located with defense contractors targeted by direct action groups.
1.1 Core Findings and Risk Profile
The analysis categorizes Walkers/PepsiCo as a High-Risk Entity concerning geopolitical complicity. This classification is not derived from passive market presence but from active, strategic, and financial interventions that have reinforced the economic and military capabilities of actors involved in the occupation of Palestinian territories.
●Structural Integration with Military-Industrial Actors: For over 15 years, PepsiCo maintained a 50/50 Joint Venture (Sabra Dipping Company) with the Strauss Group, an Israeli conglomerate that formally “adopted” the Golani Brigade of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). This relationship transcended commercial logic, functioning as a direct channel for corporate profits to subsidize military welfare and morale.1 While PepsiCo moved to acquire full ownership in late 2024, the legacy of this partnership involves over a decade of capital accumulation for an entity actively funding combat units.4
●The “Safe Harbor” Governance Failure: The audit reveals a systemic “Safe Harbor” double standard. In the Ukraine theater, PepsiCo enforced a draconian policy of neutrality, explicitly banning advertising agencies from mentioning “war” or supporting the Ukrainian military to protect its Russian market share.5 Conversely, in the Israel theater, the company permitted its partner (Strauss) to run explicit military support campaigns (e.g., “Hayal Hayelet” chocolate) and framed its own acquisition of SodaStream as a political victory over the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.6
●Lobbying and Political Capture: Walkers and PepsiCo have engaged in sustained, high-level lobbying within the UK political ecosystem. The company has cultivated deep ties with both the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), sponsoring events and providing in-kind donations.8 This activity suggests a deliberate strategy to secure political cover for operations that might otherwise face regulatory or ethical scrutiny.
●Operational Instability in Leicester: A critical fracture exists between the corporate executive tier and the operational workforce. Unite the Union, which represents a significant portion of Walkers’ manufacturing staff, has officially endorsed BDS and opposed anti-boycott legislation.10 This ideological misalignment, coupled with the proximity of Walkers’ facilities to targeted defense firms (UAV Tactical Systems) and the recent proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization 12, creates a volatile security environment.
1.2 Audit Methodology and Scope
This report utilizes a forensic analysis of corporate filings, parliamentary registers, internal policy memos, and public statements to reconstruct the “ideological supply chain” of Walkers. The scope encompasses:
1.Corporate Governance: Board composition and executive advocacy.
2.Financial Complicity: Joint ventures, acquisitions, and revenue flows to military-linked entities.
3.Political Interference: Lobbying activities in Westminster.
4.Operational Consistency: Comparative analysis of crisis management in Ukraine vs. Gaza.
5.Labor Relations: Workforce solidarity vs. corporate policy.
The following sections detail the evidence supporting these findings, structured to provide a granular understanding of how a UK-heritage snack brand is inextricably linked to geopolitical conflict.
.
2. Corporate Architecture: The Illusion of Autonomy
To assess the political footprint of Walkers Snack Foods, it is essential to first dismantle the illusion of its autonomy. Walkers is not a sovereign British entity; it is a downstream operating unit of PepsiCo, Inc., a US-based multinational. This structural reality means that the governance failures, ideological commitments, and geopolitical strategies of the parent company are fully inherited by the subsidiary.
2.1 Ownership and Strategic Control
Since its acquisition in 1989, Walkers has been fully integrated into PepsiCo’s global snacking division, Frito-Lay.13 The corporate veil between the Leicester-based manufacturer and the Purchase, New York-based headquarters is permeable, particularly regarding strategic capital allocation and political positioning.
Board Composition and Executive Oversight:
The governance of Walkers Snack Foods Limited is administered by a cadre of directors who serve as conduits for PepsiCo’s global strategy.
●Samuel Richard Barnes (Director): Appointed in February 2023, Barnes is a key figure in the UK governance structure.14 His background as a solicitor and his directorships across PepsiCo’s UK network (including PepsiCo International Limited) 15 suggest a role focused on legal compliance and corporate structuring rather than independent ethical oversight. The regulatory records indicate a focus on operational continuity, ensuring that UK subsidiaries remain aligned with US directives.
●Robert Talbot Bland and Bethan Mair Price: These directors 14 manage the operational and financial compliance of the UK entity. However, their authority is circumscribed by the global executive team.
●Tania Songini (Former Director): While no longer on the board, Songini’s trajectory—moving from Walkers to CIO of Coca-Cola European Partners and advising Goldman Sachs—illustrates the caliber of executive talent rotating through Walkers.16 The board is staffed by financial technocrats, not independent ethical guardians capable of challenging the parent company’s geopolitical entanglements.
The Global Command Structure:
The true locus of political decision-making resides with the PepsiCo global board.
●Ramon Laguarta (Chairman & CEO): Laguarta’s leadership has been characterized by an aggressive expansion into markets with high geopolitical friction. His specific comments regarding the Israeli market—declaring that PepsiCo’s acquisition of SodaStream meant the company would remain in Israel “forever” 17—constitute a binding political commitment. This is not merely a statement of commercial intent; it is a pledge of indefinite presence regardless of the political trajectory of the state, effectively indemnifying the occupation economy against market withdrawal.
●The “Presiding Director” Role: Ian Cook, serving as Presiding Director 18, along with board members like Cesar Conde and Alberto Weisser 19, oversees a governance framework that has consistently prioritized shareholder returns over geopolitical neutrality. The board’s refusal to divest from the Sabra joint venture until 2024, despite over a decade of evidence regarding the Strauss Group’s military ties, indicates a high risk tolerance for complicity in human rights abuses.
2.2 Financial Fungibility and Capital Flows
The profits generated by Walkers Snack Foods in the UK do not remain in Leicester. They are repatriated or consolidated into PepsiCo’s global balance sheet. This fungibility of capital is the mechanism of complicity. When a UK consumer purchases a packet of Walkers crisps, the revenue contributes to the aggregate financial power of PepsiCo. This aggregate power is then used to:
1.Fund Acquisitions: Such as the $3.2 billion purchase of SodaStream.6
2.Capitalize Joint Ventures: Such as the 50% stake in Sabra, which bolstered the Strauss Group’s balance sheet.3
3.Sponsor Lobbying: Such as the funds directed to the Conservative and Labour Friends of Israel.8
Therefore, Walkers cannot be chemically separated from the geopolitical footprint of PepsiCo. The subsidiary acts as a cash-generating engine for a multinational entity that has pursued a strategy of deep integration with the Israeli economy and military-industrial complex.
.
3. The Supply Chain of Complicity: The Strauss Group Nexus
The most direct and material evidence of political complicity lies in PepsiCo’s long-standing strategic partnership with the Strauss Group. For over 15 years, this relationship connected the global snacking giant directly to the welfare infrastructure of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), specifically its combat units.
3.1 The Sabra Joint Venture (2008–2024)
In 2008, PepsiCo entered into a 50/50 Joint Venture with the Strauss Group to form the Sabra Dipping Company.3 This partnership was designed to dominate the North American refrigerated dips market. PepsiCo provided the distribution network, marketing prowess, and global reach; Strauss provided the product formulation and manufacturing expertise.
The Nature of the Partner:
The Strauss Group is not a benign food manufacturer. It is a corporate entity deeply embedded in the Zionist national project and the military establishment.
●Adoption of the Golani Brigade: The Strauss Group officially “adopted” the Golani Brigade, an elite infantry unit of the IDF, for decades.1 This adoption involved providing financial support for the welfare, cultural, and educational activities of the soldiers.
●Material Support for Combatants: The support was not abstract. It included food packages, recreational equipment, and funds that directly improved the morale and operational readiness of a brigade frequently deployed in high-intensity conflict zones, including Gaza and the West Bank.
●Executive Endorsement: Ofra Strauss, the Chairwoman, has been vociferous in her defense of this relationship. In response to boycott campaigns, she stated, “Israeli soldiers are not army; Israeli soldiers are our kids”.2 This statement collapses the distinction between corporate social responsibility and military support, framing the funding of combat units as a familial obligation of the corporation.
3.2 The Mechanism of Complicity
The complicity of PepsiCo (and by extension Walkers) in this arrangement operates through several distinct mechanisms:
1.Profit Sharing: As a 50% partner, PepsiCo shared in the profits of Sabra. Conversely, the success of Sabra—driven by PepsiCo’s marketing—funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into the Strauss Group. Since money is fungible, these profits enhanced Strauss’s ability to fund its “social responsibility” programs, which included the Golani Brigade support.
2.Reputation Laundering: By partnering with a global giant like PepsiCo, the Strauss Group achieved a level of normalcy and market penetration that shielded it from the full effects of the BDS movement. PepsiCo effectively “whitewashed” the reputation of a company that was actively funding a military unit accused of war crimes.
3.Market Hegemony: The joint venture allowed Sabra to capture over 60% of the US hummus market by 2016.20 This dominance crowded out alternative brands that might have adhered to ethical supply chain practices, effectively forcing consumers to subsidize the Strauss-PepsiCo-IDF nexus.
3.3 The 2024 Consolidation: Exit or Retrenchment?
In late 2024, PepsiCo announced an agreement to acquire the remaining 50% interest in Sabra from the Strauss Group.4 Superficially, this might appear to be a decoupling. However, a risk analysis suggests otherwise.
Analysis of the Buyout:
●Liquidity Event for Strauss: The buyout represents a massive liquidity event for the Strauss Group. PepsiCo is paying a premium to acquire full control, effectively handing the Strauss Group a lump sum of capital that can be deployed immediately into other ventures or direct military support initiatives.
●Continued Alignment: Even as the JV dissolves, Strauss has intensified its military support. In 2024, Strauss launched a collaboration with the “Friends of the IDF Disabled Veterans Organization,” releasing “Hayal Hayelet” (Soldier) chocolates where proceeds go to the military organization.7
●No Condemnation: At no point during the dissolution of the JV did PepsiCo issue a statement condemning Strauss’s military ties. The transaction was framed entirely in commercial terms (“accelerating innovation”), implying that the moral hazard of funding the Golani Brigade was never a material concern for PepsiCo’s board.
Table 1: The Strauss-PepsiCo Complicity Timeline
| Period
|
Event
|
Governance Implication
|
| 2008
|
Formation of Sabra Joint Venture (50/50).
|
PepsiCo enters strategic partnership with Golani Brigade donor.
|
| 2010
|
Student boycotts (DePaul, Princeton) target Sabra.
|
PepsiCo/Strauss defend the military relationship; refuse to divest.
|
| 2011
|
Ofra Strauss explicitly defends Golani ties.
|
Executive leadership confirms ideological commitment to IDF.
|
| 2014
|
Operation Protective Edge (Gaza).
|
Strauss Group provides support to deployed Golani units; PepsiCo profits continue.
|
| 2023
|
Strauss CEO affirms support for “soldiers of the IDF”.
|
Reiteration of military support during active conflict in Gaza.
|
| 2024
|
PepsiCo acquires full ownership of Sabra.
|
Massive capital injection to Strauss; no ethical condemnation issued.
|
.
4. Ideological Acquisitions: The SodaStream Paradigm
If the Strauss partnership was a legacy issue, the acquisition of SodaStream in 2018 was a deliberate, proactive ideological maneuver. It serves as the clearest evidence of PepsiCo’s willingness to use its balance sheet to defeat political activism targeting the Israeli occupation.
4.1 “Victory Over BDS” as Corporate Strategy
SodaStream had long been a primary target of the BDS movement due to its flagship factory being located in Mishor Adumim, an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank. Under intense pressure, SodaStream relocated its factory to Rahat, in the Negev, in 2014-2015.6
When PepsiCo acquired SodaStream for $3.2 billion in 2018, the narrative was explicitly political.
●The “Defeat” Narrative: SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum framed the sale as a definitive victory over BDS. “I think they have learned not to meddle with us,” he stated. “Look at what happened to SodaStream that they targeted, and what has happened to them”.6
●PepsiCo’s Endorsement: By paying a premium for the company, PepsiCo validated this narrative. The acquisition sent a signal to global markets that companies targeted by human rights campaigns would be rescued and rewarded by multinational capital. Ramon Laguarta’s comment that the company would remain in Israel “forever” 17 reinforced this alignment.
4.2 The Displacement of Bedouin Communities
The relocation of SodaStream’s operations to the Negev did not resolve the ethical issues; it merely shifted them from the West Bank to the internal displacement context of the Naqab (Negev).
●The Prawer Plan Context: The industrialization of the Negev, where the new SodaStream factory is located, is deeply intertwined with state efforts to displace indigenous Bedouin communities. Activists and human rights groups have highlighted that the infrastructure supporting these industrial zones often comes at the expense of recognized and unrecognized Bedouin villages.23
●Labor Exploitation Allegations: While SodaStream touts its diverse workforce, reports have persisted regarding the treatment of Palestinian workers. Following the closure of the West Bank factory, hundreds of Palestinian workers lost their jobs, with only a token number (74) receiving permits to work in the new facility.6 This demonstrates that the “coexistence” marketing narrative was subordinate to the geopolitical necessity of securing the company’s export viability.
4.3 “Brand Israel” and Normalization
SodaStream is a crown jewel of the “Brand Israel” campaign, which seeks to rebrand the state as a “Start-Up Nation” and a hub of green technology, diverting attention from the military occupation.25
●Greenwashing: PepsiCo utilizes SodaStream’s environmental messaging (reducing plastic waste) to appeal to progressive consumers in the West. This “greenwashing” effectively obscures the political reality of the company’s origins and its role in the settlement economy.
●Cultural Normalization: By integrating SodaStream into the PepsiCo portfolio—placing it alongside Walkers, Lays, and Quaker Oats—the company normalizes the presence of Israeli industrial products in global households, breaking the psychological barrier of the boycott.
.
5. The “Safe Harbor” Double Standard: Ukraine vs. Gaza
A critical component of this governance audit is the comparative analysis of PepsiCo’s crisis management strategies in different conflict zones. The audit identifies a blatant “Safe Harbor” double standard, where ethical principles are applied rigorously in one context and completely abandoned in another.
5.1 The Ukraine Protocol: Aggressive Neutrality and Censorship
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, PepsiCo faced a complex dilemma. It had significant manufacturing assets and market share in Russia. To protect these assets, the company implemented a policy of aggressive neutrality that arguably crossed the line into censorship.
●The Advertising Ban: Reports from B4Ukraine and Meduza reveal that PepsiCo prohibited its advertising agencies in Ukraine from mentioning the “war” or expressing support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.5
●The Restriction: The brief explicitly stated: “No mention of war, hostilities, aggression, military personnel (from the brand’s side), Armed Forces of Ukraine. No support for Ukraine and the army in the content”.5
●Strategic Rationale: This policy was designed to prevent any backlash from the Russian government or consumers that might jeopardize PepsiCo’s revenue stream in Russia.
●Consequences: The Ukrainian National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) designated PepsiCo as an “International Sponsor of War” due to its continued operations in Russia and the discovery of its products (Lay’s chips) in Russian military food rations.5
5.2 The Gaza Protocol: Permissive Partisanship
In stark contrast to the Ukraine theater, PepsiCo’s approach to the Israel-Gaza conflict is characterized by permissive partisanship toward the Israeli state.
●Toleration of Military Advocacy: While PepsiCo banned “support for the army” in Ukraine, it actively partnered with the Strauss Group, which openly and proudly supported the Israeli army.1 There is no record of PepsiCo issuing a similar directive to Strauss to cease its “Hayal Hayelet” campaigns or its funding of the Golani Brigade.
●Asymmetric Humanitarianism: In response to the crisis in Gaza, PepsiCo issued internal memos pledging $1 million to “humanitarian organizations”.29 However, this aid was framed in generic, depoliticized terms. In contrast, the company’s business ecosystem facilitated the transfer of funds to specific military units.
●The Double Standard: The governance failure here is absolute. In Ukraine, the victim of aggression (as recognized by international law) was silenced by corporate policy to appease the aggressor market. In Israel, the military actor was empowered and funded by corporate partnership, while the humanitarian crisis in Gaza received only token, generic aid.
Table 2: The “Safe Harbor” Governance Matrix
| Feature
|
Ukraine Policy
|
Israel/Palestine Policy
|
| Reference to War
|
PROHIBITED: Explicit ban on mentioning “war” or “aggression”.
|
PERMITTED: Partner entities freely discuss “security” and “defense”.
|
| Support for Military
|
BANNED: No support for Ukrainian Armed Forces allowed in ads.
|
FACILITATED: Partner (Strauss) adopts brigades; launches soldier-themed products.
|
| Product Distribution
|
Products found in Russian military rations.5
|
Products/Profits support IDF welfare funds.1
|
| Corporate Stance
|
Aggressive Neutrality / Silence.
|
Strategic Alignment (“Here forever”).17
|
| Regulatory Status
|
Designated “International Sponsor of War” by Ukraine.28
|
Targeted by BDS; viewed as strategic ally by Israel.
|
.
6. Political Interference: Lobbying and Elite Capture in the UK
Walkers Snack Foods does not operate in a political vacuum. The company engages in sophisticated lobbying activities designed to shape the legislative environment in its favor. This involves cultivating relationships with specific pressure groups within the UK Parliament that advocate for pro-Israel policies.
6.1 Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI)
The Conservative Friends of Israel is one of the most influential lobbying groups in Westminster, estimated to include 80% of Conservative MPs. PepsiCo and Walkers have been documented as active participants in CFI’s ecosystem.
●Product Donations and Access: Parliamentary registers reveal that Walkers Snack Foods has provided products for meetings and delegations organized by CFI.8 While the monetary value of a box of crisps is low (£15 estimated in registers), the access it buys is significant. Providing hospitality for high-level meetings establishes Walkers/PepsiCo as a “friend” of the organization.
●Sponsorship of Events: PepsiCo has sponsored CFI Annual Business Lunches.31 These events are key networking hubs where corporate executives mingle with Cabinet Ministers and key policymakers.
●Legislative Alignment: The CFI has been the primary architect of the “Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill” (the Anti-Boycott Bill), which seeks to criminalize public bodies engaging in BDS. By supporting CFI, PepsiCo is effectively funding the political machinery that protects its business model from ethical divestment campaigns.
6.2 Labour Friends of Israel (LFI)
Recognizing the cyclical nature of British politics, PepsiCo maintains a bipartisan hedging strategy by also engaging with Labour Friends of Israel.
●Annual Lunch Sponsorship: Registers of Interest show PepsiCo’s presence and sponsorship at LFI Annual Lunches.9
●Strategic Hedging: With the Labour Party currently in power (or in a dominant position), maintaining ties with LFI allows PepsiCo to mitigate the influence of the party’s left-wing, pro-Palestine faction. It ensures that the “business-friendly” wing of Labour remains sympathetic to PepsiCo’s operations and resists calls for sanctions or embargoes.
6.3 Party Conference Sponsorship
PepsiCo is a ubiquitous sponsor of “fringe” events at both the Labour and Conservative Party Conferences.33
●Buying Influence: Sponsorship of these events grants PepsiCo executives speaking slots on panels (e.g., regarding sustainability or health), allowing them to frame the debate. This access is crucial for deflecting scrutiny regarding their geopolitical entanglements.
●The “Good Corporate Citizen” Mask: These sponsorships allow PepsiCo to present itself as a domestic British stakeholder (“Walkers of Leicester”), obscuring its identity as a multinational geopolitical actor.
.
7. Labor Relations, Dissent, and Local Security (Leicester)
A severe governance risk identified by this audit is the widening schism between Walkers’ executive management and its operational workforce in Leicester. This internal friction is compounded by the external security environment involving direct action groups.
7.1 The Unite the Union Conflict
Walkers’ workforce in Leicester is heavily unionized, represented primarily by Unite the Union. Unite has taken a geopolitical stance that is diametrically opposed to PepsiCo’s corporate strategy.
●The BDS Mandate: Unite has passed motions explicitly endorsing the BDS campaign and calling for a boycott of companies complicit in the Israeli occupation.10 The union has also campaigned against the government’s Anti-Boycott Bill.
●The Pension Fund Battle: Unite actively campaigns for pension funds to divest from companies involved in the occupation. This puts the union in the position of potentially campaigning for divestment from the parent company of the workers it represents.
●Operational Risk: This ideological divergence creates a high risk of industrial disputes. While strikes have historically focused on pay 34, the politicization of the workforce suggests that future industrial action could be triggered by geopolitical grievances, such as a refusal to handle products linked to the Israeli supply chain.
7.2 The Leicester Flashpoint: Contagion Risk
Leicester has become a focal point for pro-Palestine direct action in the UK, primarily due to the presence of UAV Tactical Systems (U-TacS), a subsidiary of Elbit Systems (an Israeli drone manufacturer).35
●Proximity and Association: Walkers is the largest private employer in Leicester. While it is not a defense contractor, its ownership by PepsiCo—and PepsiCo’s links to the Strauss/Golani nexus—makes it a potential secondary target.
●Palestine Action: This direct action group has successfully besieged and shut down factories in Leicester and elsewhere.37 Their tactics involve roof occupations, lock-ons, and “criminal damage” to infrastructure.
●Proscription and Security: In mid-2025, the UK government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization under the Terrorism Act 2000.12 This escalation changes the security calculus. If Walkers were to be targeted by a group now designated as terrorist, the physical security risks to staff and infrastructure would skyrocket. Conversely, any internal solidarity with the group by staff (some of whom may be sympathetic to the cause) could lead to severe legal and counter-terrorism implications for the company.
●Community Tension: Leicester has a significant Muslim population and a history of strong community mobilization for Palestine.39 Walkers’ deep integration into the community means that any public revelation of its “Golani Brigade” links could trigger a local consumer boycott or community pickets, disrupting access to the factory.
.
8. Conclusion and Risk Assessment
The forensic examination of Walkers Snack Foods and PepsiCo reveals a corporation that has failed to ringfence its operations from the reputational and material risks of geopolitical conflict.
The verdict of this audit is clear: Walkers is Politically Complicit.
This complicity is not accidental; it is structural.
1.Financial Complicity: Through the decades-long capitalization of the Strauss Group, PepsiCo profits have directly subsidized the welfare of the Golani Brigade.
2.Ideological Complicity: Through the acquisition of SodaStream and the “Safe Harbor” double standard, PepsiCo has actively normalized the settlement economy while silencing dissent in other theaters (Ukraine).
3.Political Complicity: Through the funding of CFI and LFI, PepsiCo has interfered in the UK democratic process to protect its interests at the expense of human rights accountability.
Risk Rating: CRITICAL
The divergence between the company’s “family-friendly” brand image in the UK (Gary Lineker, packet crisps) and its “military-industrial” footprint in Israel is unsustainable. The specific risks include:
●Reputational: “Brand Contamination” if the Strauss/Golani link becomes widely known in the UK market.
●Operational: Disruption in Leicester due to union alignment with BDS or direct action targeting.
●Legal: Potential liability under future “Duty of Vigilance” laws regarding supply chain complicity in war crimes.
Recommendations
1.Transparency Audit: PepsiCo must immediately disclose the total value of profits derived from the Sabra JV that were diverted to IDF welfare funds by the Strauss Group.
2.Consistency in Policy: The “Safe Harbor” double standard must be abolished. The company must apply the same neutrality standards to its Israeli partners as it does to its Ukrainian agencies.
3.Lobbying Moratorium: Walkers should cease all sponsorship of political pressure groups (CFI/LFI) to decouple its commercial interests from foreign policy lobbying.
4.Stakeholder Engagement: Management must open a formal dialogue with Unite the Union regarding ethical procurement to preempt industrial unrest.
End of Report
Works cited
