H&M

Key Findings

• Economic: H&M has operated in Israel since 2010 through the Israeli franchisee Match Retail Ltd., part of the Horesh family’s Union Group; the audit records a historical figure of 24 Israeli stores in 2023, not a verified current count.^{1, 2, 3}
• Political: H&M has not issued a substantive public position on Israel/Palestine or the Gaza war, while documented corporate responses to other human-rights and geopolitical crises were more explicit.^{4, 5, 6}
• Settlements: No public evidence identified that H&M, Match Retail, or Union Group is listed in the September 2025 OHCHR settlement-business database; the Digital review of earlier database materials remained technically inconclusive rather than a clean negative finding.^{7, 8}
• Not found: No public evidence identified of direct H&M or Match Retail defence contracting, military supply, Israeli security technology provision, or H&M-operated stores in West Bank or East Jerusalem settlements.^{9, 10, 11}

Target Profile

Key Facts:

• H&M announced its Israeli franchise agreement in December 2008; the first store opened in March 2010.^{1, 2}
• H&M is a Swedish apparel retailer, not an Israeli-founded or Israeli-headquartered company.³
• Match Retail, rather than H&M AB, operates the Israeli franchise.^{1, 16}

Executive Summary

H&M’s documented Israel/Palestine nexus is principally an ongoing commercial-market presence in Israel through Match Retail Ltd., an Israeli franchisee within the Horesh family’s Union Group. H&M announced the franchise arrangement in 2008, opened its first Israeli store in 2010, and the audit records 24 stores in 2023 and media reports of reopening after the temporary October closure.^{1, 2, 3, 18} The audits do not establish Israel-specific revenue, royalty amounts, direct H&M investment in Israeli facilities, or H&M ownership of the Israeli retail operation.^{16, 19}

The strongest documented economic and political vectors are the franchise relationship and H&M’s continued Israeli-market presence, alongside its lack of a substantive public statement on the conflict. The Political audit records that H&M’s documented communication after 7 October 2023 concerned store closure, while its public responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the murder of George Floyd, and Xinjiang forced-labour allegations included explicit statements and actions.^{4, 5, 6, 20} This comparison documents differing public corporate responses; it does not establish a legal breach or a direct military role.

A separate, indirect nexus arises from the Israeli franchisee’s parent conglomerate. Union Group also includes Union Motors and Union Tech Ventures. Who Profits reports a September 2021 Union Motors tender award to supply Toyota Hilux vehicles to the Mateh Binyamin settlement Regional Council; the audits did not recover the primary tender document.²¹ Union Tech Ventures has a documented investment in XTEND, an Israeli drone and autonomous-robotics company with reported Israeli and US defence contracts.^{22, 23, 24} These are sibling-entity activities. No public evidence identified that H&M AB holds XTEND equity, directs franchise royalties to XTEND, supplies Union Motors or XTEND, shares personnel or governance with them, or is party to their contracts.^{23, 25}

The military and digital audits found no public evidence of direct H&M or Match Retail contracts with the IDF, Israeli Ministry of Defence, Israeli intelligence agencies, prisons, police, or other security bodies; no evidence of military products, tactical technology, Israeli surveillance or biometric deployment, Israeli R&D operations, or Project Nimbus participation.^{9, 10, 11} The record also does not substantiate claims that H&M uses a named “Israeli cybersecurity triad,” sources products from settlement businesses, delivers to specific settlements, or operates stores in West Bank or East Jerusalem settlements.^{11, 26, 27}

Under the fixed, human-vetted V6.5 assessment, these findings yield a BRS of 347, placing H&M in Tier D (Moderate Complicity). The score reflects the documented Israel-market franchise and political/communications nexus, while retaining the zero military and digital scores and distinguishing H&M’s own conduct from that of separate entities in its franchisee’s family-owned conglomerate.

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB is a Swedish, family-controlled public apparel retailer founded in 1947. Its core offering is civilian fashion apparel, accessories, cosmetics, and homeware.³ Persson-family control through Ramsbury Invest AB is documented, but the audits identify differing secondary estimates for capital and voting rights; the precise current percentages should therefore not be treated as verified.^{12, 13}

H&M’s Israeli operations are structured through a franchise agreement, not a wholly owned Israeli operating subsidiary. Match Retail Ltd. was established by the Horesh family to hold and operate the H&M franchise in Israel. H&M’s relationship with Union Group is consequently a licensing/franchise relationship with Match Retail, rather than equity ownership of Union Group’s other businesses.^{1, 16}

Union Group’s separate entities include Union Motors, an Israeli Toyota/Lexus/Hino distributor, and Union Tech Ventures, its technology-investment arm.^{17, 23} Their documented activities are relevant contextual evidence about the franchise partner’s wider conglomerate, but the audits do not support attributing those entities’ contracts, investments, or operations to H&M AB without a direct evidentiary link.

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

No public evidence identified of any H&M AB or Match Retail contract, tender, framework agreement, memorandum of understanding, supply relationship, or sustainment-services arrangement with the Israeli Ministry of Defence, IDF, Israel Prison Service, Border Police, or another Israeli security body.⁹

H&M’s product range is civilian retail merchandise. No public evidence identified of tactical, military-grade, dual-use, or export-controlled variants marketed or supplied to Israeli security users; nor of H&M participation in munitions, weapons systems, military platforms, defence technology transfer, or defence-prime supply chains.^{9, 3}

The principal indirect record concerns Union Group sibling entities. Union Tech Ventures has invested in XTEND, which has documented Israeli defence procurement and operational deployments; Union Motors’ historical vehicle distribution has also been linked by Who Profits to Israeli military and policing use. These are not H&M transactions, investments, or contracts.^{17, 22, 23}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

H&M’s strongest defence is that it is a civilian fashion retailer with no identified defence capability or direct security contract. Its Israeli business is run by an independently owned franchisee, and the military-linked activities identified belong to other companies within that franchisee’s parent conglomerate.^{1, 9, 25}

The Union Motors military-use profile contains dated material, including data valid to December 2012, and no post-2020 primary-source confirmation of current IDF-specific supply was identified.¹⁷ The reported 2021 Mateh Binyamin tender is attributed to Who Profits; the audits did not recover a primary tender document, so it remains NGO-reported and not independently primary-source verified.²¹

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• H&M AB / Match Retail: No public evidence identified of Israeli military or security contracting.⁹
• Union Tech Ventures: Union Group venture arm and investor in XTEND.²³
• XTEND: Israeli drone/autonomous-robotics company with documented Israeli and US defence procurement; the audits found no public evidence identifying H&M as an investor, supplier, or governance participant.^{22, 25, 24}
• Union Motors: Union Group sibling distributor; documented links are not H&M contracts.^{17, 21}

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

H&M’s documented enterprise technology relationships include Google Cloud, Microsoft 365/Power Platform, and investment in the Swedish platform Avassa. These are described as retail data, AI/ML, and internal-application infrastructure relationships.^{32, 33, 34} No public evidence identified that H&M operates data centres in Israel, uses Google’s Israel cloud region, participates in Project Nimbus, or provides technology services to Israeli state or military bodies.^{10, 32}

The audit searched for company or vendor corroboration of alleged H&M use of Check Point, Wiz, SentinelOne, CyberArk, NICE, Verint, Claroty, or a “Unit 8200 Stack”; no public evidence identified substantiating those claims. The cited reporting about Wiz and SentinelOne does not establish an H&M customer relationship.^{26, 35} No public evidence identified of H&M’s deployment of Israeli-origin facial recognition, computer vision, biometrics, predictive surveillance, offensive cyber, autonomous targeting, or Israeli security-sector technology.^{10, 26}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The documented Google Cloud relationship is a customer relationship and is distinct from Google’s separate Project Nimbus arrangements with Israeli state bodies. Vendor-level overlap does not establish that H&M data is hosted in Israel, sent through Nimbus-linked infrastructure, or used by Israeli authorities.^{10, 32}

The absence findings are public-record findings, not proof that no undisclosed vendor relationship exists. The audits specifically found no primary or independent reporting sufficient to validate the named Israeli-vendor allegations.²⁶

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• Google Cloud: Documented H&M enterprise data and AI/ML partner; no public evidence identifies H&M as a Project Nimbus participant.^{10, 32}
• Microsoft: Documented internal productivity and application-platform relationship.³³
• Avassa: Stockholm-based platform in which H&M Group Ventures became a strategic investor; not an Israeli company.³⁴
• Israeli cyber vendors named in circulating claims: No public evidence identified of an H&M relationship.²⁶

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

H&M’s central economic nexus is its continuing Israeli retail franchise. Match Retail operates H&M stores under the 2008 agreement.^{1, 16} The audit infers local profit retention and franchise-fee flows from this structure; Israel-specific profits, royalty amounts and payment destinations were not independently established.^{1, 19} Its historical 2023 store-count figure is 24, not a verified current total.³

During 2008 market scoping, H&M management expressed interest in Israeli-made textiles and met Ahava, then associated with manufacturing in the Mitzpe Shalem settlement. No commercial agreement with Ahava was concluded or found to have materialised.³⁶ No public evidence identified of H&M importing settlement-origin goods, sourcing from Israeli agricultural exporters, making direct Israeli capital investments, or operating Israeli factories, logistics hubs, data centres, or R&D facilities.^{19, 36}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The Israeli retail presence is not an H&M-owned import or distribution subsidiary. Match Retail is the operator and the evidence does not establish the value or destination of any franchise royalties.^{1, 16, 19} No public evidence identified of H&M, Match Retail, or Union Group in the September 2025 OHCHR settlement-business database or DBIO materials.^{7, 37}

The audits reject a claimed H&M–Delta Galil settlement-supplier link as unverified because no primary source confirms H&M as a Delta Galil customer. Claims of H&M e-commerce delivery to Ma’ale Adumim or Pisgat Ze’ev are likewise unverified.²⁷

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• Match Retail Ltd.: Israeli H&M franchise operator.^{1, 16}
• Union Group: Horesh family conglomerate controlling Match Retail.^{16, 17}
• Ahava: 2008 exploratory meeting; no documented commercial deal with H&M.³⁶
• Delta Galil: Settlement-linked operations are documented separately, but an H&M supplier relationship remains unverified.²⁷

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

No H&M corporate statement taking a substantive position on Israel/Palestine, the Gaza war, the ICJ advisory opinion, or ICC arrest warrants was identified. The documented post-7 October communication was operational: Israeli franchise stores would remain closed.^{4, 30} H&M’s Israeli retail presence has been the subject of BDS and other civil-society boycott campaigns since 2010.^{28, 38}

The political nexus assessed here is therefore market presence coupled with documented silence on the conflict, rather than lobbying, donations, state partnership, or direct political advocacy. No public evidence identified of H&M lobbying on Israel/Palestine policy, financing FIDF, JNF/KKL, settlement organisations, reservist funds, anti-BDS groups, or directing corporate resources to Israeli state or military efforts.^{39, 40}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

H&M has not publicly endorsed Israeli government policy, accepted Israeli state honours, sponsored a Brand Israel campaign, or been shown to make Israel-related political donations. Its silence is not itself evidence of state alignment, and the audits found no direct political-finance or lobbying nexus.^{39, 40}

Claims concerning Malha Mall’s relationship to the depopulated village of al-Malha derive from advocacy framing and concern West Jerusalem, within the 1949 armistice line, rather than a post-1967 settlement location. This should not be presented as evidence that H&M operates in an occupied-territory settlement.⁴¹

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• H&M / Match Retail: Israeli franchise operations and documented boycott scrutiny.^{1, 28, 38}
• BDS National Committee: Called for boycott in 2010 on the basis of H&M’s Israeli commercial presence, not a direct military-contract allegation.²⁸
• Persson family / Ramsbury Invest: Family control is documented; no public evidence identified of Israel-linked political or military funding.^{12, 40}
• H&M board: Some members have Swedish defence-adjacent roles; no Israel-specific affiliation was identified.¹⁵

BDS-1000 Score

Method: V6.5.

• V_MAX: 3.90 Avg_OTHERS: 1.30
• BRS Score: 347 Tier: D (Moderate Complicity)

V_MAX is driven by the documented economic and political nexus: continuing Israeli franchise operations and the associated public-position record. The zero Military and Digital scores reflect the reviewed absence of an attributable qualifying military or digital-security act. The economic and political Impact values include the examiner’s constructive-notice adjustment for continuing the franchise after July 2024 under longstanding boycott pressure. The assessment uses activity type, scale and proximity; it does not turn unverified or merely transitive allegations into direct-company findings.

Methodology Note

The source record was researched in June–July 2026 and reviewed in September 2026. Dated counts and historical contracts are identified as such; this dossier is not a claim that every source was refreshed on the review date.

• Evidence is limited to the four supplied domain audits and their cited source record.
• The assessment is evidence-only: allegations without sufficient corroboration are marked unverified, unresolved, or excluded.
• Impact (I) concerns activity type; Magnitude (M) concerns scale; Proximity (P) concerns directness.
• Verified cessation can reduce present activity; the mere age of a source does not establish that the underlying activity ceased.
• Entity attribution is bounded: H&M’s franchise relationship with Match Retail does not establish transitive responsibility for separate Union Group sibling entities.
• Settlement operation can be assessed in both Economic and Political where evidence supports it; “No public evidence identified” is used where audit checks found no public record.