Table of Contents
Skechers USA, Inc. is a mass-market footwear and apparel company headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. It has no documented involvement in Israeli military, intelligence, or security supply chains, no Israeli-origin technology in its confirmed enterprise stack, and no capital investment or R&D footprint within Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Its BDS-1000 score of 115 (Tier E) is driven almost entirely by a single domain: V-ECON, reflecting a recurring commercial retail presence in Israel operated through a local third-party partner, Shikma Fashion Ltd. This is a standard distributor or franchise arrangement consistent with how Skechers enters smaller international markets globally; it does not represent strategic investment, local manufacturing, or institutional alignment with Israeli state interests.
Across V-MIL and V-DIG, the audit returns consistent null findings across all sub-categories with high and moderate-high confidence respectively. The V-POL domain records a pattern of selective silence — Skechers has demonstrated a capacity for public social engagement on domestic U.S. issues while maintaining complete public silence on the Israel-Palestine conflict — but no active political advocacy, no documented donations to Israeli state-aligned organisations, and no lobbying on Israel-related policy. The company is not listed in any NGO database — including Who Profits, the UN OHCHR settlement database, AFSC Investigate, or Amnesty International’s corporate accountability records — as having documented ties to occupation-related commercial activity.
The dominant evidence gaps are: the unknown revenue quantum from the Israeli market; the unconfirmed legal structure of the Skechers–Shikma Fashion Ltd relationship; the undisclosed cybersecurity vendor stack; and the post-go-private reduction in public disclosure obligations that will materially limit future auditability. None of these gaps, if resolved, are assessed as capable of shifting the composite score across a tier boundary on current evidence.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1992 | Skechers USA, Inc. founded in Manhattan Beach, California by Robert Greenberg and Michael Greenberg 1 |
| 1999 | Skechers listed on NYSE (ticker: SKX) 1 |
| 2020 | Skechers Foundation donates $1 million to social justice causes following BLM movement; no comparable statement issued on any international geopolitical conflict 2 |
| 2022 | Skechers donates footwear to Ukrainian relief organisations following Russian invasion; no comparable donation directed to any party in the Israel-Palestine conflict 2 |
| 2022–2023 | FTC-adjacent enforcement matter concerning children’s online data collection practices reflected in Skechers privacy policy revisions; no Israeli nexus 3 |
| FY2023 | Skechers reports total net sales ~$8.0 billion; international net sales ~$4.3 billion; Israel not named as a separate revenue line in geographic segment disclosures 4 |
| February 2020 | UN OHCHR publishes database A/HRC/43/71 of 112 companies with activities in Israeli settlements; Skechers not listed 5 |
| May 2024 | 3G Capital announces agreement to acquire Skechers in a go-private transaction valued at approximately $9.42 billion 6 |
| May 2025 | 3G Capital go-private transaction closes; Skechers ceases to be a publicly listed company, substantially reducing public disclosure obligations 6 |
Skechers USA, Inc. was founded in 1992 and incorporated in Delaware, with operational headquarters in Manhattan Beach, California.1 The company designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear and apparel for men, women, and children across lifestyle, athletic, and performance categories. By fiscal year 2024, Skechers operated more than 4,000 company-owned retail stores globally and distributed products to wholesale partners in approximately 180 countries.4
Manufacturing is heavily concentrated in Asia. SEC annual filings consistently identify China (approximately 60–65% of production volume), Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, and India as the primary production geographies.4 Skechers’ principal U.S. infrastructure consists of its Manhattan Beach headquarters and a major distribution centre in Rancho Belago (Moreno Valley), California, with European logistics operations anchored in Liège, Belgium.
The company operated under a dual-class share structure prior to its go-private transaction, with Class B shares (10 votes per share) held predominantly by the Greenberg founding family, conferring effective voting control irrespective of public float.7 In May 2025, a go-private acquisition by 3G Capital — a Bermuda-domiciled private investment firm with Brazilian principals — closed at approximately $9.42 billion.6 No Israeli ownership interests in the acquiring vehicle have been identified in publicly available disclosures, though the full composition of 3G Capital’s investor syndicate has not been publicly confirmed.
Skechers operates in Israel through a local third-party operator, Shikma Fashion Ltd, whose precise legal relationship — franchisee, licensed distributor, or otherwise — is not confirmed in primary corporate filings.8 No Israel-domiciled subsidiary appears in Skechers’ Exhibit 21 subsidiary disclosures. Israel is not named as a separate revenue market in SEC geographic segment reporting.
The V-MIL domain examines direct defence contracting, dual-use product supply, heavy machinery and construction involvement, integration with defence prime contractors, logistical sustainment services, and munitions or weapons systems. Across all six sub-categories, the audit identifies no public evidence of Skechers involvement with Israeli state defence or security bodies.
Direct defence contracting and procurement forms the first analytical layer. A systematic review of Skechers’ SEC filings — including Form 10-K annual reports — reveals no contract, tender award, framework agreement, or memorandum of understanding with the Israeli Ministry of Defence, the Israel Defence Forces, the Israel Prison Service, or the Israel Border Police.4 Corporate descriptions of international revenue employ standard commercial wholesale and retail language; no Israeli state security body is referenced as a customer class. Skechers does not appear in the publicly accessible portions of the SIBAT (Israel Defence Export and Defence Cooperation Directorate) registry, which catalogues authorised foreign suppliers to Israeli state defence clients, nor in Jane’s Defence supplier directories in connection with Israeli defence contracts.9
Dual-use products and tactical variants represent the second sub-category. Skechers operates a Skechers Work sub-brand offering occupational safety footwear certified to ASTM F2413 standards, covering steel-toe, composite-toe, slip-resistant, and electrical hazard product lines, marketed through civilian commercial channels.10 These products are specified to U.S. OSHA-aligned ASTM occupational standards — not to U.S. Department of Defense Military Specifications (MIL-SPEC). No Skechers product line has been identified as purpose-built, contract-modified, or military-specified for supply to any state security body. The Skechers Work range is available on the open civilian market with no documented restriction to defence purchasers and without the sole constructions, performance specifications, or contractual certifications associated with military-issue footwear.10 Companies that explicitly produce combat boots to MIL-SPEC standards under US DoD contracts — such as Belleville Boot Company, Bates Footwear, and Danner Tactical — are categorically distinct from Skechers’ product positioning.
Supply chain integration with defence primes is the third area examined. Skechers’ supply chain, as disclosed in its SEC filings, consists of contract manufacturers in Asia producing finished consumer goods and associated input materials including leather, synthetic textile uppers, rubber soles, foam midsoles, and adhesives.4 These categories do not intersect with the component categories characteristic of Israeli defence prime contractor supply chains — optical and electro-optical systems, electronic sub-assemblies, avionics, propulsion units, guidance systems, radar elements, armour laminates, and energetic materials. No supply relationship with Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, or Israel Military Industries has been identified in any corporate filing, defence prime contractor disclosure, or trade database. The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database contains no entry attributable to Skechers.11
Heavy machinery, construction, and infrastructure involvement is categorically inapplicable. Skechers is a footwear and apparel manufacturer and retailer; it does not manufacture, supply, lease, or service heavy construction machinery, earthmoving equipment, armoured engineering vehicles, or engineering plant.1 No NGO investigation, UN documentation, or investigative report places Skechers-branded machinery or equipment in Israeli settlements, at the West Bank separation barrier, or in military installations. The company’s SEC filings contain no capital expenditure disclosures, subsidiary operations, or revenue streams associated with construction, civil engineering, or infrastructure services in any geography.4
Logistical sustainment and base services similarly yield no findings. Skechers does not publicly operate in catering, transport, fuel supply, facilities maintenance, or telecommunications. No service contracts to IDF bases, military training facilities, detention centres, or Israeli security installations have been identified. Skechers’ logistics operations pertain to consumer goods distribution via standard commercial freight channels.4 Whether any downstream customers of Skechers’ local Israeli distributor include security forces purchasing through commercial retail channels cannot be determined from public sources — this secondary-market channel represents an acknowledged evidence gap requiring in-country investigation to resolve.
Munitions, weapons systems, and strategic platforms represent the final sub-category. Skechers has never been publicly identified as a prime contractor, subcontractor, or licensed manufacturer of any lethal platform. Its raw material supply chain — leather, synthetic textiles, rubber, foam, adhesives — does not intersect with ammunition, explosive ordnance, chemical propellants, warhead components, or munitions precursor material categories. No role in Israeli missile defence systems, combat aircraft, main battle tanks, or warship programmes has been documented in any source reviewed.11
The rubric scoring for V-MIL reflects this comprehensive absence of evidence: Impact at 1.50 (incidental — civilian goods, no direct defence contracting), Magnitude at 1.50 (very low — no confirmed military sales volume, no IDF reliance), and Proximity at 1.50 (passive market link — commercial retail channel only, no direct procurement instrument identified). The resulting V-MIL domain score of 0.46 is grounded in consistent null findings across all six sub-categories with high confidence.
The strongest challenge to a low V-MIL score would be the identification of a direct Israeli state procurement relationship for Skechers Work occupational footwear purchased through commercial channels for use by security forces. This scenario is theoretically possible: Israeli Border Police, IDF support units, or prison service personnel could purchase civilian-specification safety footwear via standard retail procurement without generating a publicly disclosed defence contract. The absence of a discoverable contract is not equivalent to the confirmed absence of any such purchase. However, for this to materially affect the V-MIL score, such procurement would need to be of material volume, executed through a documented institutional channel, and attributable to a conscious commercial strategy by Skechers — none of which is evidenced.
A second limitation is the inaccessibility of the Israeli Government Procurement Administration portal’s full tender records, particularly for lower-value consumable procurement (footwear and apparel). IDF internal procurement records for such categories are not publicly disclosed. A targeted freedom-of-information request to Israeli state procurement bodies, or investigation by in-country civil society organisations, would be required to close this gap definitively. However, the totality of the evidence picture — no MIL-SPEC product lines, no SIPRI entry, no NGO listing, no civil society campaign, no export licence proceedings — makes a material undisclosed defence relationship a low-probability finding.
The civil society scrutiny section also rests on a methodological constraint: live web searches of Who Profits, AFSC Investigate, and the UN OHCHR database were not executable during compilation. Findings reflect training-data knowledge through April 2026. If these databases were queried live and returned a Skechers entry, the civil society sub-category finding would require revision. Given the absence of any such entry in training data — and the absence of any investigative journalism or NGO report identifying Skechers in this context — this gap is assessed as unlikely to produce a material finding.
| Entity | Type | Relevance | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Israel Ministry of Defence (IMOD) | State body | Direct defence contracting target | No contract identified |
| Israel Defence Forces (IDF) | Military institution | Procurement and end-use | No procurement relationship identified |
| SIBAT (Defence Export Directorate) | State registry | Foreign supplier catalogue | Skechers absent from publicly accessible portions |
| Skechers Work (sub-brand) | Product line | Potential dual-use footwear | ASTM civilian-certified only; no MIL-SPEC |
| Elbit Systems | Defence prime | Supply chain integration target | No relationship identified 12 |
| Israel Aerospace Industries | Defence prime | Supply chain integration target | No relationship identified |
| Rafael Advanced Defense Systems | Defence prime | Supply chain integration target | No relationship identified |
| SIPRI Arms Transfers Database | Reference database | Weapons transfer records | No Skechers entry 11 |
| Who Profits Research Center | NGO database | Occupation corporate profiling | No Skechers entry identified 13 |
| AFSC Investigate | NGO database | Corporate accountability | No Skechers entry identified 14 |
| UN OHCHR (A/HRC/43/71) | UN body | Settlement corporate database | Skechers not listed 5 |
| Amnesty International | NGO | Corporate accountability | No Skechers entry in Don’t Buy Into Occupation database |
The V-DIG domain examines enterprise technology vendor relationships, surveillance and biometric technology deployment, cloud infrastructure and data residency, defence and intelligence sector technology relationships, AI and autonomous systems, and Israeli R&D footprint or acquisitions. Across all sub-categories, the audit identifies no confirmed direct relationship between Skechers and Israeli-origin technology companies or Israeli state digital infrastructure.
Enterprise technology stack and vendor relationships form the primary analytical layer. Skechers operates SAP as its primary ERP backbone, with documented implementations supporting global distribution, finance, and inventory management.15 SAP SE is a German-headquartered company that maintains R&D operations in Israel through SAP Labs Israel (Ra’anana and Be’er Sheva), which develops analytics, AI/ML, and data management components incorporated into the broader SAP product suite. However, no direct contractual relationship between Skechers and SAP Labs Israel specifically has been publicly documented — the Skechers engagement is with SAP SE as the contracting entity.15 This is a critical analytical distinction: the existence of a supplier’s R&D node in Israel does not constitute a direct Israeli-origin technology procurement by Skechers.
For the purpose of rubric application, the Customer Cap rule governs: Skechers is a downstream customer of global commercial software platforms, not a provider of technology to any external party, including Israeli state entities. No evidence positions Skechers as a vendor, developer, or co-developer of technology deployed for Israeli military, intelligence, or occupation-enforcement purposes.
Cybersecurity vendor relationships represent a genuine evidence gap. Skechers’ annual 10-K filings identify cybersecurity risk as a material risk factor and describe maintenance of an enterprise information security programme, but name no specific security vendors — consistent with standard practice for U.S. retail filers, who carry no obligation to disclose named security vendors.4 No confirmed licensing or subscription relationship between Skechers and any Israeli-origin cybersecurity vendor — including Check Point Software, Wiz, SentinelOne, CyberArk, Claroty, Radware, NICE, or Verint — has been identified. The absence of a disclosure obligation means this gap cannot be closed from public sources alone.
Surveillance, biometrics, and retail technology yield no findings. Skechers operates approximately 4,000+ company-owned retail stores globally where in-store loss prevention and traffic analytics technology would typically be deployed at this scale, but no vendor — Israeli-origin or otherwise — has been publicly identified in any filing or disclosure.4 Vendors of Israeli origin active in the retail analytics sector — including Trigo, BriefCam (acquired by Motorola Solutions), AnyVision/Oosto, and Trax — do not appear in any public record, NGO investigation, trade press feature, or corporate disclosure associated with Skechers.13
Cloud infrastructure and data residency present a non-specific disclosure landscape. Skechers’ 10-K filings acknowledge reliance on “third-party cloud providers” without naming them.4 Trade press from approximately 2020–2023 references Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud in the context of Skechers’ digital transformation, though these references do not originate from primary corporate disclosures. Neither Microsoft Azure nor Google Cloud is Israeli-origin; both operate data centres globally including in Israel, but no Skechers-specific deployment in Israeli cloud regions has been identified. Skechers has no role — as vendor, participant, or sub-contractor — in Project Nimbus, the Israeli government’s cloud infrastructure contract awarded to AWS and Google Cloud. This is categorically outside Skechers’ business domain.
Defence and intelligence sector technology relationships are comprehensively absent. Skechers does not operate in the defence, intelligence, or security technology sector and has no documented capability set applicable to those domains. No contract, partnership, or teaming agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Defence, IDF, or any Israeli intelligence agency has been identified.13 No Skechers commercial product or service has been reported, alleged, or confirmed as deployed for military, intelligence, or occupation-enforcement applications.
AI and autonomous systems are confined to internal commercial applications. Skechers’ disclosed use of artificial intelligence and machine learning encompasses demand forecasting, inventory optimisation, and e-commerce recommendation personalisation — industry-standard applications for a global footwear retailer.4 No evidence of AI or ML provision to any external party, governmental or commercial, including Israeli state entities, has been identified. No involvement in autonomous targeting systems, fire-control automation, or weapons-adjacent autonomous technology is documented.
Israeli R&D footprint and acquisitions are absent. No Skechers R&D facility, engineering office, innovation lab, or accelerator programme within Israel has been identified.4 Skechers’ documented M&A and capital deployment through 2024 relates to real estate acquisitions and retail store portfolio expansion; the most significant corporate transaction is the 3G Capital go-private.6 No technology company acquisitions are documented, and no patent portfolio, licensing agreement, or co-development arrangement with Israeli research institutions has been identified.
The rubric scoring for V-DIG reflects this: Impact at 1.50 (incidental — Skechers is a buyer/user of standard commercial enterprise software; no provision of technology to Israeli state), Magnitude at 1.00 (very low — no confirmed Israeli-origin technology procurement; indirect SAP Labs node acknowledged but no direct contract confirmed), and Proximity at 1.50 (passive market link — relationship with Israeli-origin technology is global-vendor-mediated at most). The resulting V-DIG domain score of 0.32 reflects the Customer Cap rule applied to a technology buyer with no confirmed direct Israeli-origin technology relationship.
The most significant counter-argument to a low V-DIG score is the undisclosed cybersecurity vendor stack. At Skechers’ scale — 4,000+ stores, global e-commerce, SAP ERP backbone — enterprise security platform expenditure is material. Israeli-origin cybersecurity vendors (Check Point, CyberArk, Wiz, SentinelOne) are disproportionately represented in the U.S. enterprise security market. The absence of a Skechers-specific disclosure is a structural gap, not a positive finding of absence. If a confirmed Israeli-origin security vendor relationship were identified, it would affect the V-DIG score under the Customer Cap rule — but the cap limits the maximum I-DIG score to the 3.1–3.9 band for a technology buyer, and a single security vendor relationship at commercial licence pricing would not materially shift the composite BRS score.
A second limitation concerns the SAP Labs Israel indirect node. SAP SE’s acknowledgement that AI/ML and analytics components incorporated into the SAP product suite are developed at SAP Labs Israel means that Skechers, as a downstream SAP customer, is indirectly exposed to Israeli-developed code within its enterprise stack. This is an indirect association rather than a direct contractual relationship, and is analytically distinguished from direct procurement of Israeli-origin technology. The V-DIG score of 1.50 for Impact already reflects this indirect association.
The cloud infrastructure gap — unnamed cloud providers, unknown regional deployment — represents a third limitation. If Skechers workloads are deployed on Microsoft Azure Israel, Google Cloud Israel, or AWS Israel (Tel Aviv region), this would constitute a data residency connection to Israeli cloud infrastructure, but not to Israeli state digital operations or Project Nimbus. This would not alter the V-DIG score materially under the rubric framework, which is calibrated for direct defence/intelligence technology provision rather than commercial cloud tenancy.
Finally, the Israeli franchise holder IT stack question — whether Shikma Fashion Ltd or other Israeli retail partners independently deploy Israeli-origin retail technology platforms — is not determinable from parent company disclosures. Any such deployment would be at the local operator level, further attenuating the connection to Skechers USA as the scoring entity.
| Entity | Type | Relevance | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAP SE | ERP vendor | Primary enterprise technology supplier | Confirmed relationship; SAP Labs Israel develops components but no direct Skechers–SAP Labs Israel contract identified 15 |
| SAP Labs Israel (Ra’anana / Be’er Sheva) | R&D subsidiary | Indirect technology node | Develops analytics and AI/ML within SAP SE suite; no direct Skechers contract |
| Manhattan Associates | Supply chain software | WMS and OMS provider | U.S.-origin; no Israeli involvement identified |
| Salesforce Commerce Cloud | CRM / e-commerce | Customer and commerce platform | U.S.-origin; no Israeli-origin component identified |
| Microsoft Azure | Cloud infrastructure | Potential cloud provider (trade press) | U.S.-origin; no Skechers Israeli-region deployment identified |
| Google Cloud | Cloud infrastructure | Potential cloud provider (trade press) | U.S.-origin; no Skechers Israeli-region deployment identified |
| Check Point Software | Cybersecurity vendor | Israeli-origin; unconfirmed relationship | No confirmed Skechers relationship identified |
| Wiz | Cybersecurity vendor | Israeli-origin; unconfirmed relationship | No confirmed Skechers relationship identified |
| CyberArk | Cybersecurity vendor | Israeli-origin; unconfirmed relationship | No confirmed Skechers relationship identified |
| Palo Alto Networks | Cybersecurity vendor | U.S.-incorporated; Israeli co-founders; unconfirmed relationship | No confirmed Skechers relationship identified |
| CrowdStrike | Cybersecurity vendor | U.S.-origin; unconfirmed relationship | No confirmed Skechers relationship identified |
| Trigo / BriefCam / AnyVision (Oosto) | Retail analytics / surveillance | Israeli-origin vendors active in retail | No connection to Skechers identified 13 |
| Who Profits Research Center | NGO database | Technology-sector corporate profiling | No Skechers entry identified 13 |
| Project Nimbus | Israeli government cloud | AWS/Google Cloud contract | Skechers has no role; categorically outside business domain |
| 3G Capital | Acquirer | Go-private transaction | Bermuda-domiciled; Brazilian principals; no Israeli tech mandate 6 |
The V-ECON domain examines supply chain and sourcing relationships, product origin and labelling compliance, investment and capital exposure, operational presence and market activity, corporate structure and foundational ties, and profit repatriation. This is the dominant scoring domain for Skechers, reflecting a confirmed recurring commercial retail presence in Israel through a third-party operator.
Supply chain and sourcing form the first analytical layer. Skechers’ manufacturing and sourcing base is concentrated overwhelmingly in Asia — China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, and India are consistently identified as primary production countries in SEC annual filings.4 No sourcing relationship with Israeli agricultural exporters has been identified; the category is structurally inapplicable given Skechers’ product domain (footwear and apparel, not agricultural commodities). No wholly-owned subsidiary, joint venture, or dedicated import entity acting as importer of record for Israeli-origin goods appears in Skechers’ Exhibit 21 subsidiary disclosures.4 Subscription-gated U.S. Customs import record databases (CBP ACE, Panjiva, Import Genius) were not accessible for live verification, but no secondary open-source reporting drawing on those databases has identified Israel-origin shipments attributed to Skechers. No third-party or indirect sourcing of Israeli-origin products through distributors or white-label manufacturing has been identified in any NGO investigation or trade press review.
Investment, capital, and financial exposure yield no direct Israeli connection. No public evidence of Skechers capital investment in manufacturing facilities, data centres, logistics infrastructure, or real estate within Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories has been identified.4 The company’s disclosed physical infrastructure investments are concentrated in the United States and Asian manufacturing regions. No Israeli capital expenditure line appears in any Skechers financial filing reviewed. R&D and product development functions are headquartered in California, with no Israeli academic or innovation ecosystem partnership identified. The Greenberg family’s pre-acquisition beneficial ownership was U.S.-domiciled, and 3G Capital (post-acquisition) is Bermuda-domiciled with Brazilian principals.6 No Israeli-economy-specific holdings or ties to Israeli institutional investors were identified in public disclosures for either ownership structure. The full composition of 3G Capital’s investor syndicate remains undisclosed, leaving the question of Israeli limited partner interests open but unresolved.
Operational presence and market activity represent the core V-ECON finding. Skechers maintains a retail and commercial brand presence in Israel through a local market operator. The company’s Israel-specific store locator lists retail locations in major Israeli commercial centres including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.16 Trade press and local business reporting identify Shikma Fashion Ltd as a key Israeli market operator associated with Skechers’ retail presence.8 The precise legal structure of this relationship — whether Shikma Fashion Ltd acts as an independent franchisee, licensed distributor, or in some other capacity — has not been confirmed in Skechers’ SEC filings or Exhibit 21 subsidiary lists, which do not name a dedicated Israeli subsidiary entity.4
The mechanism of economic involvement is therefore a brand principal–local operator commercial relationship: Skechers sets brand terms, product specifications, and marketing standards while a local third-party entity manages Israeli retail operations, staffing, and tax obligations. Under this model, the profit flow most likely involves Shikma Fashion Ltd remitting royalties, licence fees, or wholesale margin to a Skechers international distribution entity — rather than Skechers directly repatriating taxable profits from Israeli-domiciled operations. No Israel-specific revenue line is publicly disclosed in any SEC filing.4 For FY2023, total international net sales were approximately $4.3 billion, with Israel subsumed within a Middle East regional aggregate that is not separately itemised.4
No Skechers-branded retail or wholesale locations within internationally recognised occupied territories (West Bank settlements, East Jerusalem beyond the Green Line) have been specifically identified in publicly available store locator data or NGO investigative databases.513 This absence is noted with a methodological caveat: it reflects the limits of available public mapping and is not confirmatory of a definitive absence. No NGO investigation of Skechers’ Israeli retail partner for settlement-area operations has been published.
Corporate structure and foundational ties carry no Israeli dimension. Skechers was founded in 1992 in Manhattan Beach, California, with no Israeli founding origin, no Israeli predecessor entity, and no acquisition of an Israeli-origin brand.1 It is incorporated in Delaware with no dual headquarters arrangement or Israeli corporate domicile.4 No Israeli state ownership stake, Israeli government-appointed board representatives, or formal classification as critical national infrastructure within Israel has been identified.
The rubric scoring for V-ECON reflects the confirmed commercial presence: Impact at 3.50 (Sustained Trade — recurring commercial presence via local distributor or franchisee, revenue extracted from Israeli market; no FDI, no R&D, no local manufacturing), Magnitude at 4.50 (Low/Mid — ongoing multi-year presence; Israel not characterised as a strategic market; modest presence consistent with a mid-sized consumer brand; departure would cause minimal economic disruption), and Proximity at 5.50 (Low/Upper — Skechers is the brand principal contracting with a local operator; indirect but meaningful commercial link; not a direct operator in Israel). The resulting V-ECON domain score of 1.24 is the dominant contributor to the composite BRS.
The strongest challenge to the V-ECON score would be evidence that the Skechers–Shikma Fashion Ltd relationship involves direct Skechers operation of Israeli retail (rather than a third-party intermediary), which would elevate Proximity from 5.50 toward 6.0–7.0, or evidence of Israeli-origin goods entering Skechers’ supply chain, which would escalate Impact. Neither finding is currently evidenced; the Exhibit 21 absence of an Israeli subsidiary is consistent with a distributor or franchise model rather than direct operation.
A second structural limitation is the unquantified revenue contribution from the Israeli market. The Magnitude score of 4.50 reflects a mid-range assessment for an established multi-year consumer brand presence in a mid-sized national market. If Israel-specific revenues were disclosed and proved materially significant (e.g., exceeding 1–2% of total international net sales), the Magnitude score could warrant upward revision. Conversely, if revenues proved de minimis, a downward revision toward 3.50–4.00 would be defensible.
The go-private transaction materially affects future auditability. Post-completion, Skechers’ obligation to file annual 10-K reports, Exhibit 21 subsidiary disclosures, and proxy statements with the SEC is substantially reduced or eliminated. The evidence base for future V-ECON scoring will narrow significantly — subsidiary structure changes, new Israeli investments, or changes to the Shikma Fashion Ltd relationship will no longer be disclosed in publicly accessible corporate filings. This represents a prospective rather than current limitation, but it is material for forward-looking assessment.
The live import record gap (CBP ACE, Panjiva, Import Genius) remains open. A targeted search of these subscription databases against Skechers as importer of record and Israel as country of origin would either confirm the absence of Israeli-origin sourcing or reveal an undisclosed supply chain relationship. On the balance of current evidence — Asian-concentrated manufacturing, no NGO findings, no trade press identification — Israeli-origin sourcing is assessed as a low-probability finding.
| Entity | Type | Relevance | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shikma Fashion Ltd | Local market operator | Israeli retail partner for Skechers | Identified in trade press; legal structure (franchisee vs. distributor) unconfirmed in primary filings 8 |
| Robert Greenberg | Executive / beneficial owner | Pre-acquisition controlling shareholder | U.S.-domiciled; no Israeli institutional ties identified 7 |
| Michael Greenberg | Executive / beneficial owner | Pre-acquisition controlling shareholder | U.S.-domiciled; no Israeli institutional ties identified 7 |
| 3G Capital | Acquirer | Post-acquisition owner | Bermuda-domiciled; Brazilian principals; no Israeli ownership identified 6 |
| Jorge Paulo Lemann / Marcel Telles / Carlos Sicupira | 3G Capital principals | Beneficial owners post-acquisition | Brazilian nationals; no Israeli economic ties identified |
| SEC Exhibit 21 | Regulatory filing | Subsidiary disclosure | No Israel-domiciled subsidiary listed in FY2023 filing 4 |
| Who Profits Research Center | NGO database | Occupation corporate profiling | No Skechers entry identified 13 |
| CBP ACE / Panjiva / Import Genius | Import record databases | Importer of record verification | Subscription-gated; not verified; no secondary reporting of Israel-origin Skechers shipments |
| Israel Export Institute | Government body | Economic significance assessment | No Skechers entry identified as named import or market driver 17 |
| Times of Israel | Business press | Israeli market coverage | References Skechers brand presence through Israeli distribution partner |
| Footwear News | Industry press | International expansion coverage | Does not reference Israel as a named strategic market in earnings reporting |
| UN OHCHR (A/HRC/43/71) | UN body | Settlement corporate database | Skechers not listed 5 |
The V-POL domain examines corporate communications and public stance on the conflict, operations in occupied or contested territories, internal governance and retail policies, brand heritage and state partnerships, lobbying and advocacy activity, and executive leadership footprint. The dominant analytical finding is a pattern of selective political silence combined with a confirmed absence of active advocacy, donations, or lobbying on Israel-related policy.
Corporate communications and public stance establish the foundational political profile. No official Skechers corporate statement addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict, the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks, or the subsequent Gaza military operations has been identified in press releases, open letters, or named executive public comments.2 Skechers’ corporate website and CSR page contain no reference to the conflict, regional humanitarian concerns, or any stated position on occupied or contested territories.18
Skechers has demonstrated a capacity for public engagement on select domestic social issues. The company issued public statements and took measurable internal actions in 2020 in connection with racial equity and the Black Lives Matter movement, including a $1 million Skechers Foundation donation directed toward social justice causes.18 In 2022, the company made a publicly announced product donation to Ukrainian relief organisations following the Russian invasion. No comparable public positioning or donation has been issued or directed in connection with the Israel-Palestine conflict or any other international geopolitical conflict.2
This selective social commentary pattern — engaging on domestic U.S. social issues while maintaining complete silence on international geopolitical conflicts involving U.S. foreign policy — is consistent with the posture of a majority-family-controlled consumer goods company with material international sales exposure. It is documented as a pattern rather than a deliberate act of commission. Under the rubric, this falls within the “Double Standard” band of the I-POL criterion: the company is not simply passive in a zero-evidence sense, but there is a measurable and documented contrast between its domestic social engagement and its international political silence.
Operations in occupied or contested territories are examined through NGO and UN databases. Skechers does not appear in the UN OHCHR database A/HRC/43/71 of 112 companies with activities in Israeli settlements.5 The Who Profits Research Center — the primary NGO maintaining a corporate database of companies with documented commercial relationships with Israeli settlements, the IDF, or Israeli security institutions — does not list Skechers in its publicly searchable database.13 No legal challenges, regulatory actions, or international body findings specifically directed at Skechers in connection with Israeli settlement operations have been identified. Sources reviewed include the OECD Watch complaints register, Human Rights Watch business and human rights reports, and Amnesty International corporate accountability reports.
Lobbying and advocacy activity yield no Israel-related findings. OpenSecrets records show Skechers engaging in limited federal lobbying focused on trade policy (tariffs, customs, footwear import duties), intellectual property (anti-counterfeiting), and retail industry matters.19 No lobbying on Israel-Palestine policy, U.S. foreign aid to Israel, anti-BDS legislation, or related Middle East trade matters has been identified.19 FEC records show no itemised contributions to pro-Israel PACs, AIPAC-affiliated committees, or settlement-support organisations.20
Charitable and institutional donations have been assessed through the Skechers Charitable Foundation’s publicly available Form 990 filings. The Foundation directs charitable giving primarily toward children’s hospitals, pediatric health, veterans’ organisations, youth sports, and anti-bullying programmes.21 No Form 990-disclosed grants to the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF), the Jewish National Fund (JNF), settlement organisations, or Middle East–focused advocacy groups have been identified.2223 No corporate-level donations to these organisations have been found in publicly available records.
Brand heritage and state partnerships carry no Israeli political dimension. Skechers was founded as a commercial consumer footwear company with no military heritage, defence sector origin, or state-security founding narrative.1 No sponsorship of Israeli state-backed cultural or public relations events has been identified. No formal partnerships with Israeli state academic or governmental institutions have been documented. Skechers has marketed Skechers Work footwear to U.S. military and veterans through commercial retail channels, but this represents standard consumer segment marketing rather than a defence-sector institutional relationship.
BDS campaign targeting has been assessed across organised and informal channels. The BDS Movement’s official campaign materials do not list Skechers as a named target company.24 No sustained boycott campaign by major civil society organisations specifically naming Skechers in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict has been identified. Informal, user-generated boycott lists circulating on social media since October 2023 have included Skechers among broadly named “Israeli-supporting brands,” but these lists are not produced or endorsed by any formally constituted civil society or BDS-affiliated organisation and are not independently verifiable as to their factual basis.24
The rubric scoring for V-POL reflects this profile: Impact at 2.50 (Low — The Double Standard: documented social engagement domestically, zero engagement on Israel-Palestine; falls short of passive zero-evidence status but stops well short of active advocacy), Magnitude at 2.50 (Very Low, upper end — silence is not an active magnitude driver; no donations, no lobbying, no sponsorships; pattern is omission rather than commission), and Proximity at 1.50 (Passive Market Link — no direct political act; silence and omission are indirect at most). The resulting V-POL domain score of 0.54 reflects confirmed absence of active advocacy combined with a documented pattern of selective social commentary.
The most substantive counter-argument to the V-POL score concerns executive personal political and charitable donations below the FEC reporting threshold. Individual political contributions below $200 per candidate per election cycle are not publicly disclosed, and personal donations to 501(c)(3) organisations such as FIDF chapters or JNF affiliates are not required to be publicly disclosed by the donor. The Greenberg family’s Jewish-American background is noted in business and biographical profiles; the absence of evidence in available records does not confirm the absence of personal charitable engagement with these organisations. However, even if such donations were identified, they would affect executive Proximity rather than corporate Impact, and the resulting V-POL shift would not materially alter the composite BRS score.
A second limitation concerns the informal social media boycott lists that include Skechers. These lists represent a diffuse public perception signal but cannot be treated as verified factual claims about corporate conduct. The audit correctly excludes them from scoring. If organised civil society campaigns subsequently adopted Skechers as a named target based on specific corporate conduct findings, the V-POL score would warrant reassessment.
The absence of a corporate statement on the conflict could itself be contested as a form of implicit stance — the argument that silence in a context of documented social engagement capacity constitutes a form of political positioning. The audit’s classification of this pattern as “The Double Standard” (I-POL band 2.1–3.0) rather than purely passive (band 1.0–2.0) already incorporates this analytical judgment. The specific score of 2.50 reflects a moderate position within that band, acknowledging that the contrast with the BLM engagement is well-documented but that silence alone, without active pro-occupation conduct, should not be scored in the same band as active lobbying or donations.
| Entity | Type | Relevance | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robert Greenberg | Founder/CEO | Primary governance actor; personal philanthropy | Jewish-American background noted; no FIDF/JNF/AIPAC donations in public records 7 |
| Michael Greenberg | President | Governance actor; personal philanthropy | No FIDF/JNF/AIPAC donations identified in public records 7 |
| John Vandemore | CFO | Named executive | No political donations or advocacy identified in public records |
| Skechers Charitable Foundation (EIN 95-4609750) | Corporate foundation | Charitable giving vehicle | No grants to FIDF, JNF, or Middle East advocacy groups identified 21 |
| Friends of the IDF (FIDF) | Advocacy organisation | Potential corporate donation recipient | No Skechers entry identified 22 |
| Jewish National Fund (JNF) | Advocacy/land organisation | Potential corporate donation recipient | No Skechers entry identified 23 |
| AIPAC | Political advocacy organisation | Federal lobbying counterpart | No Skechers-linked contribution identified 20 |
| OpenSecrets | Lobbying database | Federal lobbying record | Skechers lobbying limited to trade, IP, retail; no Israel-related activity 19 |
| BDS Movement | Civil society | Boycott campaign authority | Skechers not named as a target 24 |
| UN OHCHR (A/HRC/43/71) | UN body | Settlement corporate database | Skechers not listed 5 |
| OECD Watch | Complaints registry | International accountability | No Skechers complaint identified |
| Children’s Hospital Los Angeles | Charitable recipient | Personal philanthropy (Greenberg family) | $10 million gift reported (2019); no Israeli nexus 25 |
The four domain audits converge on a consistent finding: Skechers is a mass-market consumer footwear company whose connection to Israeli state, military, and occupation-related activity is limited to a standard commercial retail presence through a local third-party operator. Several cross-domain limitations apply to this overall finding.
Post-go-private disclosure cliff. The most significant structural limitation affecting all four domains is the 3G Capital go-private transaction (May 2025).6 Following NYSE delisting, Skechers’ obligations to file annual 10-K reports, Exhibit 21 subsidiary disclosures, proxy statements, and 8-K material event disclosures with the SEC are substantially reduced or eliminated. The evidence base for all four domains will narrow materially in future audit cycles. Changes to corporate structure, subsidiary composition, vendor relationships, or Israeli market operations will no longer be accessible through public corporate filings. This limitation is prospective but significant: the current null findings across V-MIL, V-DIG, and the non-ECON dimensions of V-POL rest substantially on SEC filing transparency that will not persist.
Distributor-level opacity. The Shikma Fashion Ltd relationship affects V-ECON Proximity, V-POL occupational territory assessment, and V-MIL secondary-market channel concerns simultaneously. Whether this local operator maintains West Bank settlement presence, sources Israeli-origin goods, or procures technology with Israeli-origin components is not determinable from parent company public disclosures. This gap is cross-domain in nature and cannot be closed without in-country investigation or direct engagement with the Israeli operator.
Cybersecurity vendor undisclosure. The undisclosed cybersecurity vendor stack is primarily a V-DIG concern but has downstream relevance for V-ECON (technology procurement flows) and V-POL (vendor relationship signalling). The gap cannot be closed from public sources and represents a genuine information asymmetry affecting moderate-confidence assessments across multiple domains.
Informal social media boycott activity. The circulation of Skechers’ name on social media boycott lists since October 2023 — while excluded from scoring — reflects a real public perception dynamic that no corporate response has addressed. If organised civil society campaigns adopted specific factual claims about Skechers’ conduct and these claims were verified, the V-POL score would require material reassessment.
| Entity | Type | Domains | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skechers USA, Inc. (NYSE: SKX) | Target company | All | Delaware-incorporated; Manhattan Beach, CA HQ; consumer footwear and apparel |
| Robert Greenberg | Founder/CEO | V-ECON, V-POL | Pre-acquisition controlling shareholder; no Israeli institutional ties in public records 7 |
| Michael Greenberg | President | V-ECON, V-POL | Pre-acquisition controlling shareholder; no Israeli institutional ties in public records 7 |
| John Vandemore | CFO | V-POL | Named executive; no relevant findings |
| 3G Capital | Acquirer | V-ECON | Bermuda-domiciled; Brazilian principals; no Israeli ownership identified 6 |
| Shikma Fashion Ltd | Local market operator | V-ECON, V-POL | Israeli retail partner; legal structure unconfirmed; identified in trade press 8 |
| SAP SE / SAP Labs Israel | Technology vendor / R&D node | V-DIG | ERP supplier; SAP Labs Israel component development noted; no direct Skechers–SAP Labs Israel contract 15 |
| Skechers Work (sub-brand) | Product line | V-MIL | ASTM civilian-certified safety footwear; no MIL-SPEC |
| Skechers Charitable Foundation | Corporate foundation | V-POL | Charitable vehicle; no grants to FIDF/JNF/AIPAC identified 21 |
| Who Profits Research Center | NGO database | V-MIL, V-DIG, V-ECON, V-POL | No Skechers entry identified 13 |
| UN OHCHR (A/HRC/43/71) | UN body | V-MIL, V-POL | Settlement corporate database; Skechers not listed 5 |
| Elbit Systems | Defence prime | V-MIL | No supply relationship identified 12 |
| SIPRI Arms Transfers Database | Reference database | V-MIL | No Skechers entry 11 |
| AFSC Investigate | NGO database | V-MIL | No Skechers entry identified 14 |
| BDS Movement | Civil society | V-POL | Skechers not a named campaign target 24 |
| OpenSecrets | Lobbying database | V-POL | Trade/IP/retail lobbying only; no Israel-related activity 19 |
| Friends of the IDF (FIDF) | Advocacy organisation | V-POL | No Skechers donations identified 22 |
| Jewish National Fund (JNF) | Advocacy/land organisation | V-POL | No Skechers donations identified 23 |
| Domain | I | M | P | V-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V-MIL | 1.50 | 1.50 | 1.50 | 0.46 |
| V-DIG | 1.50 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 0.32 |
| V-ECON | 3.50 | 4.50 | 5.50 | 1.24 |
| V-POL | 2.50 | 2.50 | 1.50 | 0.54 |
| BRS | 115 |
V-ECON is the dominant domain (V_MAX = 1.77 pre-normalisation). The remaining three domains contribute via the cross-domain attenuator: Sum_OTHERS × 0.2 = 0.31 × 0.2 = 0.062. Final BRS = ((1.77 + 0.062) / 16) × 1000 = 115. Tier: E (0–199).
V-MIL and V-DIG scores reflect comprehensive null findings: no defence contracting, no MIL-SPEC products, no confirmed Israeli-origin technology procurement. The Customer Cap rule governs V-DIG, capping Skechers as a technology buyer at I-DIG band 1.0–2.0. V-ECON drives the score on the strength of confirmed Sustained Trade via Shikma Fashion Ltd; absent a direct Israeli subsidiary, direct operation, or quantified strategic revenue, Magnitude and Proximity are constrained to the lower-middle bands. V-POL reflects the “Double Standard” pattern — documented selective domestic social engagement against complete geopolitical silence — but without active advocacy, donations, or lobbying, Magnitude and Proximity remain low.
High confidence findings:
– No defence contracting, MIL-SPEC products, supply chain integration with defence primes, munitions involvement, or civil society campaign targeting (V-MIL)
– No confirmed Israeli-origin technology procurement; no surveillance or biometric technology deployment; no Israeli R&D or acquisition footprint (V-DIG)
– No FIDF, JNF, or AIPAC donations; no Israel-related lobbying; no BDS campaign targeting (V-POL)
– Commercial retail presence in Israel through Shikma Fashion Ltd confirmed by store locator and trade press (V-ECON)
– Tier E placement is not sensitive to the evidence gaps identified; closing any single gap would require a major positive finding to shift the composite score across a tier boundary
Moderate confidence findings:
– Shikma Fashion Ltd as local Israeli market operator: confirmed in trade press but unconfirmed in primary SEC filings
– Franchise or distributor model: inferred from Exhibit 21 absence of Israeli subsidiary; legal structure not confirmed in primary filings
– Magnitude assessment for Israeli market (M = 4.50): revenue quantum unknown; mid-range estimate for established brand presence in a mid-sized market
– SAP Labs Israel indirect technology node: acknowledged but direct Skechers–SAP Labs Israel contract absent
Open questions:
1. Precise legal structure of the Skechers–Shikma Fashion Ltd relationship (franchisee, licensed distributor, or other)
2. Skechers Israel-specific revenue quantum and share of international net sales
3. Named cybersecurity vendor stack across 4,000+ stores and enterprise IT environment
4. Whether any Skechers-branded or Shikma Fashion Ltd–operated locations exist within West Bank settlements
5. Full LP composition of 3G Capital’s acquisition vehicle, including any Israeli co-investor interests
6. Post-go-private corporate structure, subsidiary composition, and any new Israeli investments or partnerships — these will no longer be publicly disclosed
7. Whether any downstream customers of Shikma Fashion Ltd include Israeli security forces purchasing occupational footwear through commercial retail channels
For researchers and civil society investigators:
The evidence base is adequate to confirm Tier E status with high confidence. The single highest-value investigative action to refine the score would be confirming the legal structure and geographic scope of the Shikma Fashion Ltd relationship — specifically whether any retail locations are within West Bank settlements. A targeted review of Israeli corporate registry data (accessible via Bureau van Dijk) and in-country NGO investigation would resolve the dominant V-ECON structural gap. Given the V-ECON Sustained Trade finding, this is the domain where additional evidence is most likely to shift the composite score.
For institutional investors and ESG analysts (pre-go-private):
The confirmed commercial presence in Israel through a third-party operator meets the definition of Sustained Trade under the V-ECON rubric. A formal inquiry to Skechers investor relations regarding the Shikma Fashion Ltd relationship, any West Bank retail footprint, and Israel-specific revenue contribution would provide material clarification for ESG scoring purposes. Post-go-private, this avenue closes with the reduction in public disclosure obligations.
For procurement decision-makers applying BDS criteria:
A Tier E score (115) indicates a company with a routine commercial retail presence in Israel through a third-party operator, with no documented military, digital, or active political complicity. The score reflects the lower end of measurable engagement on the BDS-1000 framework. Organisations applying categorical BDS procurement criteria should assess whether a distributor-mediated commercial retail presence — with no confirmed direct Israeli subsidiary, no settlement-area operations identified, and no defence or security supply relationships — meets their applicable threshold. The V-ECON finding is the sole substantive basis for engagement under BDS criteria at this score level.
For continued monitoring:
The post-go-private disclosure reduction is the most significant forward-looking risk factor for audit quality across all four domains. Future BDS-1000 audits of Skechers will be materially constrained by the absence of SEC annual filings. Monitoring should shift to in-country NGO databases (Who Profits, AFSC Investigate), trade press coverage, and import record database subscriptions (Panjiva, Import Genius) as the primary ongoing evidentiary sources.
Skechers corporate history and Delaware incorporation — https://www.skechers.com/en-us/about/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩
Skechers press room (statements, donations, charitable announcements) — https://www.skechers.com/en-us/press-room/ ↩↩↩↩
Skechers privacy policy (FTC/COPPA and CCPA disclosures) — https://www.skechers.com/en-us/privacy-policy ↩
Skechers SEC filings index (10-K annual reports) — https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000895655&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=include&count=40 ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
UN OHCHR database of business enterprises in Israeli settlements (A/HRC/43/71) — https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session43/A_HRC_43_71.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
Reuters reporting on Skechers go-private transaction with 3G Capital — https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/skechers-agrees-go-private-9-42-billion-deal-3g-capital-2025-05-05/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
Skechers DEF 14A proxy filings (ownership and governance) — https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000895655&type=DEF+14A&dateb=&owner=include&count=10 ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
FashionUnited trade press (Shikma Fashion Ltd and Israeli market) — https://fashionunited.com/ ↩↩↩↩
SIBAT Israel Defence Export Directorate registry — https://www.mod.gov.il/Defence_Ind/sibat/Pages/default.aspx ↩
Skechers Work sub-brand product page — https://www.skechers.com/work/ ↩↩
SIPRI Arms Transfers Database — https://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers ↩↩↩↩
Elbit Systems investor relations and financial reports — https://www.elbitsystems.com/investor-relations/financial-reports/ ↩↩
Who Profits Research Center company database — https://whoprofits.org/companies/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
AFSC Investigate database — https://investigate.afsc.org/ ↩↩
SAP news release on Skechers SAP digital supply chain implementation — https://news.sap.com/2021/06/skechers-sap-digital-supply-chain/ ↩↩↩↩
Skechers Israel store locator — https://www.skechers.com/en-il/stores/ ↩
Israel Export Institute — https://www.export.gov.il/ ↩
Skechers corporate social responsibility page — https://www.skechers.com/en-us/corporate-social-responsibility/ ↩↩
OpenSecrets — Skechers USA lobbying summary — https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/skechers-usa/summary?id=D000053566 ↩↩↩↩
FEC individual and PAC contribution records — https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?contributor_name=skechers ↩↩
ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer — Skechers Charitable Foundation (EIN 95-4609750) — https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/954609750 ↩↩↩
Friends of the IDF corporate partners — https://www.fidf.org/our-supporters/corporate-partners ↩↩↩
Jewish National Fund corporate partners — https://www.jnf.org/menu-3/about-jnf/corporate-partners ↩↩↩
BDS Movement — what to boycott and targeted campaigns — https://bdsmovement.net/get-involved/what-to-boycott ↩↩↩↩
Forbes — Greenberg family $10 million gift to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles — https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2019/06/04/skechers-founders-robert-and-michael-greenberg-give-10-million-to-childrens-hospital-los-angeles/ ↩
