SodaStream🇮🇱

Key Findings

• Economic: SodaStream formerly manufactured at Mishor Adumim in the West Bank; its principal production moved to Lehavim in southern Israel by 2015, where PepsiCo reporting continues to identify a manufacturing plant.^{1, 2}
• Economic: PepsiCo’s 2018 acquisition materials required continued operation of SodaStream’s Lehavim manufacturing facility in Israel for at least 15 years, subject to specified qualifications.³
• Political: The CJEU held that goods made in Mishor Adumim did not qualify for EC–Israel Association Agreement tariff preference; the ruling addressed customs treatment, not a general sanction or every SodaStream label.⁴
• Not found: No public evidence identified of SodaStream contracts with Israeli military or security bodies, military-product variants, or provision of surveillance, cloud, or digital-security services to them.^{5, 6}

Target Profile

Key Facts:

• PepsiCo’s current subsidiary schedule lists SodaStream International Ltd., SodaStream Industries Ltd., SodaStream Israel Ltd., and So Spark Ltd. as Israeli group entities.¹⁴
• SodaStream’s historical business included manufacturing in Mishor Adumim and Ashkelon; the former West Bank facility was withdrawn from by 2015.^{9, 13}
• The reviewed record identifies no state ownership, golden share, or separately documented controlling shareholder other than PepsiCo.^{14, 15}

Executive Summary

SodaStream is an Israeli-incorporated consumer home-carbonation company within PepsiCo’s International Beverages Franchise business. Its documented Israel/Palestine nexus is principally economic and historical-operational: it operated a manufacturing and research-and-development facility at Mishor Adumim in the West Bank until 2015, while principal production moved to Lehavim in southern Israel.^{1, 9} PepsiCo’s filings continue to identify Israeli SodaStream entities and a manufacturing plant in Lehavim.^{2, 14}

The former Mishor Adumim operation is the strongest documented basis for scrutiny. In a customs dispute concerning Soda-Club products made there, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that West Bank-origin goods did not qualify for preferential treatment under the EC–Israel Association Agreement.⁴ This ruling was about the territorial scope of tariff treatment for the specified goods; it was not a general corporate sanction and does not resolve the compliance of every consumer-facing SodaStream origin label.⁴ Who Profits reported after a December 2015 field visit that the factory had ceased operating and that SodaStream had withdrawn from its sole West Bank-based facility.¹³

The continuing economic nexus is substantial in the supplied record. SodaStream disclosed a long-term Israel Land Authority lease for Lehavim through February 2061, with an option for a further 49-year extension, as well as approved Israeli-government grants connected to the investment.¹⁶ PepsiCo’s merger agreement also required maintenance of the then-current Lehavim facility for at least 15 years after closing, subject to stated operational and personnel qualifications.³ The record does not quantify current Israeli revenue, tax payments, workforce, profit repatriation, or the present performance of that covenant.^{2, 16}

The audits do not substantiate a military or digital-security nexus. No public evidence identified of SodaStream contracts with the IDF, IMOD, Israeli police, intelligence bodies, or other named security bodies; military-specification products; defence-prime supply; military logistics; surveillance technology; Project Nimbus participation; or provision of cloud, AI, cyber, or data services to Israeli state-security institutions.^{5, 6} The audits also distinguish a former executive’s later external advisory role at Massivit from SodaStream’s current operations.¹⁷

Under the fixed, human-vetted V6 assessment supplied for this dossier, SodaStream receives a BRS of 714, placing it in Tier B (Severe Complicity). That result is driven by the Economic score for the documented historical settlement-linked manufacturing operation and continuing Israeli manufacturing and investment nexus, rather than by military or digital findings.

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

SodaStream’s disclosed product range consists of home sparkling-water makers, CO₂ cylinders and refills, reusable bottles, flavours, and related consumer products.⁹ Historic filings describe SodaStream Industries Ltd. as a wholly owned Israeli manufacturing subsidiary and describe Dutch operating-management entities within the pre-acquisition structure.²⁰

PepsiCo acquired SodaStream in December 2018 for $144 per share, valuing the transaction at approximately $3.3 billion, or approximately $3.2 billion net of acquired cash.^{10, 21} The merger resulted in SodaStream surviving as a direct wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo Ventures; the reviewed current subsidiary schedule establishes PepsiCo group inclusion but does not identify every intermediate owner in the current chain.^{21, 14}

PepsiCo’s FY2025 subsidiary exhibit lists SodaStream International Ltd., SodaStream Industries Ltd., SodaStream Israel Ltd., and So Spark Ltd. in Israel, and also lists SodaStream-related entities in multiple other jurisdictions.¹⁴ The available record does not identify a franchise relationship material to the Israel/Palestine nexus. It also does not establish a current SodaStream-operated facility, authorised reseller, warehouse, service contract, or other verified operation in an Israeli settlement.^{14, 22}

The company’s historical Mishor Adumim operation is distinct from its current documented Lehavim nexus. The records describe the former West Bank facility as ceasing operations in 2015; present filings identify a Lehavim manufacturing plant but do not provide a current SodaStream workforce figure, product line, or entity-level operating assignment for that facility.^{13, 2}

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

No public evidence identified of SodaStream or PepsiCo-SodaStream contracts, tender awards, supplier records, framework agreements, or memoranda with the Israeli Ministry of Defense, IDF, Israel Prison Service, Border Police, or another named Israeli security body.⁵ The audited product record concerns consumer carbonation appliances, cylinders, bottles, flavours, refills, and related household products; it does not describe military-specification, tactical, ruggedised, or security-force variants.⁹

No public evidence identified of SodaStream supply to Israeli defence primes, provision of components or manufacturing services for military platforms, or military-base sustainment services. The available disclosures describe commercial retail, distribution, and third-party refill arrangements rather than military customers or military freight.^{5, 9}

Daniel Birnbaum wrote that the Mishor Adumim premises had previously been an Israeli bomb-making factory and that SodaStream operated its own facility there from 2007 to 2015.²³ This supports prior military-industrial use of the premises before SodaStream’s operation; it does not establish SodaStream manufacture of bombs, weapons, or military products.²³

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is the civilian character of the documented business and the absence of identified defence contracting. The reviewed filings describe household-carbonation manufacturing, not weapons, munitions, surveillance equipment, or military services.⁹

The SIBAT directory was an unresolved lead because its full text could not be searched in the research environment. Accordingly, the audit does not claim a conclusive database-wide non-listing; it reports only that no supporting public record was identified in the bounded review.²⁴

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

No public evidence identified of SodaStream providing or deploying surveillance, biometrics, predictive-policing, cyber, cloud, AI, communications, analytics, or other technology for Israeli military, intelligence, police, or state-security bodies.⁶ The company’s documented core business is consumer home carbonation rather than digital-security products.⁹

SodaStream’s Australian privacy policy states that personal information may be transferred and processed outside a customer’s residence, including in countries such as Israel.²⁵ This is an affirmative disclosure of potential processing or access in Israel, but it does not identify the categories or volume of data, group entities, physical data centres, cloud regions, or providers involved.²⁵

PepsiCo has documented global relationships with Microsoft, AWS, Google Cloud, and IBM Consulting, while Genpact implemented SodaStream’s SodaFlow quality-and-safety system on Microsoft Azure.^{26, 27} The reviewed materials do not establish that SodaStream uses every PepsiCo group platform, uses Israeli cloud regions, or participates in Project Nimbus.^{26, 27}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that neither group-level enterprise technology relationships nor a privacy-policy reference to possible Israeli processing demonstrates a state-security, military, or surveillance deployment. No public evidence identified that SodaStream or PepsiCo uses Azure Israel Central, AWS Israel, Google Cloud Israel, or Nimbus services for SodaStream workloads.^{6, 25}

The audit also treats claims regarding indirect vendor relationships cautiously. A Torq ecosystem reference involving PepsiCo does not establish a direct SodaStream licence, subscription, integration, or deployment of named Israeli-origin cyber vendors.²⁸

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

SodaStream historically manufactured much of its product range in Israel. Its former Mishor Adumim facility performed metalworking, plastics and bottle production, machining, assembly, cylinder manufacture, CO₂ refill, and cylinder retesting; Ashkelon produced flavours for worldwide distribution.⁹ By 2016, SodaStream reported that most production had moved to Lehavim, including cylinder manufacture and retesting, refills, plastics, bottle production, machining, and assembly.¹

The former Mishor Adumim facility forms the principal historical settlement-linked economic finding. The CJEU’s Brita judgment addressed goods made there and held that West Bank-origin goods did not receive EC–Israel Association Agreement tariff preference.⁴ Who Profits reported that the site had ceased operating by its December 2015 field visit and that SodaStream had withdrawn from its sole West Bank facility.¹³

The current documented nexus is Israeli incorporation, PepsiCo ownership, identified Israeli subsidiaries, and the Lehavim plant. SodaStream disclosed an Israel Land Authority lease for Lehavim through February 2061, renewable for a further 49 years, and approved Israeli-government grants associated with the investment.¹⁶ PepsiCo’s merger agreement required maintenance of the Lehavim facility for at least 15 years after closing, subject to specified adjustments and operational conditions.³

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the documented West Bank operation ended in 2015 and that reviewed sources did not identify a current settlement operation. No public evidence identified of current sales, service points, warehouses, distributors, franchisees, or licensees in West Bank, East Jerusalem, or Golan settlements.^{13, 22}

The customs ruling does not determine every consumer-facing label’s compliance, and the Who Profits “Made in Israel” allegation is NGO reporting rather than a regulatory enforcement finding.^{4, 29} No public evidence identified of a current occupied-territory origin-labelling policy, named post-litigation enforcement action, Israeli sovereign-bond holding, current Israeli tax figure, Israeli revenue figure, or current workforce figure.^{2, 16}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

The audited political nexus derives principally from the historical settlement-linked operation, corporate location commitments, and public controversy, rather than from documented direct political or military advocacy. In 2015, then-CEO Daniel Birnbaum defended the former Mishor Adumim facility at a U.S. House hearing and described it as SodaStream’s largest facility at that time.¹⁹ This is historical testimony and does not establish current West Bank operations.¹⁹

The 2018 merger agreement’s Lehavim facility-maintenance covenant is a documented operational commitment in Israel.³ It does not establish a state-held share, golden share, charter mandate, or legal obligation for SodaStream to advance Israeli geopolitical objectives; no public evidence identified of such a governance mechanism.^{15, 3}

The BDS Movement’s 2024 guide lists SodaStream as a boycott target, establishing the campaign’s designation but not independently verifying every stated ground for that designation.³⁰ Document-scoped review found no SodaStream mention in the specified 2023 and 2025 OHCHR settlement-business updates, the UN Special Rapporteur report A/HRC/59/23, Amnesty International’s 2022 report, or Human Rights Watch’s 2021 report.^{31, 32} These no-hit findings do not establish absence from all historical or future sources.

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that no public evidence identified of SodaStream-directed IDF, FIDF, settlement-organisation, or military-welfare donations; military logistics; reservist-pay subsidies; crisis-asset mobilisation; current anti-BDS lobbying; or Israel/Palestine-specific public-policy intervention in the supplied source set.³³

PepsiCo maintains general political-contribution and lobbying policies, but its published 2025 issue list did not identify Israel, Palestine, BDS, or Middle East trade as listed priorities.³³ The existence of a PepsiCo federal PAC does not itself identify Israel/Palestine-related recipients or spending.³⁴

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Complicity Index Score

Method: V6.

• V_MAX: 8.50 Avg_OTHERS: 0.33
• BRS Score: 714 Tier: B (Severe Complicity)

V_MAX is driven by the economic record: former Mishor Adumim manufacturing, documented relocation, continuing Israeli group entities and Lehavim manufacturing, and the facility-related lease, grants, and merger covenant.^{1, 3, 16} The Tier result is fixed by the supplied, human-vetted V6 scores; the method is scale-free, evidence-only, and does not convert unresolved allegations or transitive associations into findings.

Methodology Note

• This dossier uses only the four supplied domain audits and their cited documentary record.
• Impact (I) reflects the type of documented activity; M reflects scale; P reflects directness. Scores are fixed, human-vetted V6 values.
• The method is evidence-only: unsupported allegations, wrong-entity attribution, and unverified associations are excluded or expressly caveated.
• Temporal status matters. Divested, closed, or exited operations mitigate present-tense attribution; the former Mishor Adumim operation is therefore identified as historical and its 2015 closure is carried throughout.¹³
• Entity attribution is limited to documented corporate, operational, contractual, or governance links; parent-level technology relationships do not automatically establish SodaStream deployment.
• Settlement operation may bear on both Economic and Political. “No public evidence identified” is used where the audits’ focused checks located no supporting public record.